On Wednesday, February 19, 2014 1:40:55 AM UTC-6, 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."



Thumper, I'm not discounting anything you've said.For the most part I'm in agreement. The problem that I have is when people boast that if science can't or at least hasn't prove something then that concept is total nonsense.



The god of the gaps is shrinking slowly.

But till has a looooong way to go.