If you have truly studied this field for over 25 years, you've wasted your time and come up short.
Most people, even ignorant people would acknowledge that there have been extreme weather changes in the past - the ice age, shells from the ocean where it is now a desert and on and on it goes. You don't take ANY of this into account and why you can't sell me junk science.
Radioactive dating techniques ‘prove’ that the earth is billions of years old, say evolutionists. However, these techniques are based upon several assumptions, including that rates of radioactive decay have always been CONSTANT. Now new research has shown that decay rates can VARY according to the chemical environment of the material being tested.
While the relatively small variation (1.5%) observed so far is unlikely to persuade ‘old-earthers’ to adopt a biblical time-line, the discovery that radioactive dating ‘can no longer be called precisely “clocklike”’ prompted the journal Science to comment, ‘Certainty, it seems, is on the wane.’
Earth and Planetary Science Letters 171, 1999,
pp. 235–328. Science, October 29, 1999, pp. 882–883.
You miss the major point. So again, I hear about all this work you supposedly do and still you can't admit you're wrong. The more you write, the less truthful you are appearing ... You might want to quit and try to maintain some semblance of credibility ... .
If you have truly studied this field for over 25 years, you've wasted your time and come up short.
That is professional effort, not "armature" effort.
Most people, even ignorant people would acknowledge that there have been extreme weather changes in the past - the ice age, shells from the ocean where it is now a desert and on and on it goes. You don't take ANY of this into account and why you can't sell me junk science.
Can you show me how changes in weather affect radiocarbon dating? Will they alter the decay constant, or what? What about sea shells in deserts? And how do you know what we do and do not take into consideration?
I don't believe you know anything about this. You just read some passages on a creationist website and they sounded good to you so you pasted them here.
Your responses all seem to be based on creationist websites. And they have no first-hand knowledge of the subject either -- they just know that somehow radiocarbon dating doesn't support their religious beliefs.
Radioactive dating techniques ‘prove’ that the earth is billions of years old, say evolutionists. However, these techniques are based upon several assumptions, including that rates of radioactive decay have always been CONSTANT. Now new research has shown that decay rates can VARY according to the chemical environment of the material being tested.
While the relatively small variation (1.5%) observed so far is unlikely to persuade ‘old-earthers’ to adopt a biblical time-line, the discovery that radioactive dating ‘can no longer be called precisely “clocklike”’ prompted the journal Science to comment, ‘Certainty, it seems, is on the wane.’
Earth and Planetary Science Letters 171, 1999, pp. 235–328. Science, October 29, 1999, pp. 882–883.
You posted that already, and I already responded to it.
You miss the major point. So again, I hear about all this work you supposedly do and still you can't admit you're wrong. The more you write, the less truthful you are appearing ... You might want to quit and try to maintain some semblance of credibility ... .
Did you read any of the links I posted earlier? I'll post them again in case you missed them:
ReligiousTolerance.org Carbon-14 Dating (C-14): Beliefs of New-Earth CreationistsRadiometric 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.
All of the objections you have raised are discussed in the first two articles. You really should take a look.