(October 11, 2015 at 1:04 pm)Randys brother Wrote:(October 11, 2015 at 12:59 pm)Crossless1 Wrote: @Randys brother (or as I'll hereafter refer to you, Poe): Your "evidence" for the untrustworthiness of radiocarbon dating is an amateurish cartoon clip in which radiocarbon dating is not mentioned once?!? As for the actual content of the video, why don't you do a little research? I'm sure, if you're honest, you'll soon enough discover the Mack truck-size holes in the presentation.
And if you're not honest about it, you will only (1) confirm my dim view of what passes for Christian honesty, or (2) confirm to me that you are a Poe.
I don't trust carbon dating,and that's there might be evidence for it,but I assume there still too weak and so I totally reject the idea.
(October 11, 2015 at 1:03 pm)TheRocketSurgeon Wrote: Yeah, I have to agree with you on that. When I see someone posting stuff that's that blatantly dishonest about the subject, I can no longer take them seriously enough to waste my time interacting with them.Your the real liar,didn't you lie before?
1. Liar
2. Poe
3. Accepts that the USGS is not insane, and that there's a rational basis for radioisometric dating.
I also agree that if the dating methods were used to confirm that a piece of wood was Jesus's cross (or somesuch), they'd be all about it.
To recap, Poe doesn't believe in a well understood and, among actual scientists, unanimously accepted method of reliably dating artifacts of a certain age within tolerable limits of error; does believe in the utterly unsupported magical claims found strewn throughout the Bible.
I really do hope you're a Poe and just yanking our chains. To think that you could be this fucking stupid for real is too depressing to consider.