In another thread a young earth creationist made a remarkable claim that Carbon Dating has been "shown" to be incorrect.

I found this a rather bold statement demanding further debate.

Some examples were given of inacurate results - which was used seemingly to invalidate any results provided by carbon earth dating that show the world is older than 6000-10000 years old.

My questions to young earth creationists are as follows:

Scientists beleive in repeatable results, process, facts, etc. Why would the scientific community even tolerate, yet alone continue to use a testing method if it was inaccurate?

Why would research instutions, universities, archeologists, geologists and many other "ologists" invest their reputations on a testing process that was substanitally inaccurate?

Carbon dating is not cheap. Why would reasearch organisations spend vast sums of money paying for these tests if they are inaccurate?

All human systems are open to occasional fault. There will always be a margin of error. People can screw up, be less than 100% diligent 100% of the time, some samples may be contaminated in some way. So why would science tollerate a a process of testing that was substantially inaccurate? Do we not think scientists would demand constant improvement in the testing process?


It seems to me we can use the Young Earth Creationst thinking here to prove THAT MAN CAN NOT MAKE FLYING MACHINES!!!!

After all, every year there are several horrific plane and helicopter crashes. If a few example prove the entire concept wrong then why do we fly? If we use creatioist "logic" here then powered flight by mankind has been proven to not work.

Yet millions of us stubbornly refuse to see the simple fact that planes dont work and continue flying each year.

Plane crashes happen - but are not the norm. After every crash scientists figure out what happended and why, and how the system can be improved. Sometimes there is human error, negligence or extraodinary conditions. However the vast majority of flights arrive safely.