If true, would this also change carbon dating?

…|…
If this site was true/,… then wouldn’t carbon dating also be affected???
godandscience.org/apologetics/longlife.html

I don’t understand how this would affect carbon dating. :unamused:

What does Noah’s longer life span have to do with carbon dating?

A different enviorment and atmosperic pressure and less radiationg all could effect carbon. After all energy is, is the equalling of opposites. So if the equalling force is subdated by enviorment, then it should be relative to the enviorment it is in.

Please route that back to the patriarchs. Are you saying Noah wasn’t really that old, but only lived in different conditions?

Carbon dating isn’t really affected by sun cycles or things like this because it’s approximate, and intended for telling age in the very long-term. It would average out. 2,000 years isn’t long ago in this case.

Exactly,… people aged differently under different conditions.

So there is nothing that can change carbon datting?? Not even the evolotion of enviorment??? I believe dionasaurs were so big because enviorment promoted it. If their same DNA was in effect today, they would be dwarfed from spacific lackings. So why wouldn’t carbon dating be subjective to slow enviormental changes???

Your use of only 8 “patriarchs” is insufficient evidence to support the notion that “carbon dating must change”. Even if it were true, big woop that only 8 people lived that long. And a shit load of water, which contains only hydrogen and oxygen, would not affect the amount of carbon within fossils.

Carbon is not the only element that is used in dating fossils either. There is also lead, potassium and uranium radioactive decay measurements that can be more accurate.

Also, dating by radioactive decay is not used to determine how old something was when it died. It is used to determine how long ago the death of it occurred.

By the way what source is the data from your graph pulled from?

Enviormental changes? Well, if the sun was in a different stage of it’s life, or the ozone was thicker or thinner. That’s about it.

so there is nothing that promotes or limits decay???

That’s pretty presumptious. How does decay work?

Do you mean decay or carbon-dating?

do I mean what causes the things that we measure?

You don’t know do you. You just take them for granteed that they always were and always will be. Yet they obvious aren’t what you assume.

You lost me.

If you want to assume I’m an idiot for not knowing how to decypher what you are talking about, I’m not the idiot.

The factors that have been known to cause error in radio carbon dating are already accounted for, using alternative dating methods, or using a differing known isotope with a greater half life.

References:

home.tiac.net/~cri/1999/c14hist.html

acad.carleton.edu/curricular … gBack.html

science.howstuffworks.com/carbon-14.htm

Science/empiricism trumps theism/metaphysics almost unilaterally.

Scientific geology was founded on the idea that:
“the present is the key to the past.” “the past history of our globe must be explained by what can be seen to be happening now.” -James Hutton

We have to start out by assuming that things operated basically the same in the past as they do today, otherwise we could come up with any theory as simply say that is how things worked in the past.

Not entirely. They do take ice core samples from Antarctica to find subtle fluctuations in carbon 14 and carbon 12 %composition over past eras and build those into the calculations (along with tree ring properties as well.)

Heat and pressure affect everything. What if this was considered a constant when it obviously couldn’t be a constant.

Heat and pressure would be factored in if they had an impact on the accuracy of the measurements. I’m not an expert on carbon dating, so you should look for a relatively recent textbook to know the intricacies of their fine-tuning.

lol i got what you were and according to the second source provided by Mastriani, your theory may be correct, and also it does make since that since humans dont live long enough to measure and actually see the half life of carbon 14 that it may not be correct, and also who is to say that once it reaches a certain point that it doesnt start to decay faster