It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: inert
a reply to: OperationBlackRose
I also have to think lab techniques have become better since the 1960's and 70's because of issues like this. The science on radiocarbon dating is good, execution is the weak link.
originally posted by: OperationBlackRose
(Natural History 1949)
(Science 1963)
(Antarctic Journal 1971)
(Geological Survey Professional Paper 862 1975)
(Science 1984)
(Quaternary Research 1992)
(Geological Survey Professional Paper 862 1975)
(Anthropological Journal of Canada 1981)
originally posted by: Swills
a reply to: OperationBlackRose
What's the other option? Believing every word written from the Bible literally?
I'll take science any day.
originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: OperationBlackRose
Well besides the fact that literally EVERY one of your sources are all old papers, published over 30 years ago, carbon-14 dating isn't even the only radiometric dating method being used.
Radiometric Dating - Modern Dating Methods
Also, carbon-14 dating only goes out to about 60,000 years. Other dating methods are much more reliable to detect ages much older. It would help if you actually READ and tried to understand science, instead of just latching onto whatever Creationist sound byte you can to try to discredit it.