Replies

[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.