The first problem is seen in the very approach in the presumption that must be made in the level of Carbon 14 the organism had while living. Here we have a critical calculation that is based upon an assumption that an organism which lived thousands of years previous, of which there are no modern species to compare,
the lack of modern species is irrelevant.
developed a specific level of Carbon 14 from an environment we know nothing about.
actually we know rather alot about the environments
If for example, the presumption is inaccurate by only 10%, considering that it is the rate of decay that forms the mathematical constant, the inaccuracy of the calculation of age at the upper limit would be tens of thousands of years.
this is why the method is callibrated with other things, such as tree rings and sedimantary carbon in varves.
The very basis for the assumption above is another problem, and is perhaps the most embarrassing for the proponents of radiocarbon dating. To assume a particular level of Carbon 14 in an organism requires a precise determination of environmental (atmospheric) levels of the same. That is, to presume a particular level in a living thing requires a precise knowledge of the ambient amount of Carbon 14 in the air and environment. Scientists performing radiocarbon dating assume that the amount in the environment has not changed.
this is wrong. Scientists know that the amount of c14 has changed, but we also know by how much.
This is compelling for several reasons, not the least of which is the convenience with which science apparently operates; we hear of massive changes in the earth, ice ages, catastrophic events that killed the dinosaurs, etc., but the environment never changed according to the same scientists.
the state of the environment is not important here, the state of the ratios is, and we know these from callibration, as above.
Or consider the effect a global atmospheric shield of dust created as a result of a meteor impact some scientists believe killed off the dinosaurslevels of Carbon 14 in the atmosphere must certainly have been different, thereby invalidating the age/date test data.
but there are no catastrophic meteors in the past few thousand years. bringing up the dinosaurs is irrelevant, they are millions of years old.
Moreover, it is established fact that the earths magnetic field has been in a constant decline in strength, which would have vigorously protected the earth from the same radiation,
false, basing a falsehood on a falsehood now. and again, even if it has, we still callibrate things.
Another fact, which proves quite embarrassing to old-age proponents in regard to radiometric dating, is the half-life of Carbon 14 itself. Not only is the actual half-life length itself in some contention,
it isn't.
was dated in the hundreds of thousands, and even millions of years using Carbon 14.
no-one dates things that old with c14.
Actually, after the sixth cycle or so, there would not be enough Carbon 14 in the sample to be measured; the upper limit then would be around 30,000 years.
the important thing is the background radiation. scientists know this, and that is why we don't use c14 dating for really old stuff.
which provide several sources of additional radiation. This has the concomitant effect of providing a source of neutrino radiation; Carbon 14 decay is accelerated in the presence of such bombardment,
this is an extreme lie. a mother of lies. the grand daddy of lies. neutrinos from rocks have nothing to do with decay rates. zilch. nada. the actual reaction rate of neutrinos is hideously small, that is why we need hige machines to detect them full of lead, in order to slow them down, and even then, the number of reactions is very small.... in dedicated atom smashers where there are millions of decays per second. neutrinos have less than nothing to do with C14 decay, I could go on for hours about this.
and again the effect would be to cause the specimen to appear much older than it actually is.
many more examples could be given, as well as some documented, glaring failures such as live clams being dated at 1,500 years,
you can't use seafish because their source of carbon is not atmospheric.
and parchment documents from the 17th century being dated to the 4th.
evidence? there are a number of reasons it could be off.
The point however, is that radiocarbon dating has serious problems in terms of reliability and veracity, and its use is at best quite limited.
not based on anything said thus far, all I have seen so far is poor science and lied from this essay.
and this article appears on
www.drdino.com
