Creationist Lies
Out of context: Reply #536
- Started
- Last post
- 827 Responses
- subflux0
My reflex answer is that man is fallible :-)
I did read the Carbon dating article, well written, but wrong and very close to pseudoscience. It misrepresents that accuracy of decay measurement substancially. Most of the attacks on 14C dating are in two categories: we can't accurately measure decay or that decay is variable. With the latter, the fundamental structure of the universe would be flawed and the sun would burn incosistently, matter would change state anomolously, gravity would be in flux etc. The former is really just an attack on the methodology, which is sound. I'm a lot softer on evolution than I am on the fundamental quantum physics on which 14C dating is based.
Research is good, but you have to follow the logic as well. If C14 decay isn't constant we're all in trouble (unstable physics wise). I think you can argue what the dates mean, but it's hard to rationally argue the dates.
-------------------
Enter response:subflux, what about the alleged Piltdown man tooth that turned out to be a 30 year old pig's tooth? What is your take on the positions put forth here:www.answersingenesis.o...
discipler
(Jun 14 05, 07:41)