Carbon dating flaws examples
( "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.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.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 .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?Some of us have lost more information than others, that's why some are at Harvard, but others, more unfortunate, [the same] age struggle with debilitating genetic degenerative diseases like Lupus, MS, ALS, Crohn's and many other autoimmune diseases.The keys of which are locked in the "vault of degeneration knowledge" that evolutionists are unwilling to open for fear that we creationists might be correct." Jack Cuozzo 3/02 Antarctic seawater has a low level of C14.
A lake Bonney seal known to have died only a few weeks before was carbon dated.As time progressed each would begin to acquire its slower modern-day stable half-life, but would they all acquire these stable rates in a uniformity which would keep them all in synchrony? If they did, all would give the same ages, you are right.Each would probably arrive at equilibrium at different times.Carbon dating makes an animal living 4 thousand years ago (when there was less atmospheric carbon) appear to have lived thousands of years before it actually did.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.