Posted: Jul 29, 2010 4:32 pm
by Largenton
Shrunk wrote:Never mind the fact that he's tipped his hand by supporting young earth creationism, as noted above by hackenslash.


Indeed. I'm still puzzled how he refers to the radioactive decay of unstable isotopes as a biological field in his rants. The fact that it has been shown to be accurate and there are studies showing how to increase the accuracy of methods such as C14 dating.

Reimer, P.J.; et. al. (2009). "IntCal09 and Marine09 Radiocarbon Age Calibration Curves, 0–50,000 Years cal BP". Radiocarbon 51 (4): 1111–1150.

For anyone interested. I also seem to remember a paper in which scientists were able to apply a method which removed the contaminating carbon from the surrounding soil and focussed onto the carbon sample. However, I have forgotten any links and the name of the method.

So do I.

:waah:

Did you have to remind me?


Yes. I think its one of the worst attempts at insulting someone ever... :mrgreen: