On Wed, 19 Feb 2014 06:32:13 -0500, F*O*A*D wrote:

On 2/19/14, 2:40 AM, thumper wrote:
On 2/17/2014 8:07 PM, Tim wrote:

Oh, I know the earth is much older than that. But is mankind?

Yes

http://www.theguardian.com/science/2008/apr/29/fossils.evolution3

Carbon 14 *IS* the accepted science for research, but its not
infallible...

Science doesn't claim to be infallible or perfectly accurate but rather
is self correcting and tends get better with time and effort.

http://www.nytimes.com/1990/05/31/us...on-dating.html


1990...

C14 dating has well known limitations and constraints for appropriate
application and *is not* the only accepted method of dating.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio-carbon_dating

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiometric_dating

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/howgood-c14.html

It is an unfortunately common (and dishonest) creationist tactic to take
relatively small scientific controversies or corrections and equivocate
to infer that the whole field is unreliable.

As one of my mentors once said "All simulations (models) are wrong, some
are useful."

The god of the gaps is shrinking slowly.



There's nothing but dishonesty in creationism. It's one thing to be
self-delusional and believe that sort of nonsense, and it is quite
another and dishonest to try to push it onto public school kids as some
sort of "alternative."

It's similar to TV shows in which half the characters are GLBT. It's dishonest to try to push that
onto public school kids as some kind of 'norm'.