*claps hands together*
Right, let's look at some of this babble presented by booboocruise. Actually, I'm only going to focus on the 'bad' dates given by radiocarbon dating, since his magnetic fields argument has been debunked.
quote:
The vollosovich mammoth was carbon-dated at 29000 years old, and the the SAME mammoth was carbon-dated at 44000 years old!
The problem here is that THE DATES CAME FROM DIFFERENT MAMMOTHS! The reference cited by Brown [2001] and cribbed by Hovind [Pewe, 1975] likely refers only to a Fairbanks mammoth which Brown also mentions. The 15,380 and 21,300 BP. dates come from separate mammoths, and it is noted that the 21,300 date is invalid because it comes from a hide soaked in glycerin. It is uncertain what is Brown's source for the 29,500 and 44,000 BP dates.
Ukraintseva [1993] reviews the Kirgilyakh mammoth, also known as Dima, and cites three dates obtained for it. All are around 40,000 years BP. Dates for deposits surrounding the mammoth are consistent with dates for the mammoth.
http://home.earthlink.net/~misaak/guide/CD/CD011_2.html
quote:
Living Seals were carbon-dated as having died 1400 years ago!
Too long to explain on the board. Go here:
http://home.earthlink.net/~misaak/guide/CD/CD011_4.html
quote:
The shell of a living clam was carbon-dated as having died thousands of years ago!
Similiar to the seal. Every scientist knows that CARBON DATING SHOULD NOT BE USED ON AQUATIC ORGANISMS!
You can learn about this at:
radiocarbon WEB-info
The problem with Creationists is that they apply dating methods in such a way so that they are SURE to yield inaccurate results. Every scientists knows that you should never use carbon dating on aquatic organisms. Yet Creationists (since they aren't real scientists) love to abuse and misuse dating methods (and the scientific method in general).
™ Version 4.2