Decades ago Carbon 14 dating relied on the C14 level in the atmosphere in the past being reasonably constant. This was as you say, an assumption. Since then we have been able to test C14 dates against tree rings and against varves, annual sediment layers at the bottom of lakes. It was found that the C14 dates were not exact, but close.
Of course C14 dating being based on the C12/14 ration in the atmosphere, it only work with samples that got their C14 from the atmosphere: wood, roots, animals and people that ate plants that got this C14 from the atmosphere. C14 levels in rivers and seas are completely different with a lot of the CO2 coming from dissolved limestone or the vast reservoirs of old CO2 in the seas. Creationist websites and books like to talk about living snails and that have been dated to thousands of years old. But when you examine the claim they are aquatic snails. You get the same sort of claim made about modern seals showing old carbon dates, of course they get their carbon from a diet of fish.
WOW, That's a bit of an exaggeration. I have several degrees and extensive scientific knowledge and experience, both lab and research (though honestly, I prefer the research).
I've met many people who have had their faith shaken, and a few who have walked away from their faith, because of the so-called "facts" of evolution being taught from elementary school all the way up through college.
Cool stuff. It's been a while since I've looked into this stuff, so I may need to re-research and see what's been happening. Thanks for the info - do you have a site where I can look at this research?Decades ago Carbon 14 dating relied on the C14 level in the atmosphere in the past being reasonably constant. This was as you say, an assumption. Since then we have been able to test C14 dates against tree rings and against varves, annual sediment layers at the bottom of lakes. It was found that the C14 dates were not exact, but close.
Radiometric Dating
What is really useful about this is that it now allows us to calibrate C14 dating with precise tree ring and varve dates.
Of course C14 dating being based on the C12/14 ration in the atmosphere, it only work with samples that got their C14 from the atmosphere: wood, roots, animals and people that ate plants that got this C14 from the atmosphere. C14 levels in rivers and seas are completely different with a lot of the CO2 coming from dissolved limestone or the vast reservoirs of old CO2 in the seas. Creationist websites and books like to talk about living snails and that have been dated to thousands of years old. But when you examine the claim they are aquatic snails. You get the same sort of claim made about modern seals showing old carbon dates, of course they get their carbon from a diet of fish.
Rock from a volcano needs to be prepared carefully if you want to date it accurately. Lava is not a pure liquid during an eruption but contains solid particles, bits of rock from the sides of the magma chamber and crystals with a high melting point that crystalise deep underground at temperatures and pressures where the rest of the magma is still liquid. As a result they can form long before an eruption brings them to the surface and will give older dates because they are older. Geologists need to remove carefully these inclusions if they want to date the eruption. If you want to get an anomalously old date on the other hand, just send samples for testing that haven't been purified.
There is nothing embarrassing about being taught something new. If I'm wrong, I don't have a problem about being corrected, especially about areas of science I am not as familiar in. Phylogenetics is an interesting topic, but I just can't seem to figure out how mutations can create new DNA information. It's an area I've looked into, but every explanation sounds like double talk and circular reasoning.
You could look at Radiometric Dating which is an overview of the different dating techniques including Carbon 14. Or you could have a look at PE-04 A 40000 year varve chronology from Japan
The problem is, Creationists use the term information to refer to DNA but to discuss it, Creationists need to come up with a definition of what information means in this context or how the amount of information can be measured. If you can't quantify the amount of information it is impossible to say whether information has increased or decreased. Without a definition of information, it is meaningless to ask if new information has been created.
"Plausible path...you don't have to pove that the path was actually used." No, in evolution you don't have to prove anything. But in real science you need something observable, some evidence. You will never give any ev-i-dence for "plausible pathways" because there is none. "You don't have to prove anything" is pseudo scientific thinking and a cop out, frankly.
You need to understand the nature of Behe's argument before you can say if it has been disproved or not. Behe tried to disprove evolution by showing was there is no possible pathway for the flagellum to evolve, and if there was no way for it to evolve it couldn't possibly have evolved. If his argument is based on there being no possible pathway, then showing a pathway pulls the rug out from under his argument. You don't have to prove that this was the pathway the flagellum took, you just have to show that there are pathways, that the flagellum isn't irreducibly complex, and his argument falls apart.
I understand Behe's argument quite well. As I have already said, all you have to do is take out one part of the flagellum. It it still does it's jobs, it's not irreducibly complex. Now that would be using real science, real data, to get real evidence. But, alas! Evolutinoists prefer to dwell in the land of millioins of unseen, unobservable & unverifiable years ago where they paint fanciful picture about what, in their humble opinions, is "possible."
