Sad what Bible Inerrancy can do to a mind!

How about this little exchange I witnessed in '97:
-------------------
:
: >Then you can disqualify all of the history of antiquity. You now must
: >reject any notion that Napoleon and Alexander the Great were in fact real
: >people, and state that they were myths, figments of human imagination.
: >
: >Are you going to say that?
:
: I'm sorry, I'm afraid I don't quite see how you're getting this. We
: have multiple evidentiary sources on both Napoleon and Alexander the
: Great.But they were written HUNDREDS of hears after the fact, and not by
eyewitnesses! And there are more copies of the New Testemant Gospels than all of the other works of history combined! God has left no doubt.
-----------------------All the evidentiary sources on Napoleon were written hundreds of years after the fact !?!?

Well I think it's a prime example of the subject of this thread.Not only do they dismissal of dendrochronology in a footnote (wijhtout a serious argument) they don't even explain how it is possible for dendrochronology to be that far out or how any error large enough to save their beliefs is possible.And then they repeat the usual discredited arguments in their "evidences" that supposedly prove that the Earth is not billions of years old - even the "salty oceans" argument which handily ignores the facts (I find it especially amusing that by using other substances you can "prove" that the world is less than 2000 years old).
So no, it is not off topic, it is just more evidence of the sad effects of a belief in Biblical inerrancy.

If you had bothered to research the issue itself you would know that the level of C14 fluctuates because the production rate varies.And at present the proportion of C14 in the atmosphere is unusually low because of all the old carbon being burnt (fossil fuels).

Well that is something of a problem for you. If you need everything kept simple for you - and I am assuming that that is the problem - you are never going to be able to get into all the details you would need to know to have a really informed opinion.So surely the right position for you to take would be to accept the fact that carbon dating has been quite thoroughly tested and has been found to be reliable.

OK, so you knew that the AiG page was wrong and that carbon dating disproves YEC (you do know that carbon dating is reliable enough to idnetify dates for TENS of thousands of years ?)