Replies

I'm not breaking anything up elk- it's not along any line other than true and not true. The problems with dating methods are well documented, and only the dogmatic deny there are problems while the honest on both sides admit the problems instead of running from them- that is true science-

C-14 isn't reliable beyond 4000 +/- years, yet somehow, we're handed dates that range in the millions of years and told 'it is now known for a fact that so and so lived *** years ago as shown by radiocarbon dating" - they throw dates at us as though they are established facts when they themselves know darn well the problems with their dating methods-

Old earth creationists are welcome to their OPINION, but that's all it is- in order to form these opinions however, they need to ignore the problems of the dating methods, and rely on faith every bit as much as any religion.

[proven and tested science behind radio carbon dating] I think if you'll look more objectively into the situation, you will find many problems- it's far from proven as tests have shown. C-14 dating relies on assumptions and correction factors based on guestimates.

First off you need to assume there were constants in atmospheric radiation-

then you had to assujme there was a constant mix of nitrogen,

then assume there was constant rate of conversion of C-14 to carbon dioxide,

then assume constant dispersion rate,

then assume that C-14 was equally available in to all creatures at the same rate all over the planet,

then assume constant entropy over these time periods, on and on it goes- lot's of variables, lots of unknowns.

Now, small changes in c-14 amount ot large changes globally- we know that carbon 14 has been steadily changing for some time now, however, what we don't know is whther ort not this has been a constant change, or if it's been altered over time. As I said previously, folks claim C-14 dating shows million year old fossils/geology, yet as mentioend this is a lie. C-14 would be completely missing due to the degredation rate of C-14 in million year old specimens.

You could argue that fossils get contaminated from outside sources and would therefore show some C-14- but that would be an admission that you're not sure if the fossil being studied actually has some C-14 left to be tested, or if some other source contributed to hte readings findings.

As to your question earlier about the 50,000 date range, known correction factors ar4e used to convert radiocarbon years to calendar years, which work for up to 5,000 years or so. But dates for older than 5,000 years are unknown because they rely on correction factors of unknowns. There is no historical measures to calibrate from, so assumptions and guestimates must be used.

Evolutioniosts claim there wwere massive volcanic activities throughout the age, and if so, then the ratio of C-12 to C-14 would have decreased on a massive scale.

Any time there are evidences for C-14 in maTErials that there shouldn't be, the old 'it got contaminated' assumption comes into play in order to brush aside the evidence.- which is what Coyote did in a previous thread that he claims he 'rebuttled'. I find it funny that 'contamination' always comes into play when the eivdences oppose the old age model, yet, no such assumptions are ever made when it comes to dating ages younger than 5000 years which would suggest C-14 dating is accurate. It appears that when it suits the evolutionsit, there is no such thing as contamination, and the C-14 model is precise, yet when the evidences suggest young ages for supposedly old age material, well then- the C-14 model becomes 'too buggy' and open to 'contaminations' which can throw the readings off.