Oh ... the decay rates are accurate and more or less stable all right. It's the assumptions surrounding this that I have a lot of problems with.
For example, how can we assume that C-14 levels are the same today as they were 5,000 years ago? There is proof that C-14 levels have not reached equilibrium in our atmosphere. C-14 levels are still increasing today. And they vary from year to year, decade to decade based on our suns' temper tantrums. How can we be so confident assuming we understand C-14 levels from 5,000 years ago, when we can't even predict the weather 48 hours from now. If C-14 levels are lower in the past, it is clear that ages determined using Carbon dating would read ages that are older than they should be. I believe the crazy mammoth readings we get should make that abundantly clear. But for some reason, people can't seem to process this simple fact. Radionucleotide Dating techniques are inherently unreliable because we do not fully understand the validity of our assumptions surrounding this technique. Jojo ----- Original Message ----- From: Chris Zell To: [email protected] Sent: Monday, August 25, 2014 11:37 PM Subject: RE: [Vo]:Accuracy of Carbon Dating I used to be a Creationist and point out obvious errors in Radio Dating results. Eventually, I was forced to conclude that errors here or there in various methods do not contradict the essential point that radioactive decay is an extremely reliable phenomena taken as an aggregate. I found it dishonest to point out different potential defects in different dating methods while ignoring the whole of the subject. Eventually, I was forced to conclude that there must be something wrong with radioactive decay rates themselves - to save my faith. While I am still somewhat skeptical about such rates, the burden is on Fundamentalists to come up with a radically different version of physics that allows for such variability. I think C-14 rates have been generally correlated with Egyptian history. Actually, if you think about it, if Fundamentalists could demonstrate a convenient method of upsetting such decay rates, it would radically upset the world as the equivalent of 'free energy'.
