Validity of Radiometric Dating

If elephants could fly, and there was an Egyptian pyramid in south Florida, what would that do to your dating methods?Makes about as much sense as what you propose, doesn't it?

If the earth was 6,000 years old radiocarbon dating would give dates no older than 6,000 years.And the flood would have had no effect on those ages. (The RATE group had to concede that radioactive decay has not changed in historic times.)The problem you have is that radiocarbon dating method has been shown to be accurate, and that it shows the flood never happened and that the earth is far older than 6,000 years.In response, you are just refusing to accept the evidence, and looking for any loophole to support your a priori beliefs. That leads you to make some very silly and uneducated claims.

There really is no point in discussing these things with you.Your grasp of reality is so tenuous that you wouldn't accept a cliff even if you walked off it.So, here's to you!

You can get increasing levels of detail and the reasoning behind it in libraries. The evidence for the topics we have been discussing take up whole floors of major university libraries. Feel free to access that information to the level you desire.So don't moan that the information presented to the public doesn't contain the detail of a Ph.D. dissertation.But I fail to see why you should care--you don't rely on evidence anyway.

And TRUE (or TRVE) science is what creationists say it is?What a joke!I've advised you before, stay far away from science. You simply aren't qualified.

Not so, we know exactly what you are qualified for--by reading hundreds of your posts.You feel you can pick and choose among various fields all of which use the scientific method based on whether or not you like the results.And your posts are a horrible mix of misunderstanding, misrepresentation, denial, obfuscation, and anti-science mumbo-jumbo, mixed liberally with things you just make up. Collectively, your posts are just about the opposite of what science really is.I'd sooner discuss science with a first grader--at least they are capable of learning.

Welcome!You have come to the right place, as a number of us are very familiar with science.If you have questions about radiocarbon dating, please let me know and I'll try to answer them.

1. They claim there is a difference between "true" science and those "other" sciences.2. They refuse to accept the consistent results no matter what the evidence.3. They claim that radiometric dating is based on assumptions as if that was an automatic disqualification. Finally, they ask...4. "Were you there?" As if that was a valid challenge to huge amounts of evidence.In other words, all they need to do is fool themselves, which is apparently surprisingly easy for them to do.

You have mentioned the RATE study several times. Here are several reviews of that study:Assessing the RATE Project: Essay Review by Randy Isaac:
Assessing the RATE ProjectDo the RATE Findings Negate Mainstream Science?:
Softwaremonkey - Menang Judi Slot Online Memakai Trik Tersembunyi Part 1
Softwaremonkey - Menang Judi Slot Online Memakai Trik Tersembunyi Part 2RATE’s Radiocarbon: Intrinsic or Contamination? by Kirk Bertsche:
RATE's Radiocarbon - Intrinsic or Contamination?RATE (Radioactivity and the Age of The Earth): Analysis and Evaluation of Radiometric Dating:
RATE and Age of the Earth - Radiometric DatingA Dialogue about RATE:
RATE Dialogue - in PSCF (March 2008)From the first of these reviews:

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. The only new data provided in this book are in the category of additional details and there are no significantly new claims.

​

In this book, the authors admit that a young-earth position cannot be reconciled with the scientific data without assuming that exotic solutions will be discovered in the future. No known thermodynamic process could account for the required rate of heat removal nor is there any known way to protect organisms from radiation damage. The young-earth advocate is therefore left with two positions. Either God created the earth with the appearance of age (thought by many to be inconsistent with the character of God) or else there are radical scientific laws yet to be discovered that would revolutionize science in the future. The authors acknowledge that no current scientific understanding is consistent with a young earth. Yet they are so confident that these problems will be resolved that they encourage a message that the reliability of the Bible has been confirmed.

I think if I were you I'd be hesitant to put too much reliance on the claims made about this study, and read carefully what they actually found.They spent over a million dollars of creationist money and found that science was correct all along--and then refused to accept their own findings.

The main finding made by the RATE boys is that scientists were right about radiometric dating.They refused to believe it, of course.

The data that came from their work supported what science has found. Their interpretation of that data was that the bible was right all along. You clearly are avoiding their actual data and going with their interpretation. Perhaps you should become familiar with their actual data? We know that. I wouldn't doubt that some here have helped to prove things in old textbooks false. To turn this around, if you can't follow the data where it leads you are NOT a scientist. You are simply a fundamentalist. And we have seen that creationists like data about as much as vampires like garlic. Creationists typically ignore, misrepresent, or obfuscate any data that gets in the way of their chosen beliefs. So no, we don't look to creationists to tell us how to do science. The topic is the validity of radiometric dating. So far you have offered no evidence that radiometric dating is not accurate. Don't you think it is about time you tried to do so?One of my special areas is radiocarbon dating. A couple of other posters here are very familiar with that as well. Care to present your evidence that radiocarbon dating is inaccurate?

Creationists' claims about the validity of radiocarbon dating have been shown to be unfounded.We have tree-ring sequences in a couple of areas that go back beyond the young-earth claims, and other annular data (corals, ice cores, lake cores, speleothems, etc.) that go back even farther--and all of the various annular data, relying on vastly different materials, are in close agreement.Right there we have solid evidence that radiocarbon dating in particular and radiometric dating in general are accurate, and that creationists and their faith-based claims are inaccurate.So why do you keep trying to pretend this is not the case?