It's anecdotal, secondhand. I don't have documentation, but it seems to fit with the well-known inaccuracies of various dating methodolgies. Some fairly major assumptions about constancy have to be made - all of which begin assuming the conclusion (Lyell's geological timeframe) as the premise. They are assumptions not subject to falsification, since to do so under the scientific method would require a time machine. That ain't science, it's "science" - speculation.
actually, no. not even slightly.
I missed this one on my first response.
I do a lot of radiocarbon dating, and I would welcome the chance to discuss the inaccuracies you find in the method. But please, do not rely on the creationist websites for information, as they will lie to you.
Try some of these links first; most are religiously-oriented sites which will provide you with accurate information:
ReligiousTolerance.org Carbon-14 Dating (C-14): Beliefs of New-Earth CreationistsThe American Scientific Affiliation: Science in Christian Perspective Radiometric Dating: A Christian Perspective by Dr. Roger C. Wiens.
This site, BiblicalChronologist.org has a series of good articles on radiocarbon dating.
Are tree-ring chronologies reliable? (The Biblical Chronologist, Vol. 5, No. 1)
Tree Ring and C14 DatingHow does the radiocarbon dating method work? (The Biblical Chronologist, Vol. 5, No. 1)
How precise is radiocarbon dating?
Is radiocarbon dating based on assumptions?
Has radiocarbon dating been invalidated by unreasonable results?
Radiocarbon WEB-info Radiocarbon Laboratory, University of Waikato, New Zealand.
ROTFL!
That is a falsehood. The decay rates of radionuclides are measured, not calculated. There is no reference to any assumed time scale.