Voodoo Child
Registered Senior Member
Ekimlaw: re the sites you posted.
"But news of this find reached Capetown resident Mrs. Joan Ahrens. She recognized the rock paintings as being the work of her art class! Thieves had stolen them from her garden. If the truth had not come to light everyone would have accepted the very wrong radiocarbon date of around 1200 years. Carbon dating can give crazy results."
Carbon dating isn't designed for testing paintings. There is no way to know whether C12 in the paint came from atmospheric CO2. This invalidates the test. If the test is invalid, it can not tell you anything about its accuracy. The fork isn't necessarily broken if you can't eat your soup with it. Also you can't test oils/ or oily derived things: old carbon from prehistoric forests. Nor, can you test stuff after 1950. Atmospheric nuke tests buggered things up.
"It must be pointed out that some scientists dislike seeing dating of water creatures like seals and mollusks included in any list of wrong radiocarbon results. They say that the water can seriously affect reliability of the results."
Those scientists are right. There are CO3-- ions in water. The C in the CO3 does not come from the atmosphere. If there was a giant flood that contaminated everything, as the site suggests, then you would expect not to see the c tests to yield blatantly obvious patterns from tests of tree rings and the pollen in annual ice layers.
Paluxy has been dealt with, it is obviously rubbish. Creationists that trawl through literature looking for whacky dating results are generally not to be trusted, they like to select one or two outliers from a large battery of tests, they like to cite experimental tests, they like to cite missapplied tests and they like to cite old tests(eg carbon dating before the 70's).
It seems to me that you are reading alot of complete crap, for a more accurate picture on these issues you might want to peruse more reputable, less politicised sources.
"But news of this find reached Capetown resident Mrs. Joan Ahrens. She recognized the rock paintings as being the work of her art class! Thieves had stolen them from her garden. If the truth had not come to light everyone would have accepted the very wrong radiocarbon date of around 1200 years. Carbon dating can give crazy results."
Carbon dating isn't designed for testing paintings. There is no way to know whether C12 in the paint came from atmospheric CO2. This invalidates the test. If the test is invalid, it can not tell you anything about its accuracy. The fork isn't necessarily broken if you can't eat your soup with it. Also you can't test oils/ or oily derived things: old carbon from prehistoric forests. Nor, can you test stuff after 1950. Atmospheric nuke tests buggered things up.
"It must be pointed out that some scientists dislike seeing dating of water creatures like seals and mollusks included in any list of wrong radiocarbon results. They say that the water can seriously affect reliability of the results."
Those scientists are right. There are CO3-- ions in water. The C in the CO3 does not come from the atmosphere. If there was a giant flood that contaminated everything, as the site suggests, then you would expect not to see the c tests to yield blatantly obvious patterns from tests of tree rings and the pollen in annual ice layers.
Paluxy has been dealt with, it is obviously rubbish. Creationists that trawl through literature looking for whacky dating results are generally not to be trusted, they like to select one or two outliers from a large battery of tests, they like to cite experimental tests, they like to cite missapplied tests and they like to cite old tests(eg carbon dating before the 70's).
It seems to me that you are reading alot of complete crap, for a more accurate picture on these issues you might want to peruse more reputable, less politicised sources.
Last edited: