In
Message 51 of the
14C Calibration and Correlations topic, CoolBeans wrote of the article that spawned this topic:
CoolBeans writes:
I agree they are not very trust worthy, Im not on their side. Im just looking for a rebutal. Thats it.
If that is the case, then I think you should proceed here. I've done it before with creationist tracts. What I did was to start at the beginning, quote the tract point-by-point and address each point.
So then, present the first paragraph or section, break it down into the individual claims that it makes, including its presentation of what carbon-dating is, what it's based on, how it works, how it's used, etc, and open it up for discussion. From that discussion, write your rebuttal to that first paragraph/section and then do the same for the next. With this methodical approach, you make sure that you address the entire article.
And if the article uses any references, present those references. Do not require us to go to the article; that was the "we do not debate bare links" problem with your opening
Message 1. Also, presenting it piece by piece will make your presenting of the article more manageable.
And be sure to quote the article rather than leave us guessing whether what you're writing is from the article or your own words. You do this with the quote tags, which are different from the qs tags that we use to quote each other. For example, you would quote the article's very first paragraph thus:
quote:
Radiocarbon (RC) or (C-14) dating of linen, cotton, bones, fossils, wood, sea shells, seeds, coal, diamond (anything with carbon) is one of the most common and well understood of the various scientific dating methods.
Compare how that looks with my qs'ing you at the top of this message. Then click on the
Peek button of this message to see how I had created those two different style of quotes. Then use that technique.
™ Version 4.2