I am confused about the half life thing. Can someone please explain what that is?
It applies to the decay of all radioactive materials. Basically, there's a probability that the nucleus of any given radioactive isotope will decay, but we can't really predict when that will happen to a particular nucleus. Rather, we can work out statistically how long it takes for half the nuclei in a sample to have decayed. That time is the half life of that isotope and we have found that each isotope's half lives are constants -- ie, each isotope has its own particular half life and each half life is a constant.
Here's a resource that will explain it better and help you learn: Radiometric Dating: A Christian Perspective by Dr. Roger C. Wiens at http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Wiens.html. He also covers different kinds of decay and even isochrons, the methodology for dating rocks.
With all due respect, not being able to know what you do and don't already know, if necessary you should brush up a bit on atomic theory first. Such as the number of protons in the nucleus being what determines which element that atom is. And that there are normally an equal number of neutrons in the nucleus, but an isotope is when there's a different number of neutrons. Some isotopes are unstable, making them radioactive. And when an isotope decays, part of the nucleus breaks away, including some protons; the loss of protons changes that isotope to a different element, called a daughter element. Certain isotopes have particular daughter elements, which can also be radioactive isotopes that will decay their own daughter elements. These decay chains are part of what nuclear physicists study.
One of the benefits of creation/evolution are these opportunities to learn something.
Does your site speak of the reservoir effect? That's where organisms feed on a "reservoir" of "old carbon", which affects the C14 levels in their bodies, making them test as being much older than they are. The seal that RAZD refers to is one such case, as are the fresh-water molluscs that I know your site mentions as an example.
Does your site describe where C14 comes from? From the atmosphere. So plants exposed to air take that C14 in and incorporates it into their tissues. And herbevores who eat those plants similiarly incorporate that C14 into their tissues, as do the carnivores who eat them. But when an animal's food chain, such as that aforementioned seal's, derived its carbon from ancient sources deep underwater with no access to the fresh C14 in the atmosphere, you have one example of the reservoir effect.
When I first encountered creationist claims over 40 years ago, one of the first two claims was about those fresh-water molluscs. I was skeptical, but what really showed me that creationism is false was the second claim about the NASA computer that found Joshua's Lost Day, which claimed capabilities for computers that even in 1970 we knew to be flagrantly false. Later, I found a reference for that claim and I looked it up in the library. In fact, your site provides that reference, so you should also go to the library and look it up. Have you? I didn't think so. It turns out that that stream was fed by an underground spring that fed through limestone. Do you know what limestone is? It's ancient shells and is loaded with carbon. Ancient carbon. Those fresh-water clams had practically no direct exposure to the new C14 in the atmosphere, but rather to the ancient carbon from the dissolved limestone whose C14 was depleted. And as a result of that reservoir effect, they falsely tested to be very old.
This information is very well known to those who have bothered to learn about radio-carbon dating. So why is it such a mystery to creationists?
Also, your site says that ideally the theoretical maximum age detectable by radio-carbon dating should be 100,000 years. But in practical application, the upper limit is more like 50,000 years. The "ages" of those dinosaur fossils are in accordance with this practical limit and are the result of using the wrong scale to measure something -- if you try to use an indestructable bathroom scale that has an upper limit of 400 lb to weigh a dump truck, then it will report that dump truck to weigh only 400 pounds. Duh?
Read those other threads, because this and a lot more is explained by people who actually use the method and have studied the details of it at a university science level.
Edited by dwise1, : qualified "details" at the end
I think that their point is that there is carbon in it.
And so they are lying to you. That lie has already been pointed out to you. Why are you clinging to their lie?
The preponderance of C14 is produced in the upper atmosphere. The use of C14 in radio-carbon dating is based on that atmospheric C14 being incorporating into organic tissue, as I explicitly described to you! The method does not work when the organism's source of carbon has not had access to the atmosphere for a very long time (eg, food-chain based on deep-sea sources, dissolved limestone) and hence is well known to not be appropriate candidates for carbon-dating.
That your page cites such inappropriate cases as appropriate and hence proof against the method does nothing but demonstrate their blatant dishonesty and their desire to deceive. And since they are lying and deceiving in service of their god whom they personify as The Truth incarnate, we must yet again ask what "True Christian" doctrine is on lying and deceiving in service of their god.
Why are you posting that here and not in the topic that you had proposed?
And who wrote that? Did you? Because that's what you are telling us! Are you quoting somebody else? Then tell us that! You do so by actually quoting the text using the method that I explained to you in your own topic where this should have been posted.