Why do creationists and christian fundies misrepresent carbon dating..?

Question

ALL methods of measurement have KNOWN limits, and mainstream science doesn't measure things outside of these limits.
However creationist pseudo scientists are known to have dishonestly used carbon dating outside of these known limits, or in inappropriate circumstances, in an attempt to seek flaws, limits and misrepresent mainstream science, where such methods are not even used by mainstream scientists.
This is very dishonest of them, and such decietful endevours are easily exposed.

There are many methods other than carbon dating, and there are many methods of carbon dating. When a number of different and independant dating methods are cross referenced and they corroberate, the age is VERIFIED. Now re-read this paragraph.

Creationists must therefore believe that ALL independant dating methods must be flawed if they ALL corroberate, and somehow amazingly ALL independant methods must be EQUALLY flawed if they ALL corroberate.
How could they possibly explain this..?

Nickname, have you even bothered to read the other replies..?
The lastly read your reply and tell me if it seems scientifically illiterate, full of denial, and rather ignorant by comparison..?

Jack and Sticks, the same applies to both of you..
You offer no more than uninformed opinions and mountains of denial and ignorance.
You'll both have to do better than that..

4Him, do you see pretty colours everywhere..?

Judy, well clearly you must be equally well versed in the chronological sciences in order to KNOW where they are flawed, is is this just your ininformed opinion..?
The science behind dating methods is freely available for you or anyone else to evaluate and scruitinise, then maybe you could offer an INFORMED opinion, instead of just shooting blanks from the hip..

Jack, you're the one making these claims of assumptions, so go ahead and list exactly what they are, then I can respond to each claim of each one of the alleged assumptions..
Over to you..

Cybertothedcat, your argument is flawed, as you have conveniently and dishonestly omited that a number of independant dating techniques are used and cross referenced to see if they corrobrate. When they do the conclusion is VERIFIABLE.

Why seek the lack of knowledge and embrace ignorance as your standpoint, when VERIFIABLE science is freely there for your enlightenment..?

Jack, being as scientifically illiterate as you are, not surprisingly you have made a number of incorrect statements and false assumptions.
Whether by deciet or ignorance you are perpetrating flasehoods and lies..

First of all, in reality science describes that the sun and other stars are well known to have varying rates of activity throughout their life cycles, secondly rates of decay are intrisic, not linked to external sources of radioactivity like the sun.

Also science does NOT describe an unchanging atmosphere throughout Earths history. So far you have been very wrong, if not VERY DISHONEST.

Science describes how Earths magnetic fields [polarity] have indeed changed numerous times. There is a plethora of evidence for this.
Wrong again, or another dishonest misrepresentation..?

Science does NOT describe that volcanic activity has been constant, in fact the opposite, where the early Earth was extremely active volcanically.

Very dishonest response Jack.. Why..?

Jack, don't you get it..?
These "assumptions" that you allege are YOUR ASSUMPTIONS... They are NOT in any way representative of mainstream scientific principles and descriptions of the natural world..
You are IN DENIAL Jack..
You are dishonestly misrepresenting mainstream science, and the techniques used in dating.
What you call assumptions, are not only incorrect, but the science behind dating techniques is well understood, and the limits of plausability are well known and taken into account. Science is a very difficult environment in which to make "assumptions" and false claims, due to peer review and harsh scruitiny to seek VERIFIABILITY.
Let it go Jack, all you can do is offer more denial, and expose your lack of "mainstream" scientific knowledge..

Answer 1

The leaders that know better lie about it so that they can retain control over their flock. And continue to fleece them.

The followers do not have the education to follow the arguments. They know what they believe is true, so anything that supports their preconceptions is accepted at face value, anything that challenges those preconceptions gets handwaved away.

Answer 2

Scientists will tell you that there are many variables to consider in such science as Carbon Dating. Many factors enacting on the sample being tested must be taken into consideration. For example: Weather and temperature affect the dating process, whether the sample being tested was discovered above ground or beneath the surface. Exposure to moisture and freezing are critical in determining the correct age of the sample being tested. These factors and many other factors must be taken into consideration and a "Best Guess" is used for determining the influence the factors had on the sample provided. This "Best Guess" more commonly referred to as an "Educated Guess" is where the error lies. Since no one was around to see how these factors enacted on the sample being tested, a Best Guess is the only way to fill in the missing data needed to come to a proper conclusion. Any scientist will agree with this statement. There is no science available to mankind that can accurately take into account all variables and give a correct date. Much conjecture goes into these dating processes and that is why they are unreliable.

Answer 3

Carbon dating is based on a number of assumptions. It is hard to misrepresent something which is in its nature unscientific (meaning cannot be verified in the lab).

___
It's not my fault you don't like what I have said above. No need to be abrasive with me about it. Instead, tell me why carbon dating is NOT based on a number of assumptions.

___
Ok. As you wish. These only some of the assumptions made when relying on carbon dating:

- The activity of the Sun has always been constant throughout the history of the earth (This affects the amount of cosmic radiation the earth is exposed to.) This cannot be verified.

- The earth's atmosphere has always been the same as today (Again affecting cosmic radiation.). This too cannot be verified.

- The earth's magnetic field has not changed throughout it's history. You guessed it. This also cannot be verified.

- The amount of volcanic activity on the earth surface has always been the same as it is today. Here again we cannot verify it.

There are many more, but these will suffice for now. Once again, even by using other radiometric methods, what you can measure with great accuracy is the concentration of isotopes, not dates. Try to get used to these facts.

I will tell you one more thing. When samples are sent to the labs to carbon date them, the technicians first inquire about which approximate date range are the results to be expected in, which is the same as saying, what date do you want? Call it sophisticated technology. Call it a profession, but don't call it science of verifying dates.

___
You can call me dishonest if you like, it doesn't bother me. By doing so you would be merely making another assumption as you have no way of knowing. But I do suggest you read what I've written above more carefully. I was not listing facts, but a number of assumptions that carbon dating is based on. The fact remains that these are the assumptions we are dealing with here. You yourself have confirmed that science cannot verify these things. I don't perpetrate lies as you imply, but merely wish to clarify common misunderstandings. Measuring concentration of isotopes is science, translating it into dates is not.

Answer 4

Are you really asking a question or just complaining? It's ok to vent.

By the way, how many times are we suppose to reread the second to last paragraph. I'm just asking because everytime I got to the end of that paragraph it said to reread it again. I thought maybe after you read it so many times something would jump out of my computer at me and scream real loud.

Good luck with your carbon dating...

But honestly, unless there is someone who has lived a 100 billion years you can't be sure of anything.

I could have 10 clocks and earse the one hour and write 1 million years. I could do this to several clocks and they all would corelate. What I am getting at maybe the reference point is wrong... but honestly there is no reference point. There is no control... which any scientific experiment has to have a control. Therefore all the methods can corelate, but if they all have a false referrence point they can all be wrong.

Answer 5

My area of interest is History, not science. So, I don't "misrepresent" anything i don't understand. However, I have read that carbon dating is used when dating artifacts from archaelogical sites which can, obviously, only substantiate claims made by Christians concerning the piecing together of biblical history.
Any Christian who would misrepresent some method that could only help their claims and beliefs about their own spiritual heritage should be flogged in the public square Quasimodo style.

Answer 6

Your calculation related to the quantity of water and temp. is incorrect. needless to say, falling water can't be heated to 2700 stages as you declare. once you employ the mind-blowing kinetic capability formula decrease than, you will locate the water temp. could basically upward thrust 7.40 stages C. The relation between kinetic capability and momentum is greater complicated subsequently, and is given by ability of the equation: E_k = sqrt{p^2 c^2 + m^2 c^4} - m c^2. this could additionally be bigger as a Taylor series, the 1st term of that's the easy expression from Newtonian mechanics. What this shows is that the formula for capability and momentum are actually not particular and axiomatic, yet extremely recommendations which emerge from the equation of mass with capability and the concepts of relativity.

Answer 7

Dear FSM if I only knew the earth isnt dated with carbon. Lead and other elements decay on the scale needed to make most of the claims about the earths age.

Answer 8

I answered a question earlier today from somebody who tried to say that the shroud of Turin had been carbon dated to the first century B.C. No, no it has not. The earliest known record of this shroud was in the 13th century, and it was dated to the early 14th century.

EDIT: Anybody who does not believe carbon dating to be accurate, or does not know how it's done, please read this Wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dating

It is very accurate, because it uses naturally occuring carbon molecules.

Answer 9

They can't. They simply postulate it, and then use the incorrect claims to justify incorrect conclusions. Since carbon dating has been calibrated against tree ring dates going back about 6,000 years, it is the most precise dating technique available -- if properly done.

Answer 10

I'm not sure it's REALLY intentional, I just think it's subconsciously seeing what they want to see. Non-scientist creationists look at data and look at data, ignoring whatever doesn't correspond with their views, because it must be wrong, then, when they finally see something that seems like it fits in with their views, they spread it around. Others then buy into the spreading and it becomes new "educational material".