Carbon-14: A Scientifically Proven Dating Method?

Well I did advise you to look into the facts, so we must include that either you have arrogantly refused to do so - assuming that the facts have to agree with your beliefs or that you know that much of what you have written is false.For a start considerable work has gone into calibrating carbon dating. The scientists who use carbon dating KNOW that the ratio of C14 to C12 is NOT constant, because the cosmic ray bombardment that produces C14 is not constant. Changes in the production rate cause changes in the ratio. So the scientists have used objects of known date - most importantly wood samples dated by dendrochronology to determine the actual ratios in the past. This goes back around 10,000 years.
Other methods - while not as reliable (such as using material retrieved from varves) - have pushed the period for which we have got a good idea of he C14/C12 ratio even further back.Your various speculatiosn are therefore already refuted.As for the "embarassments"
1) Contamination frequently produces measurements arounfd the limits of the techniques in use. This accounts for those "errors'2) The marine carbon reservoir has a lower C14/C12 ratio than the atmosphere. Any life that derives a significant amount of it's carbon from the marine reservoir will appear to be too old if it is dated wihtout taking that into account.So none of your "embarassments" are a problem at all.I note also that you do not supply dates with your references. Is it because they are old and you wish to conceal that fact ? Or because you obtained them from a secondary source which did not give the dates either ? If the latter it would be better to admit that you have not read the original and that you found the material somewhere else.

I note that you have not truly dealt with the rebuttals to your "embarrassments". True the "dates" do not change but they result from misapplications of the method and so do not reflect on the accuracy of the method when applied to more appropriate material.Ever worse is your claim concerning equilbirium which ignores the points that have been raised. The fact is that we have measurements which are certainly more than 30,000 years old and older which disprove the idea that the Earth is too young to have reached equilibrium. It also ignores the fact that variations in the production rate will cause fluctuations, preventing the atmosphere from reaching a stable equilbirium. (It also ignores the effects of nuclear weapons tests in raising the level of C14 but this has not been raised in the thread).The lack of response to the quote from Robert Lee is probably due to the lack of context. Which dates was he talking about ? And what was the level of error ? We can't tell from the quote. Without the full context there is nothing to discuss.

YOur argument has already been answered (see my posts 4 and 15).As I point out there are good reasons NOT to expect equilibrium (which relies on a constant production rate - which would not be the case even if humans weren't messing about with the carbon levels by burning fossil fuels and exploding nuclear devices).Moreover the calibrations done to date refute the claim that the Earth is less than 30,000 years old.So your argument relies on false assumptions and has been empiricially disproven.Morevover since the relevant facts have been already raised in this thread you are just repeating an assertion that has already been dealt with without answering the criticisms raised. THat is not a worthwhile response and is not discussing in good faith as is expected in this forum.