Radiocarbon dating is accurate for dates ranging Sexy cam chat
A great book on the flaws of dating methods is "Radioisotopes and the age of the earth" (edited by Larry Vardiman, Andrew Snelling, Eugene F. Published by Institute for Creation Research; December 2000) Dating methods are based on 3 unprovable and questionable assumptions: 1) That the rate of decay has been constant throughout time. That the isotope abundances in the specimen dated have not been altered during its history by addition or removal of either parent or daughter isotopes 3) That when the rock first formed it contained a known amount of daughter material ("Radioisotopes and the age of the earth" pg v) We must recognize that past processes may not be occurring at all today, and that some may have occurred at rates and intensities far different from similar processes today.
( "Radioisotopes and the age of the earth" pg vii) To know if carbon dating is accurate, we would have to know how much carbon was in the atmosphere in the beginning, and also how long it has been increasing, or decreasing. It's like trying to figure out how long a candle has been burning, without knowing the rate at which it burns, or its original size.
They ignore evidence that does not fit their preconceived notion.
What would happen if a dinosaur bone were carbon dated?
This date did not fit the preconceived notion that dinosaurs lived millions of years ago. They do this many times, using a different dating method each time.
The results can be as much as 150 million years different from each other! They then pick the date they like best, based upon their preconceived notion of how old their theory says the fossil should be .
The age they came back with was only a few thousand years old. And kept their theory that dinosaurs lived "millions of years ago" instead. They then use potassium argon, or other methods, and date the fossils again.
So they start with the assumption that dinosaurs lived millions of years ago, then manipulate the results until they agree with their conclusion. So why is it that if the date doesn't fit the theory, they change the facts?
Unbiased science changes the theory to support the facts.
See my commentary on Genesis 3 verse 17 "..cursed is the ground for your sake" When this happened there was a burst of radioactity that made the rocks appear older than they were.
Wouldn't this make all the rocks appear the same age?