First my apologies to PaulK
I did indeed misread the first post and thought he had changed his quote of Randman when he had not. I was wrong and apologize deeply
As for C14 dating the problem still remains that dino bones, coal, diamonds and wood all supposed to be millions of years old have dated repeatedly in multiple respected labs to be tens of thousands of years old. This has been consistent and anomalies such as contamination and background cannot be used to dismiss it all. Charges that one cannot use C14 to date fossils and that it is stupid to do so is based on the bias in the premise that no C14 will be found because the fossils are millions of years old are disingenuous and based on circular reasoning. And then when C14 is found in organic samples assumed to be millions of years old then the bias is used to make generic excuses which are not demonstrated in the specific multiple cases of mass spectromater tests cited and would render C14 dating useless altogether if true. It's a great example of Evo bias and circular reasoning. Ignorant statements such as NosyNed and others stated that trying to date something beyond the bounds would give erratic data but that is false. First all the samples dated below the bound and they said they would date either to the bound of 50,000 or give erratic conclusions but neither is true. What would happen is no C14 would be found meaning no dates could be assessed which would be reported not a date of 50,000 and not erratic dates. A great example of Evo bias in ignorance and knee jerk reactions and responses to anyone who disagrees with their assumptions and circular reasonings.
Responses to my post demonstrated it well as all (except for Cora's) first assumed that because I differed from their opinion I was ignorant and stupid and instead of intelligently asking for the references which I intentionally left out which were from the first few posts, Randmans dino bones and another reference to Schellings Australian wood. The authors of those posts, Cavediver and Coyote, instead of asking for references and presenting valid arguments, employed the typical invalid ad hoc/ad hominem attack used by those who are biased. A fitting to the end of this thread.
What still stands unrefuted are: 1) The examples from Randman's first post of dino bones and other organic examples cited of diamonds, coal and wood dating less than the 50,000 BP limit yet all were assumed to be millions of years old and 2) The typical biased methodology of assuming that the dates come from contamination and background without any evidence supporting that claim which is made simply because the scientifically undisputed mass spectrometer tests differ from evo assumptions. Significant yet typical scientific and methodological problems exposing the bias in the evo case.
Edited by ReformedRob, : typo...wrote 'though' in the first sentence of the second paragraph when I meant 'thought'
Edited by ReformedRob, : clarification
Edited by ReformedRob, : No reason given.
Edited by ReformedRob, : punctuation, syntax
Edited by ReformedRob, : typos, grammar & syntax
"...but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers; and they will turn their ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to fables"
™ Version 4.2
