Replies

You keep posting basic low-level facts on the radiocarbon method, such as that it only extends some 50,000 years into the past, as if that should be hot news! Archaeologists are way ahead of you. We know those types of limitations and more, and we don't need cut-and-paste creationists to try to teach us how to do our jobs. You also cite the reservoir effect as if that's something that is a serious problem for archaeologists. The reservoir effect is old news, I deal with that all the time. I have even done numerous comparisons of charcoal vs. shell to see what the extent of the reservoir effect is in the areas in which I work. Your cut-and-paste also cites the problem of the reservoir effect when dealing with human bone, as fish in the diet can throw the age off. Actually sea mammals can be worse than fish. That's why when I radiocarbon date human bone I obtain the 13C and 15N stable isotope readings so that the percent of marine organisms in the diet can be ascertained and accounted for. You are way out of your depth here. You seem to believe that radiocarbon dating is wrong (for religious reasons I presume) and you are surfing the net for anything that might help your position -- without understanding much about the subject at all. Not very impressive. If you wish to convince anyone that the radiocarbon method is inaccurate, you have to really study and understand it first.

Stop blowing hot air!

The dating is based on a flawed assumption, that the environment has not undergone any dramatic change that would affect the ratio between the C-14 and C-12.

For example, a worldwide flood would uproot and bury preflood forests. Afterward, less carbon would be available for decaying vegetation to cycle between living things and the atmosphere. With less carbon-12 to dilute the carbon-14 continually forming from nitrogen in the upper atmosphere woulld increase. If the atmospheres ratio of carbon-14 to carbon-12 has doubled since the flood and we did not know it, radiocarbon ages of things living soon after the flood would appear to be half-life (or 5,730 years) older than their true ages. If that ratio quadrupled organic remains would appear 11, 460 (2x5,730) years older etc. Consequently a 'radiocarbon year' would not correspond to an actual year....Therefore, the ratio of carbon-14 to carbon-12 has, in general been building up in the atmosphere since the flood. However, for the last 3,500 years, the increase in the ratio would be extremely slight. Recent measurements show this....Ages around 40,000 radiocarbon years which are typical of coal, probably have a much younger true date near the time of the flood, roughly 5,000years ago. (In The Beginning, Walt Brown, p.245-246)

Thus, radiocarbon dating is only accurate up to 3,500 years.

Anything past that is conjecture.

All one needs to know about evolution is its presuppositions, since at that point, we are no longer dealing with science, we are dealing with a religion, based on faith.

Evolution is a myth cloaking itself with scientific jargon.

Thus, radiocarbon dating is only accurate up to 3,500 years.

The argument you are repeating is that radiocarbon dating only is accurate up to 3,500 years because the global flood throws things off earlier than that date.

That might be accurate if there was any scientific evidence of a global flood. There is not.

For the lurkers

We have overlapping tree-ring sequences going back some 12,600 years now. These are used to calibrate the radiocarbon dates. For most of that sequence the tree-rings have been dated every ten years. That is how the fluctuations of ¹⁴C in the atmosphere are accounted for. The trees used are standing dead bristlecone pines in the White Mountains of southern California. They live in an environment which produces only one ring per year. These rings can be cross-checked against historic volcanos, which produced worldwide climatic changes. This allows the rings to be matched with historic volcanic events for over 3,500 years (see the link below).

Unfortunately folks who just have to have a young earth and a global flood will not believe any scientific evidence to the contrary, and make up the most ridiculous "what ifs" to try to argue away those inconvenient facts. Some of the posts on this thread are prime examples of this.

Here are some good links on radiocarbon dating:

ReligiousTolerance.org Carbon-14 Dating (C-14): Beliefs of New-Earth Creationists
Radiometric Dating: A Christian Perspective by Dr. Roger C. Wiens.
This site, BiblicalChronologist.org has a series of good articles on radiocarbon dating.

Are tree-ring chronologies reliable? (The Biblical Chronologist, Vol. 5, No. 1)
How does the radiocarbon dating method work? (The Biblical Chronologist, Vol. 5, No. 1)
How precise is radiocarbon dating?
Is radiocarbon dating based on assumptions?
Has radiocarbon dating been invalidated by unreasonable results?

Tree Ring and C14 Dating
Radiocarbon WEB-info Radiocarbon Laboratory, University of Waikato, New Zealand.
Radiocarbon -- full text of issues, 1959-2003.

"Anything past that is conjecture.

You mean like your unfounded, unevidenced and unbelievable conjecture that the 'Flood' makes carbon dating meaningless?

I don't think so. You see, carbon dating is verified and calibrated by dendrochronology, varves and ice cores, all of which I might add are independent but correlate to a high degree.

You make an obviously biased claim that carbon dating is in error because it is conjecture, yet your basis for doing so is an even bigger conjecture.

Sorry, but scientifically examined physical evidence trumps your wishful thinking.

"All one needs to know about evolution is its presuppositions, since at that point, we are no longer dealing with science, we are dealing with a religion, based on faith.

Unfortunately for your group of anti-evolutionists, the fields related to Cosmology, Astrophysics, Physics, Geology, Geophysics and a number of others I have probably missed, have determined the age of the Earth and the Universe independently from the needs and desires of Evolutionary scientists. The age of the Earth was known to be much older than 6,000-10,000 years, decades before Darwin, through a lot of intensive and dedicated hard scientific work, discovered one of the most important mechanisms of Evolution.

"Evolution is a myth cloaking itself with scientific jargon.

The scientists follow the well established and tested procedures and processes of science. If you care to dispute that, show us you understand the difference between science and myth.

I see you have quoted Walt Brown. Did Brown include any data, analysis numbers and backing cites for his rambling or are you just working from his rhetoric?

If I remember correctly, Walt Brown also claims the the asteroids are a result of the Flood. If my memory is correct and his math is so poor he doesn't understand the impossibility of this then it would be prudent to question all of his work based on math.

If Brown has no math worth considering then he has nothing but polemic rhetoric which in the world of science is worse than useless.