Yes, I do. I have submitted nearly 600 samples for analysis, studied the field for over 25 years, delivered a number of lectures and written a monograph on the subject. And your qualifications in this field are????
Well, if only the earth had no climate changes and it was stagnant could a rational person take that seriously.
I don't recall that climate change affects radiocarbon dating. Perhaps you could enlighten me???
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.
Take a look at the studies that forced the slight changes in the constant. Now, please explain to me how those methods, using extreme conditions, could apply to the world at large.
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.’
So a change forced in the laboratory of up to 1.5% "proves" a young earth. That's what I like about creation "science" -- it's so creative, and so lacking in science!
Seriously, I am still waiting for your learned comments on radiocarbon dating.
Count me quite shocked that you, nmh, have chosen to withdraw instead of attempting to defend your thesis. /s But I guess I should be more magnaminous. It takes time to quote mine Behe deeply enough to make it sound like you are actually conversant on the science of carbon dating. I’m sure not, and definitely try to learn what I can from those who are.
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 ... .