Assessing the Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth (RATE) Project

So you would disagree then with TalkOrigins, which states decay rate can be affected?

quote:

---

Yes, the atmospheric content of carbon-14 can vary somewhat. The dipole moment of the earth's magnetic field, sunspot activity, the Suess effect, possible nearby supernova explosions, and even ocean absorption can have some effect on the carbon-14 concentration. However, these factors don't affect the radiocarbon dates by more than about 10-15 percent, judging from the above studies. Of course, when we reach the upper limit of the method, around 40,000 years for the standard techniques, we should allow for much greater uncertainty as the small amounts of C-14 remaining are much harder to measure.

​

Tree-ring data gives us a precise correction table for carbon-14 dates as far back as 8,000-9,000 years. The above study by Stuiver shows that the C-14 fluctuations in the atmosphere were quite reasonable as far back as 22,000 years ago. The earth's magnetic field seems to have the greatest effect on C-14 production, and there is no reason to believe that its strength was greatly different even 40,000 years ago.

---

(It would be interesting to know if the article was written before the discovery that the earth's magnetic field does in fact regularly reverse itself.)Concerning tree ring dating, doesn't that still rely on rings which grow at the same rate? And could be affected by atmospheric levels?At any rate, if carbon 14 dating goes back only 50,000 years, and tree ring dating only hundreds or in rare cases thousands of years, then the age of the earth must depend on another source, correct?According to this page, it's still radiometric dating as well as zircon dating on which the earth's age depends, in which case the same questions still arise.Was the decay rate of half lives constant? How can we know this for sure? Edited by Jzyehoshua, : No reason given.

I have brought up this same reservation dozens of times on similar forums before, and have yet to receive a solid answer on the subject of why half-lives can't decay faster. Perhaps I don't understand it, which is why I will keep making the point until I see evidence to the contrary.Also, what you call statements about its validity or accuracy, I call merely raising questions about an often poorly described and misunderstood topic. Maybe it's a matter of my not understanding it well enough as you say. Or maybe it's a matter of it being rarely explained at all because for the scientific community to better explain it would be to reveal the fundamental flaws in the reasoning process which it consists of.Edited by Jzyehoshua, : No reason given.