Assumptions involved in scientific dating

The production rate is important because we cannot do dating without establishing that the C14/C12 ratio was when the object died or otherwise stop exchanging carbon with the atmosphere. You cannot just ignore the production rate and the production history for that matter.

Or, for example the group known as Amphibolites are metamorphic and would contain a lot of different minerals recrystallising or not (therefore setting the clock back to zero at different depths and temperatures) at different times. It would thus be expected to find a wide variety of dates when trying to date Amphibolites. Just ask any geochronologist!You do need to know something about rocks when trying to determine the age of rocks. Something a lot of people in the world seem to lack, yet think they know it all after reading a creationist piece.Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.

Not really. Unless the crazy electric universe folk can show that their fields selectively effect ¹⁴C and ¹²C differently the ratios would still be the same.

Joe Meert has a great page on this very thing. By plotting the age of these crystals and their closure temperatures you can create a cooling curve, a record of the cooling history of that rock: Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

The effect is well documented, known, and compensated for. It's been discussed here on any number of occasions.

So, if I understand correctly, the point you were trying to make is that there are people on the internet who say radiometric dating is unreliable.On this, I think, we are all in agreement.Did you have anything else to discuss?

You need to read the previous post.. I was being facetious. Lol.

The EU, Answers in Genesis, Reasons to Believe, and other organizations have scientist working for them. Where they publish may be important to some but not to everyone. And what they publish is the gravity of importance NOT where they publish (yes peers need to be able to review it obviously). The peer review practice is obvious piece of the practice of publishing in order to draw attention but also to provide feedback. If you actually look into any of the organizations noted they all have conferences, peer reviews etc substantiating and arguing claims. The EU is 1 of the many organizations (not actually an organization but it is organized with many PhD holding scientists such as the late Halton Arp) with peer review. Some here seem to only pay attention to conventional gravitational based sciences. I'm pointing out in the world of science which is not limited to conventional Science, all dating practices from chemical to using redshift are disputed. It is NOT just creationist argument and ideas, it is also others within the scientific community like the EU. Keep in mind the EU is evolutionist generally such as Walton Thornhill (disputing dating), reasons to believe is creationist (supporting) such as Hugh Ross but they support dating methods. So you have evolutionist in EU disputing dating methods and you have creationist supporting them... Edited by DOCJ, : 🤔Edited by DOCJ, : 🤔Edited by DOCJ, : 🤣

How do geologists calculate the amount of the parent/and daughter chemicals in the Rock at creation? They just presume the daughter was the p and suggest it decayed ? I would think that is overly simplified. I wouldn't be able to presume a rock over billions of years had didn't have contamination or didn't change over all that time... Or that 0 daughter was present at creation. We don't even have a good understanding of the universe without doubts. Where it actually came from without doubts.. How it is actually functioning without doubts.. We don't actually know space has an ability to be curved without doubts.. atmospheric refraction can explain light traveling around a planet, or intrinsic properties can explain star light.. Edited by DOCJ, : 🤔Edited by DOCJ, : ErEdited by DOCJ, : 😁Edited by DOCJ, : Clarification

"Scientist" is a title. Not everything a scientist does is science. If what someone is "doing" is not a process of investigation by testing hypotheses based on observation and data collecting, and then rejecting, modifying, or correcting those hypotheses in a manner in which their work is reviewable by other scientists, then they are not doing science.If you want to point to specific work done by those organizations, then let's discuss it. But nobody is going to accept your claim that a scientist, who may not even be working in his field of expertise, is doing science because of their title. Show us the work.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Please refer to my previous post before responding.. you wasted your time. 1 comment, Halton Arp showed red shift does not point to Inflation, distance, etc. This does effect dating. He is 1 tiny example. My main point is in the scientific community these issues including chemical dating are being debated. ArpEdited by DOCJ, : Link

Within the scientific community there is no dispute or debate concerning radiocarbon dating. Take a look through the professional literature.The "controversy" comes from creationists and creationist websites that lie to you. Because of religious beliefs they can't accept the results of radiocarbon and other dating methods, so they do their best to fool both themselves and their followers, as well as anyone else gullible enough to fall for their lies. The "controversy" is entirely between unevidenced religious beliefs on one hand and science on the other. Unlike religion, science relies on evidence and testing that evidence and has a pretty fine track record. That's why, of course, creationists tried to steal the good name of science with their phony creation "science."So your claim that radiocarbon dating "is being debated" is false. It is being disputed for religious reasons; believers are trying their best to pick it apart, but they have failed utterly. The reason is that radiocarbon dating is accurate and works as advertised.

You obviously didn't read much of the page.Edited by DOCJ, : Clarification

I am familiar with Arp's work. Yes, Arp is a scientist and did scientific work. But Arp's work is not the be all and end all. His results were peer-reviewed, his analysis debunked and his results discarded long ago.So no, Arp hasn't shown what you claim. You are citing Arps's interpretation of his data but the more recent data shows clearly that Arp was wrong. If you'd like to discuss this in a fuller fashion, I'm game. But as of 2007 or so, there is no credible evidence for quantized red shifts and no indication that known large red shift values are associated with nearby objects. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

The EU/Thunderbolts project is a organization filled with PhD degrees in physicists and the like (Thornhill, Arp) that are evolutionists disputing dating methods. And Creationist supporters like at Reasons to Believe with NASA astronomers like Hugh Ross support dating methods... What are you talking about??Edited by DOCJ, : ErEdited by DOCJ, : ErEdited by DOCJ, : ErrEdited by DOCJ, : 🤣🤣🤣🤣Edited by DOCJ, : ErrEdited by DOCJ, : Clarification