>10 seconds on Google later...
talkorigins.org
Carbon Dating
Josiah Adams
Aiden Taylor
>The error doesn't drop to acceptable levels until you get to something like 500 years old iirc.
I highly doubt there were mammoths 500 years ago. Did you mean 500 thousand?
In your first post you say that carbon dating doesn't work if the specimen is too old and now you're saying the error drops with age? Which one is it? And if it's both, how exactly can we know about dinosaurs that lived hundreds of millions of years ago?
David Hill
If the error is quite large then why is it used? I thought the point of science was to create replicable results.
Matthew Rogers
That source provides a nice, "He said, she said." Element
Logan Edwards
...
Evan Bell
>Assuming his citations are credible
hoooo-wee
Anthony King
I try to do that when citations are provided. After analyzing them myself, not always in depth, I determine whether or not they are credible.
What exactly makes him untrustworthy, to you?
Luis Foster
>And if it's both
It is.
>how exactly can we know about dinosaurs that lived hundreds of millions of years ago?
with other forms of radiometric dating
Sebastian Ramirez
>It is.
What's causing this nonlinear error? Can you explain in more detail why?
>with other forms of radiometric dating
So like we use elements other than carbon or is it a different process entirely?
Hudson Richardson
Primarily the fact that over half the claims he's made have been dropped by other mainstream creationists. He's on the fringe of the fringe.