>>54677624Here you go, retard. Pulled this from one the creationist troll news articles about young dinosaur bones (that wouldn't fit into your "god" timeline anyway)
Miller "borrowed" some dinosaur bones from a museum without telling the curators or owners what he was actually intending on doing with it. He immediately took it to be 14C dated and received a date of roughly 40,000 years. So if Dinosaur bones are supposedly 65+ million years old, why is this? I'll tell you why.
The dinosaur bones did NOT have any carbon in them. They'd been essentially completely replaced by minerals during the fossilization process. What happened was that Miller did NOT know that they were covered in a preservative made of an organic material called shellac, which is organic so it's full of carbon. This contaminated the result. What they got was a date for the shellac, not the dinosaur fossils.
So what research is being done to correct such an obvious dating flaw?
The flaw is with creationists. We've been trying to educate creationists for decades now, but willful ignorance in favor of adhering to tradition and presuppositions is far stronger than anything that can be taught
Or do we need another dating method all together?
Carbon dating is very accurate.
At what extremes of failure does it take for a scientifically approved method to become nonscientific?
At the point at which it can be shown to be false and lack point of predictive capability. An ignorant creationist who lacks an understanding of radiometric dating does not constitute evidence against a well-established and well-understood process.
And what does it say about science if dating something as 65 million years old when it is less then 100,000 years old becomes an acceptable margin of error?
I'd answer this if it were true. Unfortunately, as I said, the ignorance of creationists does not constitute evidence against radiometric dating by any stretch of the imagination.
