Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1

As you are reading, don't forget that the calibration curves are designed to account for atmospheric fluctuations.It has been known for many years that the levels of C14 in the atmosphere vary due to changes in the sun's output and the earth's magnetic field, etc. Those changes that cause the atmospheric levels to vary by several percent, with the maximum around 10%.This is the reason for comparison of raw C14 ages with items of known age, such as tree rings, corals, and glacial varves. Once the differences due to atmospheric fluctuation are known, the curve allows unknown samples to be corrected or "calibrated" to produce accurate dates.Edited by Coyote, : Spelling

Your responses are failing to show a grasp of the radiocarbon method, but a firm grasp of creation "science."See my post on "what-ifs."

Please read the posts in this thread.There are a lot of good papers by real scientists. It doesn't matter what some climatologists did or didn't say, that doesn't mean anything in terms of what the physical scientists are doing.So, read the posts in this thread and explain why there are so many correlations.

In the other thread mindspawn writes: So you feel that radiometric dating is wrong because it has "too many assumptions?"Why do you, and other creationists, feel that those assumptions are automatically wrong?Do you have any evidence that they are wrong, other than they come up with answers you don't like for entirely unrelated reasons?And as RAZD points out, all of the various dating methods are pointing in the same direction even though they rely on far different datasets and far different assumptions. How can you explain this?I think you are just blowing smoke here, and that you really have no evidence that the assumptions are wrong, but are just using that to be able to discount 1) radiometric dating methods, and 2) the sciences that are based on them.But if you would like to debate the issue, this is the place. One of my areas is radiocarbon dating if you would like to concentrate on that.

There are several good threads here on C14 dating and methods of corroboration. You should check them out before expounding further.Oh, and please tell us how many C14 samples you have submitted in your career.

I'd like to see your sources for that, as I've carbon dated many dozen bones, including human bones.

Incorrect in two out of three.You can find the age of a tree by counting rings. Different climatic events, such as volcanoes, leave distinctive rings, and these correlate with the correct ages.You can't find the half-life of C14 with a Geiger counter. All you can do is determine, from the beta decay, the amount of C14 present.But you are right, in that you can carbon date individual tree rings. That is what has been done to establish the calibration curve.Care to try again, on some subject about which you actually know something?

You still haven't revealed to us how many C14 samples you have submitted in your career.My guess is 0.Further, my guess is that virtually your entire (un)knowledge of the radiocarbon method comes from creationist websites.

You better find your "medical pdf" as I have never heard of such an effect.Perhaps you are thinking of isotopic fractionation?Added by edit: And you are correct, C14 dating does not prove the age of the earth. It goes back some 50,000 years. The age of the earth is some 4.52 billion years, and is measured with other tools.Edited by Coyote, : Added comment

"It doesn't change the isotope, but it does expel it. Thus it has a body half life. I know by Isotopic Labeling."And this is something applied to living individuals?

Might you be thinking of the reservoir effect?When are you going to realize that some of us know far more about this than you do?

OS -- have you researched isotropic fractionation and the reservoir effect, as I suggested in previous posts?I think this would clear up a few (of many) misconceptions.

Why would you ever think of dating something that is >65 million years old with a tool that only goes back 50,000 years?That's like trying to use a 12 inch ruler to measure the distance to the moon--it just doesn't work.

You really should do a thorough review of the basic literature on C14.You are confusing different concepts pretty badly.

Note: I haven't verified the links lately.

ReligiousTolerance.org Carbon-14 Dating (C-14): Beliefs of New-Earth Creationists

​

Radiometric Dating: A Christian Perspective by Dr. Roger C. Wiens.

​

This site, BiblicalChronologist.org has a series of good articles on radiocarbon dating.

​

Are tree-ring chronologies reliable? (The Biblical Chronologist, Vol. 5, No. 1)
​
How does the radiocarbon dating method work? (The Biblical Chronologist, Vol. 5, No. 1)
​
How precise is radiocarbon dating?
​
Is radiocarbon dating based on assumptions?
​
Has radiocarbon dating been invalidated by unreasonable results?
​

Tree Ring and C14 Dating

​

Radiocarbon WEB-info Radiocarbon Laboratory, University of Waikato, New Zealand.

​

Radiocarbon -- full text of issues, 1959-2003.