re: Archaeologist Carbon-Date Camel Bones, Discover Major Discrepancy In Bible Story

quote:

---

Ok, so you mean radioactive dating, not carbon dating. Carbon dating can only be used to date things up to around 60,000 years ago. Carbon-14 has a half life of 5730 years...so after 10 half lives or 5730 years, .00195 of the original carbon-14 remains..in millions of years, there would be undetectable amounts.

---

I used the wrong verbiage,. I apologize.

quote:

---

About the article.. that was from answeringgenesis.org. An obvious creation site. I can't even tell if they are taking data from an actual article or not (are they?). I'm curious myself, but I was expecting a link to a website like that. Where did they get the data from, and was it from legitimate scientists?

---

well that's why I gave two links that discuss the matter. As I stated the subject is so politicized by people on both sides that's impossible to find an un-slanted version of what happened. The only thing that both the creationist and anti-creationist links I gave agree on is that radioactive dating did indeed incorrectly age the Mt. St. Helens rocks. Neither side of the debate denies that the rocks were incorrectly identified as thousands or millions of years old. Instead the debate rages over what that misidentification means. Creationists claim it proves science is wrong and the earth is like 6,000 years old. Anti-creationists state that the finding were taken out of context and are meaningless. Who's right? I don't know. Settling who is or is not right on that matter was never my intention.