So, based on your religious belief and a few visits to creation websites, you are now telling scientists how their particular fields of knowledge should be handled.
Sorry, but your religious belief and a few visits to creation websites will not provide a very good scientific background.
For example, radiocarbon dating, which is what I was discussing, does not date rocks. There are no daughter elements. A C13 test and, on occasion an N15 test, reveal a lot of details about the sample and can help control for percent of marine carbon in some samples. But the creation sites did not tell you any of this.
I find it interesting how many sites that claim to believe in God but do not believe the Bible 100%.
Irrelevant to a scientific discussion.
Carbon dating is a flawed system, they throw away dates that do not fit to their age requirement, and live animals have been dated 1000's of years old.
I have read the studies you are talking about and understand the problems. Have you? Or you just taking the word of creationist websites? (They are not providing you with accurate information.)
Radiometric dating--the process of determining the age of rocks from the decay of their radioactive elements--has been in widespread use for over half a century.
I believe the radiocarbon method was invented about 1947, and it dates charcoal and anything containing carbon which was alive in the past 50,000 or so years. But not rocks.
The American Scientific Affiliation: Science in Christian Perspective Radiometric Dating: A Christian Perspective by Dr. Roger C. Wiens. You see from a site you posted to me, the technology is only about 50 years old which is about .02% of the half life of most of the things dated. You would not buy stock with that kind of precentage.
We are not talking about stock, but radiocarbon dating. The technique is getting better and better, and the radiocarbon half life vs. age since invention ratio is meaningless. (Was this from the creation sites, or did you come up with yourself?)
We have studied the magnetic field for over 150 years which is equal to about 25%, yet frevolutionist discount the dying magnetic field and the reverse look of how it would be a magnetic star around 20000 years ago.
The magnetic field has no relation to radiocarbon decay. At most, it could slightly alter the production rates of C14 in the atmosphere; this was realized in 1958, and calibrations curves created to eliminate this as a potential source of error.
Oh thats right there is a mysterious source that re-energizes the magnetic field yet has no effect upon the carbon dating or radio metric dating methods out comes.
You certainly are eager to criticize something you really know nothing about. If you had actually read the links I posted to you, you would not have made the simple mistakes you did. I suspect you went hurrying straight to the creation sites, which reinforced your belief but fed you a bunch of lies. I am afraid that all you have shown is that your belief is impervious to logic, reason, data, or evidence.
Why so? Your assumption that this is impossible is illogical.