... I'm not sure what a "rebuttle" is, maybe you meant my rebuttal. In that case:
Thank you for your constructive criticism, if you want to talk more about carbon dating we can do that, keeping in mind that the whole point I made before is that calibration is based on very large assumptions. In addition, I probably should have said "radio isotope dating" including, but not limited to C-14. Depending on the approximate age of the specimen, different isotopes would be used. Calibration curves that have been developed to take into account KNOWN radiation fluxuations are based on radiation fluxuations observed during the past century. If you've done any extrapolation, you'd know that 60,000 years is faaaar outside the reliable extrapolation range. I don't know what type of extrapolation you'd use for this information (linear, conic etc.) but at any rate it's far beyond the limits of safe extrapolation. (fyi, this is like making a graph of your income every month for the last 5 years, using a 'curve fit' in Excell and stating with confidence what you'll make October 3008). Calibration curves have changed even in the last 50 years due to noticeable changes in the suns solar activity. So, lower radiation levels in the upper atmosphere (due to reduced solar flares, the "hydrosphere" theory of a much higher water content in the upper atmosphere) for instance, will lower the amount of solar interaction with Nitrogen and thus less C-14 production. Making every biological organism absorbing C-14 at that time appear much older than they actually are. I must admit I was quite taken aback by your response. I'm paid to analyze things... scientifically, and your attack on my brief response doesn't really help facilitate anything more than a fight, but I hope my response lent some credence to a work idea of what's going on here. Don't even respond if it doesn't, I don't have the time, patience or desire to prove it other than what I just typed. in addition I'd like to add, a large majority of the United States checks the box "Christian (Other)" because they believe that there might or might not be a God. I don't think this qualifies everyone that, for lack of another title says they're "Christian" to be an ambassador for the faith. Even so, I fear you've attributed that ... unreasonable statement to all Christians. Or you just like ridiculous religious quotes. If so: When confronted with the question, "What was God doing before he created the universe?" Saint Augustine replied, "He was preparing hell for people who asked such questions." :) -Brian
