quote:1- A constant rate of decay is assumed a) The constancy of cosmic ray bombardment might be questioned. The current high rate of entry might be a consequence of a disturbed post-flood environment that altered the carbon-14 to carbon-12 ratio. Pre-flood dates would thus have to be discarded. b) An increase in the magnetic field of the earth would have shielded the earth from cosmic rays. Some scientists argue that the magnetic field of the earth has declined over time. c) Atmospheric carbon forms just 0.0005% of the current carbon reservoir-99.66% of the earth's carbon exists in limestone, 0.31% in oil and gas, and 0.02% in coal. carbon-14 comes from nitrogen and is independent of the carbon-12 reservoir. If even a small percentage of the limestone deposits were still in the form of living marine organisms at the time of the flood, then the small amount of carbon-14 would have mixed with a much larger carbon-12 reservoir, thus resulting in a drastically reduced ratio. Specimens would then look much older than they actually are. d) Even if the rate of decay is constant, without knowledge of the exact ratio of carbon-12 to carbon-14 in the initial sample, the dating technique is subject to question. 2- It's assumed that the clock was set to zero when the study material was formed. This requires that only the parent isotope be initially present or that the amount of daughter isotope present at the beginning is known so that it can be subtracted. 3- It is assumed that we are dealing with a closed system-no loss of either parent or daughter elements has occurred since the study material formed.
This is written by Professor Walter J. Veith, PhD. Is his PhD in a relevant field? I placed my bet before checking. What a surprise - he's a zoologist!
I'll allow the experts to debunk your content in detail (if they want to). But you need to consider why, if a zoologist can think of these questions, the experts in the field have not considered them and resolved them? You are forced to consider scientists incompetent or dishonest because of your fixed belief system. They are neither of course. The problem is your fixed belief system.
it means you violated forum rules: Look at rule 7 in particular.
quote:6. Avoid lengthy cut-n-pastes. Introduce the point in your own words and provide a link to your source as a reference. If your source is not on-line you may contact the Site Administrator to have it made available on-line.
7. Never include material not your own without attribution to the original source.
8.Avoid any form of misrepresentation.
quote: This is written by Professor Walter J. Veith, PhD. Is his PhD in a relevant field? I placed my bet before checking. What a surprise - he's a zoologist!
implying this means anything. What if a 4 years old girl put forward these false assumptions what difference does it make? Does it make it less valid? Do those assumptions belong to him?
It means, as usual, that creationist material is written by someone who is not an expert in the field and clearly has not studied it. It means, as is common among creationist sites, there's a clear attempt to imply that the information is authoritative because the author is a professor and a PhD. Prof Veith played the argument from authority card, deceptively - I'm calling him on it.
quote:I try not to put much faith in elitism.
So you don't put faith in the people who know most about a subject? You trust your health care to a lawyer and your legal advice to a doctor?
quote:You are forced to consider scientists incompetent or dishonest because of your fixed belief system.
Isn't that ironic considering you're relegated answering this to others?
Oh, I know enough to know that every one of the points you raised is invalid. But I also know there are people here who understand this as professional users of carbon dating - as you've seen. Their answers carry more weight than mine.
quote:They are neither of course.
You wouldn't know, you've admittedly said you will leave it to others to answer me. The "experts"
This doesn't make sense. I've left answering it to the experts because I know from experience they are competent and honest.