False. By way of cross-checking with items of known age, such as tree-rings, the method has been accurately calibrated back over 12,000 years. Glacial varves and other methods have taken the calibration curve back some 26,000 years. They are working on the rest of the useful range.
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-
False. Everybody but you knows that the range of the radiocarbon method only extends back some 50,000 or so years.
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.
False. Old earth is based on data, not faith. It is young earth that is based on faith.
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.
False. The calibration factors (called the calibration curve) is based on measurements. For example, you count back a few thousand tree-rings, then radiocarbon date that one ring. Do this for several thousand rings, and (with C13 and other necessary corrections) you can calibrate the measured radiocarbon to calendar age.
First off you need to assume there were constants in atmospheric radiation-
False. We know there were fluctuations in the atmospheric constant. That was shown by de Vries in 1958. That is why the calibrations curves have been worked out.
then you had to assujme there was a constant mix of nitrogen,
I don't think this has any bearing on the matter.
then assume there was constant rate of conversion of C-14 to carbon dioxide,
False. The C14 is in everything that contains carbon, not just carbon dioxide.
then assume constant dispersion rate,
That can be checked, and has been checked.
then assume that C-14 was equally available in to all creatures at the same rate all over the planet,
That too can be checked, and has been checked.
then assume constant entropy over these time periods, on and on it goes- lot's of variables, lots of unknowns.
Constant entropy? What's that?
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.
That is why the radiocarbon method relies on calibrations. That lets us look back in time and determine the atmospheric concentrations.
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.
And you looked pretty silly then. Again, radiocarbon only extends back some 50,000 years. If you want to date dinosaurs, you need other methods. The "they found C14 in dinosaur bones fluff" has been easily discredited. Contamination and low level radioactivity in soils and rocks both can add fresh C14.
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.
Fossils are dated with other dating methods, not radiocarbon.
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.
False. The bristlecone pine sequence of tree-ring dating extends past 12,000 years. It is not based on unknowns, but individually counted tree-rings.
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.
More likely on a smaller scale, and one which is corrected for by the calibration curve.
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.
False again. Do you have any idea of how little C14 it takes to get a reading in the 50,000 year range? That's why the method only goes back that far--the amounts of C14 left disappear into the background radiation (the newer AMS method improves the accuracy in this area). That means that the tiniest amounts can introduce contamination, and give readings in that range.
You have proved that you know nothing about radiocarbon dating. You have proved that in this field, you are not worth listening to. Why do you keep pushing the same old discredited nonsense?
[False. By way of cross-checking with items of known age, such as tree-rings, the method has been accurately calibrated back over 12,000 years. Glacial varves and other methods have taken the calibration curve back some 26,000 years. They are working on the rest of the useful range.]
False- as I've listed SEVERAL times now- which you conveniently ignore, these 'calibration techniques' are NOT reliable and MUST be taken on FAITH
[False. Everybody but you knows that the range of the radiocarbon method only extends back some 50,000 or so years.]
Sorry- that's false- We're CONSTANTLY told that dates reach into the millions of years- pick up your local national geographic for evidence of this.
[False. Old earth is based on data, not faith. It is young earth that is based on faith.]
False- Old earth advocates have NOTHING anywhere near reliable enough to come anywhere close to an age fact. As such- they take on faith that the age is old- Deny htis if you like- but you're plain wrong.
[False. The calibration factors (called the calibration curve) is based on measurements. For example, you count back a few thousand tree-rings, then radiocarbon date that one ring. Do this for several thousand rings, and (with C13 and other necessary corrections) you can calibrate the measured radiocarbon to calendar age.]
False- as already explained to you- but apparently not grasped- there MUST be assumptions made about constants in atmospheric conditions/radiation/uniformitarian conditions in order for this method to be viable- Assumptions assumptions assumptiuons- ALL FaITH!
[False. We know there were fluctuations in the atmospheric constant. That was shown by de Vries in 1958. That is why the calibrations curves have been worked out.]
Mmm yes, the evolutionst says the curve is correct- therefore it must be- the link I gave shows why this is false.
[False. The C14 is in everything that contains carbon, not just carbon dioxide.]
Noone said it was, it does however cause the scientist to assume that all specimens accumulated constant amounts in equal proportions over the whole earth- otherwise, a universal model can not be used.
[That can be checked, and has been checked.]
Yep- they got in their little time machines and went back and checked everything to make sure- gotcha!
[That too can be checked, and has been checked]
Yup- has been and assumptions were made in order for the model to work out- in other words- fitting the evidences to fit the model.
[That is why the radiocarbon method relies on calibrations. That lets us look back in time and determine the atmospheric concentrations.]
What a load of dung- they 'look back' in time using PRESENT decay rates as the measuring sticks with wich to measure by-Assumptions assumptions assumptions! Using ice core samples for 'calibration ideals' with wich to measure by? Give me a break- it is well known that you can not take samples out of ice cores without altering them due to pressure changes and faulty extraction techniques. Please-
[Contamination and low level radioactivity in soils and rocks both can add fresh C14]
Mighty big assumption- all bone fossils containing C-14 must have been 'contaminated' huh?
[False. The bristlecone pine sequence of tree-ring dating extends past 12,000 years. It is not based on unknowns, but individually counted tree-rings.]
Ah- on counted tree rings- yup- and they of course knew which years there were two rings produced seeings how they were present during htose times- right- gotcha!
[Why do you keep pushing the same old discredited nonsense?]
Why? Because yuou keep throwing out the fact that science MUST rely on ASSUMPTIONS and opinion and claim it is factual when it is not- not even close- you have proven an extreme bias and shown your lust for ad hominen attacks in order to deflect facts that show your science is every bit as much faith as any religion when it comes to certain matters such as dating and the evolution models.