2,732
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 103:
Line 103: + + + + + + + + + +
I'm sure you have a good reason for reverting.
== Notes ==
== Notes ==
<references />
<references />
== I'm sure you have a good reason for reverting. ==
Please don't troll, and tell me why you reverted. The changes only made your science less misleading and wrong. As stated above...
#You give no source for the "carbon dating can only prove which is older."
#The carbon content of the atmosphere can be discerned by ice cores.
#Changing the C-14 half-life would require changing all of atomic physics in a very bad way.
#Carbon dating obviously doesn't work on oil, et al, and that shouldn't be portrayed as a "flaw."
I'm sure you have good answers to these points, or you wouldn't have reverted without using the talk page first, right?-'''<font color="#007FFF">Ames</font><font color="#FF0000">G</font>'''<sub>[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!]</sub> 12:01, 6 May 2007 (EDT)