Phil stop breathing…I need the oxygen you are wasting to power my body and think.
somethings stopping you. They sell cans of air in the energy drink section. 89% oxogen,… and then some flavoring and some kind of energy. 10$ a can.
It is important to note that what is being measured with these various methods is not the age of the rocks, but rather the “ratio of two elements”. There is currently no method available which can show how old the earth is.
But the geologic processes being observed today have not always operated at the same rate. For example, “fluids in motion take the path of least resistance” is a scientific fact. This is true with a small stream, a river, or an oceanic volume of water. The tenet your referring to is called “Uniformitarianism”. It has been contrasted with “Catastrophism”. Uniformitarianism must be viewed as telling scientist how they must behave and not as telling nature how it must behave.
Since carbon-14 is produced by cosmic radiation acting on nitrogen atoms in the atmosphere, any change in the amount of cosmic radiation would alter the carbon-14 : carbon-12 ratio and thus lead to false radiocarbon dates.
Some creationists believe that the loss of lifespan after Noah’s Flood is due to a build-up of genetic mutations that came with an increase in cosmic radiation that had previously been blocked by a canopy of water vapor that had surrounded the earth. This water canopy contributed to the Flood and thus was gone after the Flood.
I recently ran across a (non-Creationist/ID) website that explained how radiocarbon tests have to be done under standardized conditions because things like temperature and atmospheric pressure will alter the decay rate of carbon-14. Now, if these things are not a constant standard in nature, how can radiocarbon be reliable?
Take a leap of faith, homeboy. Your faith is not reconcilable with science, and, further, you should not wish it to be - such would constitute knowledge and not faith and you would not be saved if you knew.
Your insulting tone is not suitable for a discussion of science matters.
Please be civil or give me the courtesy of not wasting my time with your replies.
Is it not a valid point? You attack the style - not the substance.
It wouldn’t matter if you did get the information from a “pro-Creationist/ID” website. The method either works or it doesn’t.
If carbon 14 dating is not reliable then it’s not reliable regardless of the motivation of the people making the claim.
Example: If a measuring device such as an electronic volt/amp meter was broken or designed wrong and an engineer, who happened to be a Muslim who faced Mecca when he prayed, proved that the meter was unreliable, it would be a fallacy to claim the faulty meter wasn’t really faulty on account of we think Islam is wrong.
Same thing with radio-metric dating. If some guys with doctorates in physics, who happen to believe, as a religious matter, that the earth is of a young age, and demonstrate “scientifically” that carbon-14 dating is unreliable, then it would be a fallacy to say carbon-14 dating was reliable because we didn’t like the religious beliefs of the engineers.