I read the paper. Impressive stuff. If I was to talk to this guy in person, he would destroy me. No doubt, as he would have a great academic advantage.
Before I begin, please understand that I am not about to argue at all cost just to win an argument. I am willing to learn new stuff.
Here is the thing though. It is easy to say that so and so doesn’t have a clue (Dr. Hovind) ,and so forth. In fact, there are anti-Hovind websites, and they have been around for a while. Lots of people truly dislike Dr. Hovind because of what he does. I would like to see this Dave E. Matson debate Dr. Hovind. Not to see him destroyed or anything, just to give the other side a chance for a defence.
Interestingly, Dr. Hovind has had hundreds of debates and never lost one.
Now, there are many references in the paper regarding dates. Here are some examples:
„Tree-ring data gives us a precise correction table for carbon-14 dates as far back as 8,000-9,000 years. The above study by Stuiver shows that the C-14 fluctuations in the atmosphere were quite reasonable as far back as 22,000 years ago.“
My question is, how can the tree-ring data give correction table for 8-9K years? The oldest tree documented is around 4,000 years. Remember, there are trees with 2, even 3 rings a year.
Also, how do they know about the C-14 fluctuations as far back as 22,000 years? This is a bold statement, so references would be helpful here.
„Egyptian barley samples have been found which date to 17,000-18,300 years old“
Once again, by what method have they been found to be that old?
Now, I will try to put some logic into the equilibrium argument even though you don’t think I can reason logically
First, I never said that the C-14 equilibrim proves that the Earth is young. And I agree with you as far as: „Sometimes it slows down to a trickle so that much more water is leaking out the barrel than is coming in; sometimes it goes full blast so that a lot more water is coming into the barrel than is leaking out.“.
The fact is, we’re both biased. But please, try to put yours aside just for a moment and think about this: If the C-14 production in the atmosphere has fluctuated throughout the history, how in the world can anyone accurately measure the age of anything by carbon dating? Would not the C-14 production, which controls the latent amount in the atmosphere have had to be constant through all ages to make an accurate measurement?
If it’s OK, I’ll summarize and rest my case.
1. I do not claim that the inaccuracy of carbon dating proves anything, except that this method is unreliable.
2. The mammoth problem with 16,000 years apart is still valid. Even if the samples did not come from the same animal, is it reasonable to assume that two different animals would end up at the same location, not only horizontally, but vertically (remember, they were frozen in some really thick ice) as well 16,000 years apart?
3. If the C-14 uses Ice cores and the Speleothems method, and is in line with their measurement, this alone proves it innaccurate. There really does not need to be any scientific argument, these two methods are laughable, and proven without a doubt to be wrong.
4. The scientists themselves agree that the C-14 production has not been constant, and this mere fact once again sheds serious doubts on the accuracy of C-14 method.
If you’re ever bored, check out this:
Creation Science Evangelism - Creation, Evolution, Dinosaurs, and the Bible.
Don’t worry, I would not expect you to buy everything there. But click on downloads, they’re all free, and go to „Lies in the textbooks“. This may shake your faith in the claims of naturalists, not only their infallibility, but also their honesty.
I hope you won’t quit making posts, we can surely talk about a lot more stuff. If nothing else, the perspectives of both of us will broaden.