Creationist problems with radiocarbon dating

I think you are hurtling towards a cliff of your own making. There are a number of things offered as reasons for radioactive decay rates (or accumulation rates in the case of C14) being different. One answer I've seen offered in these forums are differences in conditions after the flood rather than post-Fall. In any event, I would never attempt to rebut creationists claims by arguing directly that decay rates should have been lower instead of higher pre-Fall because the world was "perfect" pre-Fall.I cannot remember anyone citing in evidence that decay rates have changed. What we have seen is a number of excuses for why there is no evidence.As for the speed of light changing, the "evidence" for such a thing is based on cherry picking old speed of light determinations, ignoring the uncertainty associated with those old measurements, and some sleight of hand bordering on lying to remove data points that suggest that the speed of light is actual increasing. And also a change in energy of the emitted particle, something for which we have evidence has not occurred over hundreds of millions of years. See the thread on Uranium halos in this same forum.

I didn't say the speed of light was increasing. My point was that one could cherry pick some speed of light measurements and do a faulty analysis leading to that result. Such a theory would not be consistent with observations of SN1987A unless that change was more than 168,000 years ago. Is there some point in speculating that the speed of light was greater than the current value at some time earlier than that? There is no subsequent increase in the speed of light in a vacuum.

Probably no point in asking this, but what kind of evidence for anything on a planetary scale could you possible see in Australia?ABE:Obviously if something happened on a global scale, then it also happened in Australia, but what would constitute evidence that something seen in Australia alone was a planet wide event? Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

You might try translating the English text back to Russian before posting. If the re-translated Russian text does not make sense, then don't put it on the forum.

The reason nobody can address your question is that we have yet to see a post containing anything we can understand that challenges a date obtained through carbon dating. Perhaps you can make an attempt to communicate the specifics of some age obtained by carbon dating that you believe to be wrong.Let's also remember that dates obtained by carbon dating are of necessity less than 50,000 years in the past. No scientist claims carbon dating to be of any use for measuring ages greater than that.

I yield.

You could not be more wrong. Most of the participants here really enjoy debating this stuff. Unfortunately, holding a conversation with you is entirely too difficult to be enjoyable.

What event are we describing using a date result of 50 billion years, or even 20 billion years? Aren't those values greater than the current age of the entire universe? (ducking head before you know who shows up...)

Working scientists spend essentially no time and energy worrying about what creationists do or say. There is no scientific debate about whether the earth is only 6000 years old.