Don't be scared away by Jonathan Sarfati, I think this quote at least proposes a significant question of reliability. It seems that while carbon dating does tell us that Hell Creek Formation is around 65,000,000 years old, does it just appear to be so because of the effects from the flood and other causes? Could the new evidence about tissue inside fossils support that claim? Even if you don't agree with the flood, (which geographically, at least to me is hard to disagree with, but that's another subject for a different thread) assuming just for the minute that it did occur, could our techniques be outdated?
Carbon dating is not used; these methods are:
quote:
There we find the following data for the Z-coal strata of the Hell Creek Formation presented in the order of; Material, Method, # of samples, Result in Millions of Years
tektites, 40Ar/39Ar total fusion, 28, 64.8 ++ 0.1
tektites, 40Ar/39Ar age spectrum, 1, 66.0++0.5
tektites, 40Ar/39Ar age spectrum, 1, 64.7++0.1
tektites, 40Ar/39Ar total fusion, 17, 64.8++0.2
biotite & sanidine, K-Ar, 12, 64.6++1.0
biotite & sanidine, Rb-Sr isochron (26 D.P.), 1, 63.7++0.6
zircon, U-Pb concordia (16 data), 1, 63.9++0.8
- from Radiometeric Dating Does Work! by G. Brent Dalrymple.
Why do these different methods produce consistent results?
Edited by Mr Jack, : No reason given.
™ Version 4.2