Fine. Want to discuss the subject of radioisotope dating with me? Primarily I do research, but there are also periods when I teach. So, let us imagine that I am supposed to evaluate someone's knowledge. What is the source of the radioactive carbon in the living organisms? What happens after the organism's death? What is the C-14's half life? What can be the practical use of this? What is the time frame for possible dating using this isotope? How does the accuracy correlate with numbers obtained using other methods? Et caetera. KNOWING the answers to these questions UNAVOIDABLY leads to certain conclusions, and these conclusions are NOT COMPATIBLE with the notion of a 6,000 years old Earth. Conversely, NOT KNOWING is, at certain level, called ignorance. I used the example of radioisotope dating involving carbon isotopes, but there are similar facts, independently leading to similar answers within other disciplines.
"Evolution is a single theory that has tried to co-opt these fields."
Nonsense.
We do not believe your “facts”
That's the whole point. Good night to you and other Discussants.
Wow that is quite a list of questions.
“What is the source of the radioactive carbon in the living organisms?”
C14 is created in the atmosphere, combines with oxygen to create C02. Plants take in the CO2 and animals and humans eat the plants.
“What happens after the organism’s death?”
It stops taking in C14 and the C14 in it begins to decay.
“What is the C-14’s half life?”
the current half life of C14 is 5730 years
“What can be the practical use of this?”
I am not sure I understand the question. Obviously you think that this can be used to accurately date fossils and elements like diamonds.
“What is the time frame for possible dating using this isotope?” Presumably you can’t date anything over 50,000 or so years using C14.
“How does the accuracy correlate with numbers obtained using other methods?” I don’t think it is accurate. Explaination below.
Dating of any kind presumes things about the past that cannot be proven. You have to assume the amount of carbon that is present in the organism when it died. Obviously when the earth was covered all over with green vegetation the earth would have had ALOT more C14 in it than it does today.
You have to assume that the rate of decay has been constant (uniformitarian views have been long disproven). Dating has yielded LOTS of unpredicatable/incorrect results in rocks with KNOWN ages but we “ignorants” are supposed to believe that rocks of unknown ages can be dated accurately. What about fossils that are supposedly millions of years old that still have carbon 14 in them? That shouldn’t be there! Evolutionist start with a presupposition. Creationist start with a presupposition. Don’t call me ignorant because I don’t believe your presuppostion. I understand your position firmly. I just don’t agree with it. .
Agamemnon, I believe this newbie has yur name written all over him...LOL!
A flat out lie that no one has ever been able to support with the facts. (but don't let that stop you from spewing confusion and diversion, this is the essence of the naturalizers)