Dating Methods Controversy Discussion

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
The Debate Rages on

---

If the debate rages on as you say and currently accepted dating methods are so flawed why will leading proponents of YEC not jump at the chance to discuss the matter with recognised experts in the area..... http://home.austarnet.com.au/stear/creation_science_and_free_speech2.htm"I had not intended to interject during Roberts's talk, but could not stay quiet during one of his more fatuous references to scientific evidence. My query, about radiocarbon dating, was picked up by another member of the audience who, for his pains, was evicted from the auditorium, together with his wife, by the security guards. He was Dr Colin Murray Wallace, an expert in radiocarbon dating, then with Newcastle University!"So tell me if dating methods are so flawed why will creationists not engage in any meaningfull debate on the subject with recognised authorities in the field?

Really which debates and who?Most of your points are wonderfully vague you know, it would be a lot more convincing to say we burn fossil fuels which alters the ratio by (mechanism) to an extent of (quantitative statement of amount of change observed) which reduces the accuracy of C14 dating by X...Of course the fact that you do not state it in this manner is probably a fairly good indication that you either cannot or would be unable to provide a large enough difference to matter....The same can be said for the majority of your arguments...

About your magnetic field is decreasing is this what you meant?Barnes's magnetic field argument (1973) or some echo of it. Henry Morris, himself, once praised
it as one of the best arguments for a young earth.In 1971 Barnes took about 25 measurements of the earth's magnetic field strength (originally assembled by Keith McDonald and Robert Gunst
(1967)) and fitted them to an exponential decay curve. He drew upon Sir Horace Lamb's 1883 paper as theoretical justification for this. Following
the curve backwards in time, Barnes showed that 20,000 years ago the earth's magnetic field would have been impossibly high. Thus, he concluded
that the earth is much younger than 20,000 years.If so here is a paper on why it is not so... Enjoy... http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/dave_matson/young-earth/specific_arguments/magnetic_field.html