From now on when you reply don't edit an earlier post. It makes me look like I'm avoiding the arguement in my later posts. That's pretty dishonest of you too, in my opinion. So...you disagree with carbon dating because...certain aspects don't make sense to you? That's not a very scientific discrediting of carbon dating. Right, and 60,000 years would represent a more accurate reading that 150,000 years. At some point carbon dating does become inaccurate and mathematics and compensation isn't enough to right it. However, when carbon dating has been applied to stuff of known age it finds the right answer. Tree rings, the dead sea scrolls, etc. we come up with the correct age and we did so for the first time in 1949. If we didn't no serious scientist would give it a passing glance. Consider this, Setna takes 10,000 years to revolve around the sun. It was discovered in 2003. Are we wrong to use indirect methods to determine where the body will go? Do we really need to watch it for 10,000 years to say, "Yep, the math was right, good job guys, I'm fairly certain this wasn't a waste of time." Also consider this, Belarafin is planet that revolves around a nearby star. We can't see it due the star's glare but we can measure it, indirectly, by looking at the star's wobble. It is a gravatational side-effect associated with having a planet. That's also what they do with carbon dating, though not quite like astronomers do. Carbon dating was tested for the first time in 1949 against a sample of known age. It found the correct results and we carried on our merry way testing it many more times into the future comparing our results to dendrochronologists and archaeologists. We have also tested it against mother earth. Picture you have a 5 layer rock bed. --- --- --- --- --- We know the black layer is the youngest because it is the closest to the surface and vica versa the same thing happens in the tan layer. If we were to date materials from each of these layers we would expect to see the youngest sample in the top layer and the oldest in the bottom. If carbon dating were inaccurate the results would be all over the place and the dates wouldn't make much sense, therefore scientists wouldn't use carbon dating. The opposite is true, to your disdain. We have followed a clear line of sight back 60,000 years and the only deviations were caused by contaminates or miscalculation (if that disproves carbon dating then DNA testing would be equally inaccurate). Your main peeve in this quotation was that no one observed it, therefore it isn't true. If this were the case evolution, plate tectonics, and the big bang would just be wives' tales and we would not use these as theories in science. How that arguement could make any sense to you is beyond me. Go on?...