Originally posted by tacoman528
To Smilin',
Because of the extremely long explanation for Carbon Dating, I will, once again, refer you to Dr. Hovind at www-drdino-com for the answer to your questions about radiocarbon. It was a neat idea, but it doesn't work. You will find all your scientific answers for the radiocarbon question in Hovind's statement about it. Also be sure to read his Equilibrium Response. There you have it for RadioCarbon.
Been to the site and let's do radiocarbon again.
"Extensive laboratory testing has shown that about half of the C-14 molecules will decay in 5730 years. This is called the half-life. After another 5730 years half of the remaining C-14 will decay leaving only ¼ of the original C-14. It goes from ½ to ¼ to 1/8, etc. In theory it would never totally disappear, but after about 5 half lives the difference is not measurable with any degree of accuracy. This is why most people say carbon dating is only good for objects less than 40,000 years old. Nothing on earth carbon dates in the millions of years, because the scope of carbon dating only extends a few thousand years."
Now, notice that
40,000 years is 7 times greater than 6,000 years. So if you get a C14 date of 40,000 years, you've still falsified a 6,000 year old earth, haven't you?
"A freshly created earth would require about 30,000 years for the amount of C-14 in the atmosphere to reach this point of equilibrium because it would leak out as it is being filled. Tests indicate that the earth has still not reached equilibrium. There is more C-14 in the atmosphere now than there was 40 years ago. This would prove the earth is not yet 30,000 years old!"
Notice Hovind didn't provide any source for this statement? You should have. Now, with the burning of the rain forests as they are cut down, of course there is more C14 in the atmosphere now than 40 years ago! We're releasing it from living trees. Taco, this is one thing you have to do in science that Hovind doesn't: you have to consider
alternative hypotheses to explain your data. Hovind doesn't do that. He wants the increased C14 to be due to non-equilibrium, so that is all he considers. But if you use a little imagination, you can easily come up with reasons that C14 would increase. Also note this: "In theory it [the amount of C14] would never totally disappear" So, even in coal and oil millions of years old, there will be a little C14. How much fossil fuels have we burned in the last 50 years? Think that might acount for an increase in C14 in the atmosphere? Hovind's own data falsify his claims.
"They are, obviously, assuming the amount of carbon-14 in the atmosphere has always been constant, and its rate of decay has always been constant. Neither of these assumptions is provable or reasonable. "
Hovind just said that after 30,000 years the amount of C14 in the atmosphere would reach equilibrium and be constant!! Therefore that's a reasonable assumption. Also, no one has ever seen conditions where radioactive decay varies more than 0.1%. Also, you can test this. The internal heat of the earth comes from radioactive decay. If decay was much faster in the past, there would be a lot more heat released. For radioactive decay to be so fast as to produce a 6,000 year old earth, the heat released would turn the earth molten!! ALL OF IT! One big molten ball of rock.
So, that radioactive decay hasn't varied much through time is
not an assumption, it is an inferrence from the data.
Hovind lists several papers where C14 data gave erroneous results. If you look at the papers, they all list special conditions where the C14 resided in other parts of the biosphere for years before being taken up by organisms. These set the limits of the procedure. You look for those conditions. If they are present, you don't use C14. If the conditions are absent, then C14 is accurate. Of course, Hovind doesn't list the thousands of papers where C14 dating has been shown to be accurate.
That's another trick. It's called "selective data". IOW, you look only at the data you want. That's what you did with your Biblical "prophecies". You ignored all the prophecies that didn't work.
