Carbon 14 dating is the conspiracy in itself!

The scientific community, mostly Neo-Darwinsits need to find a better way to date things than this faulty system. Radioactive dating methods is the "trunk" of the support structure of the Neo-Darwinists.

First some history on Carbo 14 dating. Will Libby made this system of dating by using Carbon 14 a radioactive isotope of Carbon 12. His theory is 14 starts decomposition as soon as it forms at a half life rate of 5700 years. When organisms die, it stops taking 14 from the atmosphere and land while 12 still sticks around. Libby states that organisms have the same proportions of 12 as 14. So basically you can deduce how old something is by looking at the proportions of 14 to 12.

Well Libby made a huge and IMO non-scientific assumption that the total amount 14 in the atmosphere had remained the same over time itself.

Researchers Lingenfelter (Review of Geo-Physics),Suess (Journal of Geophysical Research) ,Switzer (Science), and Cook (Creation Research Society Quarterly) , all independent scientists conclude that 14 to 12 proportions are indeed rising. Cook states that 14 is increasing 38% faster than it is decaying.

Now if the levels of 14 are increasing the amount of 14 in animals it had before it died would be higher aswell. This would then in turn cause test samples to appear younger than they are, causing massive inaccurate data.

Carbon dating system can't be used anyways after 57K years because after 10 half-lives, very little 14 would be left to examine.

Get out there to the people and tell them the truth of this flawed dating method. People do need the truth, and they need to stop trying to force feed false methods!

I know people try to explain, to the best to our abilities what is what. All will be revealed at the end by our Creator.

[Edited on 5-15-2004 by Cearbhall]

Well, we don't use C14 dating after 57000 years. So there is not problem with that.

C14 is callibrated using ice layers, tree rings and stalagmite growth. These show that the C14 in the atmosphere was not always the same. The dating method was adapted to work with these numbers. (source):

Unlike long-term radiometric dating methods, radiocarbon relies on knowing the fraction of radioactive carbon-14 in the atmosphere at the time the object being dated was alive. The production of carbon-14 by cosmic rays was up to a factor of about two higher than at present in the timescales over which radiocarbon can be used. Data for the last 11,800 years comes from tree-ring counting, while the data beyond that age comes from other sources, such as from a carbonate stalagmite for the data shown here. The bottom panel shows the offset in
uncalibrated ages caused by this change in atmospheric composition. Tree-ring data are from Stuiver et al.,
Radiocarbon 40, 1041-1083, 1998; stalactite data are from Beck et al., Science 292, 2453-2458, 2001.

(...)

Uncalibrated radiocarbon ages underestimate the actual ages.

From what I've read, it works fine, and agrees with other tests. It is, as amantine rightly said, only good for going so far back in time.

I have read that the carbon in the atmoshpere is increasing, and that it is because of deforrestation, but I can't see how this would permeate through all matter to ruin the carbon dating of old objects. If this is true or not, I don't personally know, obviously.

Have you got lonks to any papers on this? I'd be interested to read them.

>>All will be revealed at the end by our Creator.

What the heck does SimonGray know about carbon dating? (j/k)

"Oh no, he's a neo-darwinist!"

Way to 'nazi-tag' us scientists buddy.

Sorry, that was just way too tempting..

That'll be my first name-line when I get it,

'Neo-Darwinist'

[Edited on 16-5-2004 by Viendin]

Agreed, Viendin - I wonder if we can buy buttons and stickers? Or a "Don't Mess With Me - I'm A Neo-Darwinist!" T-Shirt?

How about a bumper sticker which says "My other car hasn't evolved yet"?

Okay, enough. My real point was that C14 dating is works perfectly for what it is - just because it can't instantly provide accurate dating information for every single artefact in the world doesn't mean that it's invalid.

Get out there to the people and tell them the truth of this flawed dating method. People do need the truth, and they need to stop trying to force feed false methods!

But how eagerly C14 dating would be adopted by the religious community if it proved their case...

Dispassionate assessment of the facts is what's needed, Cearbhall, not routine dismissal of anything which contradicts christian dogma.

It has a cool ring to it I think "Neo-Darwinist".

Z,
You could read :

"The Journal of Geophysical Research 70:5947" Dec 1965 ed.
"Science 157:726" Aug 1967 ed.
"Review of Geophysics 1:51" Feb 1963

I'm sure the library has these still.

A really cool book to read is "Shattering the Myths of Darwinism" by Richard Milton.