Age of mankind, dating, and the flood

In that case the next 7 paragraphs were unnecessary.--Percy

Thank you.Back to the opening post:

Are there any others out there who wish to produce evidence showing the radiocarbon dating method is incorrect?

Not yet. Have you got any evidence showing that the date of 10,300 years ago for the skeleton found in Southern Alaska is correct?

Yes.Check out the scientific literature. I'm not going to spoon-feed it to you.Back to the original post: Is any creationist able to provide evidence that radiocarbon dating is inaccurate?

Yes, check out alternative scientific literature. I'm not going to spoon-feed it to you.Alternatively, you could start explaining why do you think radiocarbon dating is accurate. If you are not willing to show evidence in favor, how can you expect to receive evidence against?

hhahaaaaa...Funny.
Actually, I double posted a message and since I couldn't eliminate it, I just addressed your statement under the other persons "reply" box.But an intelligent friendly self secure person like U, I realized, would still see the question referred to what you had said. Edited by kofh2u, : No reason given.

Back to my original response that this kind of thread is an exercise in gang-ism, where the people who accept all the tenets of Science will try to amass enough similarly supporting science minded people against those who, like you who accept only an "alternative science" will defend.It was once fair, such that your gang was democratically supporting you, while the science gang was using ridicule and every debate trick in the book behind the supporting members on that side.What has happened in everyone of these religion forums today is a stand-off and total drop in discussion. Both side still have skeleton armies on the ready, but the general attendance is way down due to lack of interest since its a Stale Mate.I am willing to spoon feed both sides with the peace making argument that both Genesis and Science are correct.

I have. Extensively. Its nonsense based on belief and wishful thinking. In many cases the claims made by creationists are based on silly errors due to their lack of understanding of science and how it works. Here is a classic example:http://blog.darwincentral.org/...e%E2%80%9D-%E2%80%94-part-v The scientific model surrounding radiocarbon dating is the standard, the norm, the approach accepted worldwide. It has been researched for over 50 years and the scientific community is in agreement on its methods, uses, and accuracy. Tens of thousands of articles have been written about radiocarbon dating over the years, testing it and refining it.You are the one espousing fringe ideas. Don't you think it would be best if you showed where the scientific community is wrong, rather than demanding 50+ years of research and evidence to be spoon-fed to you? (If you were really serious about your criticisms of radiocarbon dating you would already be familiar with the details of how it works, wouldn't you?)

VARVES, dammit!!!!!
Lake Suigetsu,if you want to search it on this very website......

I think you mean the pseudo-scientific literature. Information about radiocarbon dating is easily found (check Wikipedia), and there are many threads here at EvC that have discussed radiocarbon dating. I guess if that's what you really want to discuss then you could propose another one over at Proposed New Topics, but this thread carries with it the expectation that people are already familiar with the methods and evidence. Those who are aware of evidence against current views on dating methods or the age of modern humans are invited to bring that evidence forward.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Grammar.

Even if this texts is right, it is not proving anything in favor or against the radiocarbon method. while it concentrates in the very last bit of the creationist text quoted there, it ignores the point that they make, which is that the ratio between c-12 and c-14 has been changing and increasing the proportion of c-14, assuming that the ratio has been relatively constant over the last thousands of years causes the samples to appear much older than they really are, what you have to say about that? Not everything that has been written agrees with that, and not all scientists agree, here's one example:Carbon Dating Undercuts Evolution's Long Ages | The Institute for Creation Research

Citing the Institute for Creation Research will garner nothing more than laughs when it comes to science or scientific research.

That article I cited was not intended to "prove" anything about the radiocarbon method. My citation was designed to show the silly mistakes creationists make when trying to do science, something for which they are usually completely unprepared. If that were the case, you might have a point. However, the radiocarbon method, as it is currently used, does correct for atmospheric variation. It does so by comparing radiocarbon dates on items of known ages with radiocarbon ages themselves. In this manner the changes in C14 levels in the atmosphere are corrected for.The items of known ages include tree-rings, varves, annular rings in corals, etc. Not surprisingly, the calibration curve for these various materials is in close agreement and if I remember correctly, the maximum correction is on the order of 11%.This is what the calibration curve looks like: Your comment is another example of creationists raising arguments against radiocarbon dating without knowing what they are talking about. The problem of atmospheric fluctuations was identified by scientists over 50 years ago and a calibration curve has been developed to deal with it.Here is a good article dealing with the calibration curve (pdf format): Radiocarbon calibration curve spanning 0 to 50,000 years BP based on paired 230Th/234U/238U and 14C dates on pristine coralsThe ICR article relies on the RATE study, in which creationists spent over a million dollars and managed to duplicate the results science has been coming up with for years--which they still wouldn't accept. Here are a couple of reviews of that study: Assessing the RATE Project: Essay Review by Randy IsaacFrom the conclusion of this article:

The conclusions of the RATE project are being billed as groundbreaking results. This is a fairly accurate description since a group of creation scientists acknowledge that hundreds of millions of years worth of radioactivity have occurred. They attempt to explain how this massive radioactivity could have occurred in a few thousand years but admit that consistent solutions have not yet been found. The vast majority of the book is devoted to providing technical details that the authors believe prove that the earth is young and that radioisotope decay has not always been constant. All of these areas of investigation have been addressed elsewhere by the scientific community and have been shown to be without merit. ...

​

...claims that scientific data affirm a young earth do not meet the criterion of integrity in science. Any portrayal of the RATE project as confirming scientific support for a young earth, contradicts the RATE project’s own admission of unresolved problems.

Do the RATE Findings Negate Mainstream Science? (part 1)Do the RATE Findings Negate Mainstream Science? (part 2)The conclusion of this article (at the end of part 2) includes the following:

Young-earth creationists have long claimed there is no evidence for an old Earth. The fact that billions of years of nuclear decay have occurred in Earth history has been denied by most young-earth creationists. Now, the RATE team has admitted that, taken at face value, radiometric dating data is most easily and directly explained by the Earth being billions of years old. This is a remarkable development because no longer can young-earth creationists claim it is merely the naturalistic worldview that makes scientists believe rocks and minerals are millions or billions of years old.

​

Are the RATE findings sufficient grounds to reject radiometric dating? What is known to science is radioactive decay would produce the quantity of daughter products on the Earth in a timescale of millions or billions of years. Unknown to science and lacking any independent verification is the idea that nuclear decay rates were accelerated in the past by five orders of magnitude (100,000 times) or more. Thus, we faced with a choice: either we can accept the vast majority of radiometric data that indicates the Earth is very old, or we can believe the Earth is 6,000 years old based on a handful of anomalous results. Looking at the data objectively, the RATE research simply does not meet the burden of proof necessary to abandon mainstream science.

In summary, it looks like your two objections to the radiocarbon method are both without value.

Kofh2u, isn't that the position of most creationists? We see creation expressed in science, and see flaws in common scientific arguments. Its not that we oppose science, we just oppose the unscientific methodology of discarding alternative theories before testing them in an unbiased fashion.If mainstream science willingly and in an unbiased fashion carefully tested the claims of creationists there would be no reason for all these websites, just a communal commitment to scientific truths. Could you give a hint how your views differ from mainstream creationism. Just for my interest. Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.

You also might want to bookmark RATE’s Radiocarbon: Intrinsic or Contamination?, Dr. Beertsche's evaluation. This appears at RATE (Radioactivity and the Age of The Earth): Analysis and Evaluation of Radiometric Dating, wherein there's lots of analysis and devastating criticism of RATE's ratty results. Oh, and A Dialogue about RATE.Edited by JonF, : Add last link