nPeace
Veteran Member
Claim / Belief - MYTH
60,000 years can be 55,000 or 65,000. Hence the extent of overlap between the two populations during a 10,000 year window of coexistence is being disputed as we need a bit more dating work to reduce the uncertainties.
However we know that modern humans existed 100,000 years ago and Neanderthals also existed by 70,000 years ago.
Current View Among Scientists
The effective dating range of the carbon-14 method is between 100 and 50,000 year
Claim / Belief - MYTH
Radiometric dating have a +- 10% or so error at very early times
Current View Among Scientists
There are limitations to radiometric dating. Samples that are too old may not have enough of the original isotope present for accurate measurement. Samples that are too young may not have enough of the daughter isotope accumulated. Not all materials we would like to date contain useful radioactive isotopes. Nonetheless, we can date many types of rock formations and even establish the age of the earth itself.
Claim / Belief - MYTH
Because decay occurs at a fixed rate..., scientists can measure the amount of decayed material in the sample, determine the ratio between original and decayed material, and then calculate the sample’s age
Current View Among Scientists
The idea of fluctuating beta-decay rates is very controversial because for more than 80 years, radioactive substances have been thought to follow a fixed exponential decay, under all conditions.
In recent years, however, there have been suggestions that decay rates are not constant and are influenced by the Sun.
Evidence For Correlations Between Nuclear Decay Rates and Earth-Sun Distance
Evidence Against Correlations Between Nuclear Decay Rates and Earth-Sun Distance
While you may think that one is correct, or that either way, it doesn't make much of a difference to the figures.
I too, feel the same way, because at the end of the day, assumptions are made, like assuming that today's experiment will be the same as yesterday's because conditions always are the same.
I don't ridicule you for doing your work, as a scientist, and believing what you think makes sense to you. Even if you were not a scientist, I don't ridicule you for believing what you do.
However, I am convinced that those beliefs you hold dear, are as you described my beliefs... absurd.
“Despite its high popularity, [radiocarbon dating] involves a number of doubtful assumptions, some of which are sufficiently serious to make its results for all ages exceeding about 2000 or 3000 years, in serious need of revision.” - Henry M. Morris
Oh wait, he's a creationist, from that group of dishonest crank scientists. 
I sense an air of superiority. I'm not five years old.
You believe an undirected process wills events, like an intelligent agent.
For example... You believe, this...
Came about through an undirected process.
At some point, a different kind of egg began to evolve, which had three extra membranes inside... Each membrane has a slightly different function but the addition of all these extra layers provided a conveniently enclosed, all-in-one life support system: [which allows] an embryo can take in stored nutrients, store excess waste products and respire (breathe) without the need of an external aquatic environment. The extra fluids encased in the amnion, plus the tough outer shell, provide extra protection too.
They might have well said... "Once upon a time, in a far away place...".
By the way, you have not demonstrated how this happened. You just said it happened. An "educated guess".
Actually, that is all your beliefs are based upon really.
We’re still not sure of exactly when this happened, largely because egg membranes don’t make very good fossils, leaving scientists with no clear record of when, or how, amniotic eggs developed. Our best guess is...
So the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate why your beliefs are not absurd.
That's not for me to do.
