In the flood thread we have the following:
Coyote writes:
And what scientific evidence would you use to dispute the time frame?
ICANT writes:
The assumptions you have to use to begin with.
I would like to use radiocarbon dating as the main subject, as that's the one I'm most familiar with.
The primary assumption in radiocarbon dating that all organisms contained the same amount of C14 when they died. As atmospheric levels of C14 vary with cosmic radiation, and initial amounts of C14 can vary by a few percent, we need to calibrate our dates, and this is done quite successfully via tree-rings, varves and other annular data.
Another assumption is that the decay constant is and has been constant. There's no evidence to show that this is not correct.
And those seem to be all of the important assumptions!
I've seen creationists' lists with up to nine assumptions that they argue make radioactive dating inaccurate, but for radiocarbon dating those are the main assumptions we rely on.
Now, the job for ICANT and other creationists is to show that these assumptions lead to huge errors in radiocarbon dating. Simple denial is not good enough.
A good basic reference for those who are not yet familiar with the subject:
Answers to Creationist Attacks on Carbon-14 Dating
Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein
In the name of diversity, college student demands to be kept in ignorance of the culture that made diversity a value--StultisTheFool
It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers
If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle
If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1
"Multiculturalism" demands that the US be tolerant of everything except its own past, culture, traditions, and identity.