[Conservative Coulter Fan]

Radiocarbon Assumptions and Problems

Like other radiometric methods, radiocarbon dating faces technical problems and operates under some questionable assumptions.

1. Perhaps the most critical assumption of radiocarbon dating is that the rates of carbon-14 production and decay are in a state of balance or equilibrium, and have been so for millions of years. If this were true, the carbon-12/carbon-14 ratio in living organisms will be the same as the ratio in an organism that lived thousands of years ago. However, we have reason to think that this is not true, as we will see in a later section.
   
   
2. Radiocarbon dating assumes a constant decay rate for the breakdown of carbon-14. At present, we have no firm evidence for any systematic change in this rate.
   
   
3. Contamination by groundwater, soil, or foreign matter is always a potential problem. However, people working with radiocarbon dating feel confident that good sample collection can overcome this problem.
   
   
4. Some organisms may exclude the heavier carbon-14 isotopes preferentially, making them look too old (e.g., living shellfish that have a radiocarbon “age” of several hundred years). Comparison of carbon-12 and carbon-14 with the stable isotope carbon-13 is supposed to correct this problem (see Aitken, 1990, pp. 62-64). Environmental factors, such as forest fires and volcanic eruptions, which increase the local concentrations of carbon dioxide, may also have an effect on the carbon-14/carbon-12 ratio.
   
   
5. Looming over all these assumptions is the idea that cross-checking with other archaeological information will confirm whether the radiocarbon date is “reasonable.” This introduces the specter of subjectivity.

[Names Ash Housewares]

Speed of light and doppler shift tell me the universe is very very old. And Hubbles images of still forming star sytems tell me how our solar system likely formed.

That pretty much settles it for me.

[Coyoteman]

That was some good data on radiocarbon dating, but you missed one major thing.

Radiocarbon dating is not used to establish the age of the earth. It only goes back about 50,000 years!

I think you meant radiometric dating.

[Ichneumon]

Radiocarbon Assumptions and Problems

Congratulations, son, your meanderings about alleged radiocarbon problems does absolutely nothing whatsoever to address, much less refute, the article on the age of the Earth that you thought you were "rebutting", because nothing in that article is based on radiocarbon dating.

Care to try again after you have the slightest clue what in the hell you're talking about, and aren't just randomly flinging information that you don't understand in the hopes that it might have some relevance in some manner to the material you don't want to have to think about?