Pathlights' criticisms of C14 dating

I guess you finished that topic off pretty quicly Sylas. Zac seems to have given up on that one.We can refer to this another time I'm sure.

Oh? You have more information on the C-14 dating quotes you supplied? That is the topic here and I thought you'd finished with it. As Sylas notes it can take time to gather information (that's why he's better at this than I am) so you can take your time. It is nice to let us know that you are going to do that though.Also, as Sylas points out, you are taking on a tough task. A lot of people come here thinking that the material put out by the likes of Humphreys is bullet proof. When the holes are pointed out they are disappointed that there isn't anything else to fall back on.

There are, as noted, anomolies. This work is done to allow careful and accurate use of the dating methods.That fact that the methods work very well is demonstrated by the correlations between dates derived through other means and the dates measured using C-14 dates.Historic artifacts of know date and the dating of things like tree rings and varves support the C-14 dates.All the careful choosing of anomolies doesn't do anything to through the method into doubt when it is supported so well.You experiment is not well designed. I'll leave it to you to figure out why. Or we can discuss it in detail later.

This helium content? Is this a new dating method? It's something I haven't seen any details of. Perhaps you can supply more details.You have a bunch of "they"s in there. Who is "they"?

So you're saying that there are a few individuals (with a stated axe to grind and no particular expertise in the area) who give a few examples of what they think are problems. These same individuals ignore a huge amount of other data. From this you conclude that there are real problems?This you conclude even though 1,000's of other individuals who do have expertise in the area disagree. You stick with this even though other data showing the correctness of the method is ignored by your few. You continue to think your few might have something even though there are many other methods which produce results showing your few wrong.This is a logical process in your mind?[This message has been edited by NosyNed, 04-26-2004]