Not true. Can you explain why my idea is not a good one? (I assume you read my previous posts describing it).
Sorry, but I didn't read your idea. I only saw Paul's post and responded.>>
Please...it is not fair to us to make us have to repeat stuff just because you choose to not read the thread. AFTER I said I already explained this, you SHOULD go back to read it...rather than making me restate it. Or just stop asking me to reply to YOUR stuff.
I apologize, Dave, but, the truth is that I am extremely busy right now (it's the silly season for me at work) and will be for the next couple of months. However, I do enjoy reading this forum and replying when I can. But, I simply don't have the time to read everything let alone do the analysis required to objectively consider some of the statements. You can respond to my "fly bys" if you want to; or not if you don't want to.
My suggestion was in #110:
>>BTW, what did you think of my idea for proving whether the source of the C14 in a mosasaur's humerus was due to modern bacteria, which would be concentrated mostly near the surface of the bone. Comparing a larger bone to a small one, or sample borings from various locations would solve the question...because you should have much MORE bacteria in the small one (as a %). Good idea, right?>>
AND...SN, do you agree with Pi that a 4% modern content is WAY too much to attribute to modern bacterial contamination? If so, then what ELSE explains it...other than "it CAN'T be a legit C14 date coz that screws everything up for ev's!"
I honestly have no idea. Like I said before, there are C14 data points that seem to indicate a younger earth. Of course, those are in direct contradiction to other data sets, e.g., radiometric dating, star light, etc. that point to a much older earth and universe. Obviously, they both can't be right.