Your response to RATE research finding Carbon 14 and Helium throughout the geologic column?

Question

I am curious to know your response to the studies collected by the RATE group finding significant radioactive Carbon 14 in coal, zircons, and diamond samples at varying sedimentary levels in the geologic column?

Please do not make ignorant statements such as RATE scientists are cheating on the data they submitted, or these PhD scientists (geology, physicists, etc.) are not scientists and are ignorant because they are not specialists in chronology (i.e. evolutionists) but are Young Earth Creationists.

This question was asked before, but the answers were not correct. There should be NO Carbon 14 or Helium in fossil strata older than 50 thousand years. But Carbon 14 and helium is always found. It is also found in diamonds and zircons. It is assumed to be contamination, but this has never been proven. One comment was that at such small amounts of Carbon 14 mistakes could be made - wrong. It has been discovered that Carbon 14 is in such amounts that it is easily found. And with the new method of masspectrometer it is even easier to find. And these amounts do not indicate 50 thousand years which is their limit, but give dates of 35 thousand years or less showing ampel amounts. If it was not for evolutionary assumptions this would not be considered to be contamination. Also, when the dinosaur bones were tested, the matrix was also tested. And the further from the bone the clay was tested produced less and less Carbon 14, indicating the Carbon came from the bone, not the matrix.

Another comment was there are many other clocks that are more reliable than Carbon 14 like uranium to lead, potassium to argon, etc. Wrong, these methods are even less reliable than Carbon 14. When lava is dated using this method when the actual age is known, like lava from a known historical eruption hundreds of years old or decades, the results of radioactive dating not only produces different dates with each radioactive substance they all come out in millions of years old. And disagree with each other by millions of years for the same rock. And Carbon 14 does not come from uranium.

However, there are a lot of other "clocks" like salt accumulation and other minerals being added to the sea, dust accumulation from space on the moon, sediment acumulation in the ocean, the accumulation of helium in the atmosphere, other short lived radioactive isotopes, speed of erosion of water falls, speed of erosion of mountains, amount of desert varnish formed on rocks, deteriation of the magnetic field, shrinking of the sun; all of which give ages in thousands of years. Your comment: "Your assumption that rocks that are actually millions of years old should contain absolutely zero C-14 is not true, and the conclusions you're trying to draw from it conflicts with so much pre-existing data that there is no way for you to support your argument even if your erroneous assumption were true." Is a contradiction, predictions from evolution are, NO Carbon 14 should be found, if properly handled, but the fact is - it is found, and supports creation predictions. Your comment shows a bias.

Now that we have a few things straight, let's get down to some scientific unbiased answers, without evolutionary presuppositions.

Now and Then Comes: That is exactly what is happening. ICR's RATE scientific team's research is being ignored or slandered to prevent honest objective consideration. Your further comments indicate you are contradicting yourself. You claim they are a biased source. You have a point here, I have been in a similar situation on my resesarch, on human tracks found with dinosaur tracks. I came to determine what these ichnofossils were. I did not come to prove they were human tracks like some of my collegues, I did not come to prove they weren't human tracks like Glen Kuban. I kept my team members honest and scientific. The problem is you have not considered the fact that 98% of science is handled by biased evolutionists, and you object to a few biased creationists. Creationists are more honest than evolutionists, therefore more scientific. Lying is a sin. I'd rather have real facts support creation not fakes. All the evidence for evolution is a fraud - see the book, Icons of Evolution.

Your comment about the masspectrometer shows your bias and ignorance. Creation scientists do not have access to the huge amounts of money required for this type of research like evolutionists who sponge off the public, and are funded by the rich and powerful sometimes refered to as the Illuminati, who have New World Order political agendas and want to brain wash the public.

Reality Bites: The few million that Ken Ham and others get is not shared by most creation scientists. If I made a billionth of what one made I would be happy. While evolutionists get unlimited hundreds of millions from our tax dollars and rich political conspirators. ICR books have barely drawn even and are not best sellers. The Bible says that if you support the truth you will be persecuted. I know this from experience. You believe the lies the evolution conspiracy circulates. We are not doing this for the money. There is much more money in compromise like at Loma Linda University. That is why materialism always leads to Satanic results. Because science is run like other companies, try and start a new company to compete with Ford, or Dodge. They have a monopoly. Evolution has a monopoly on our society. The evidence In Icons of Evolution by Nathan Wells shows that if scientists were in any other business they would be put in jail for fraud! Check it out and see yourself, read the book.

Not exactly, creationists are less biased than evolutionists. If some human tracks found with dinosaurs are found to be misidentified the true creation scientist would admit it and go on to other research like I have done. I don't care if they are human or not, I want to know what they are and move on. But to evolutionists finding the tracks to be real human tracks would be disasterous. We are not worried that evolutionists will find proof of evolution because they have not done it and we believe they never will. For example missing links are missing because they don't exist. So when they find evidence we research it and find it is circumstantial evidence and we prove it. Most of us are honest because that is part of the Christian faith also. We want to find evidence, real evidence not fake evidence. Evolutionists are content to accept refuted evidence for biology textbooks. Even Stephen J. Gould admitted he knew some of the evidence was fake but blamed the text book publishers.

MNRLBoy says, "...but in fairness, you have probably been misinformed and I'm sure you are not trying to spread misinformation on purpose. Also, it is well known that C-14 does not come from uranium, and I'm not sure why you bring it up."

TimePonderer states: "It has been observed since the 1980's that radium 223 and 224 (by products of uranium-235 and thorium-232 decay) can emit carbon-14 nuclei. As you claim to be a scientist, I suggest you consult the scientific literature about this. I look forward to a demonstration of your scientific 'honesty'."

You two need to straighten this out.

Both of you seem knowledgable, but this in another method of talking over the head of the general public who does not understand, and hope they will say, I don't know what they said, but it sounds so scientific with all the scientese language they must be right.

Evolution has not been proven - it has simply been accepted as a fact. All evolutionists start with this conclusion.

RealityBites, but it is time you face reality, it is time that the foolish things of the world question the gods of this world. The only scientific fact of evolution is that it is never questioned. A scientist must look at nature and explain the origin of the cosmos from what he observes, and never believe in anything beyond the physical. If it cannot be touched, smelt, or seen it does not exist! This is a law of evolution science. And anyone who dares to question the Wizard of Oz must be frightened and ridiculed. It is a fact that all the so called proofs of evolution found in the biology and anthropology textbooks are frauds, hoaxes, failed experiments. Read Icons of Evolution by Biologist Nathan Wells for proof. True science questions everything! Observation shows that everything runs down that is the law of entropy Second law of thermodynamics, there are no proven links in the fossil record, design comes from intelligence, sediment is deposited by rapidly moving water.

You critics have given reasons for not trusting any form of radioactive dating, because there is no way to remove the assumed contamination. Of course, you did not address the facts like the decreasing Carbon 14 in the clay matrix around dinosaur bones. And I never said that Carbon 14 was a reliable method, only that it supports dating in thousands not millions of years. In fact, it dates them several thousand years older than we believe they are. You claim that the wide range of dates using different methods is unusual. You neglected to give all information. The dates which fit evolutionary speculation were produced by dating many samples, then when they fit preconceived theory they are accept as a fact. They assume by circular reasoning which is right. Archaeologist Dee Simpson dated Calico Early Man site using two methods which confirmed the date she assumed. But this date was not acceptable to other scientists, so they claimed that she had picked those dates, ignoring other dates.

If you don't believe what I believe, which is what the majority believes then you must be wrong? Since when has the majority been right? At one time they belived the earth was the center of the solar system, and you could fall off the edge of the earth, and there are monsters in far away places, man can never fly, and you can never go faster than 50 miles an hour. And at the first of the 20th Century they thought everything had been discovered. Oh, that's right they were ignorant. Well, they didn't think so at the time. Man is alwas blind to his own ignorance until he has hindsight. Isn't it curious that science keeps finding something new that changes theory. All evolutionary predictions about the planets have been proven wrong. Every prediction Darwin made has been proven wrong. We are still looking for the missing link in human evolution. I predict that we always will be. Every expert in every field of evolution has stated, that the link in their field was still missing. Wake up!

mnrlBoy: You ask for evidence for Carbon 14 results being other than contamination, but you ignored the fact I told you. And went on with your gobbledegoop suporting your speculation. The Carbon 14 found with a dinosaur bone was confirmed by finding C14 in the clay matrix less and less the further you get from the bone - proving the source was in the bone and NOT from contamination. Yes, I have been a member of evolution groups in archaeology, paleontology, and geology. No, they are NOT part of a conspiracy - they are the dupes. The conspirators are the Illuminati controlling the key positions in public information. OK, so uranium is a source of contamination - this fits creation predictions but not evolutionary predictions. It explains why Carbon 14 produces dates far too old. Creation predicts dates of 5 to 6 thousand, not 35 thousand. No, creationists believe Carbon 14 is NOT in equilibrium being upset by lack of radiation before the Flood produced mostly after the Flood.

You are right, but wrong. Scientists are unbiased when they do research - but they are told that all their conclusions must be naturalistic. Thus garbage in, garbage out. If they bring in God they are outside of science they are told. The definition of science is a naturalistic explanation of natural phenomenon, makes it a materialistic or atheistic philosophy. This creates a problem when it comes to anything that is real but cannot be observed. That is why the facts of science always support creation predictions, and always contradict evolutionary predictions. But instead if considering the possability of creation as an answer they are told it is pseudoscience and ridiculed. Or worse, put out of the scientific community establishment. So all professional establishment scientists must fit their conclusions to evolution theory. They are free to speculate and be scientific as long as long as it does not include the supernatural. Even if the conclusions are against observed facts.

Berean: Thank you for your support, but you are as wrong as the evolutionists. The Bible tells us facts, not religious myths like other religions. That is why facts are a witness that the Bible is the Word of Truth to the truth seeking unsaved. Satan did not make fossils, they are miracles of preservation. They are mineralized by the only element which can last almost forever - quartz a form of natural glass that does not deterorate. Nothing is being fossilized today like fossils were in the past. God preserved them as proof for those who seek the Truth. The Bible says that nature shows the handywork of God so that they are without excuse. It is only man's naturalistic blinders which keep him from seeing it. The Bible says that professing themselves wise, they became fools, believing in science falsely so called, even some Christians professing have fallen away from the truth and have turned to myths.

Answer 1

You're doing a fine job Jeremy. When the Bible says something, it is right. No matter how much "evidence" the Evilutionists can show you, it's all tricks of the Serpent. Even if they found every nissing link, it's not beyond the powers of deception the Evil One has for him to have put those fossils there to trick us into straying away from the Almighty.

Jeremy, abandon your hobby of playing with the dry old bones that are nothing but Satan's handiwork, on that path you will find ruin. Many have been led astray by gazing at those things. They are evil. It is inevitable the more you study them the more you become convinced of an ancient Earth older than God's creation.

I doubt carbon dating works any different than a ouija board. You shouldn't use it even to prove it wrong. You still comune with demons when you use them no matter how righteous your motives are.

But keep up the good work trying to bring people to Christ. If you have ANY other interest in fossils or such things, you are already falling into the Devil's clever trap! If you are a true believer though, you will see that God's own Word is powerful enough on its own. With it you don't have to try to prove Satan's work is wrong by following Satan's rules for proving whether his work is right or wrong

Answer 2

Saying RATE scientists are cheating on the data would only be an ignorant statement if it were said without being informed on the subject, much like it would be ignorant to claim they were being objective without being informed on that. I do know they are funded and a part of the Institute for Creation Research, which at the outset of everything they undertake places a requirement that only results which support a belief that the Bible is literal and absolutely correct will be considered, and in particular that only results that indicate an age of a few thousand years are valid in geochronology. Anything not consistent with their a priori conclusion is rejected outright, without being considered or even reported whatsoever.

The ICR has an agenda that has nothing to do with being objective about science. They exist solely to propagate belief that their particular interpretation of the Bible is the absolute authority. That is hardly the institution I would trust for objective and unbiased research.


Also, the comment about "the new method of masspectrometer" [sic] shows that these 'PhD scientists' are easily decades behind in technology and science in general if it is new to them. Or perhaps they are just charlatans trying to mislead laymen into following them, buying their video tapes and coffee table books, and helping spread their agenda so they can sell even more video tapes and coffee table books. But that is something you should decide for yourself, it would be ignorant to just believe what one group said without finding out a few facts for yourself.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And human footprints with those of a dinosaur? Maybe you should formulate another question for that subject. I would be interested on just what makes it a human footprint and not some other (possibly unknown) plantigrade organism. And just what identified it as a dinosaur and not a huge (possibly undiscovered) bird? And yes, I've read some of your other work on the web.... I strongly suspect you are a charlatan-in-training. I suggest you don't follow Hovind's footsteps.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
"They are mineralized by the only element which can last almost forever - quartz a form of natural glass that does not deterorate." [sic] - Jeremy Auldaney

That's a good one; it fully demonstrates your grasp of geology quite nicely. I am, however, left wondering if you think the more common carbonaceous and calcareous fossils are the work of that tricky Satan fellow, and whether the many minerals that "deteriorate" with more difficulty than quartz are also to be suspected since they were apparently deemed unfit to be used for fossils. LOL.

Answer 3

Your question was answered last time. It has been observed since the 1980's that radium 223 and 224 (by products of uranium-235 and thorium-232 decay) can emit carbon-14 nuclei. As you claim to be a scientist, I suggest you consult the scientific literature about this. I look forward to a demonstration of your scientific "honesty".

As to your claims about other radiometric methods: yes, there are, of course, a few examples of propagandists / idiots who have submitted "fresh" xenocryst/xenolith bearing rocks!!! and "published" selected "results" in Creationist propaganda pieces (eg. Mt St Helens). This is outright fraud. Of course the xenocrysts are going to be significantly older than the eruption date.

Answer 4

"Creation scientists do not have access to the huge amounts of money required for this type of research like evolutionists who sponge off the public"

That raises a couple of questions then.... what do they do with the millions they take in from selling their propaganda for "your donation"? Tax free, even!

And.... if they can't do the research effectively because of their lacking capabilities, then what makes them think they have the ability to do a little reasearch OUTSIDE OF THEIR SPECIALITIES and overthrow the work done over the past 100 years by thousands of EXPERT SPECIALISTS IN GEOCHRONOLOGY???

The other guy was right. They are Charlatans, more like Peter Popov than anything related to science.

Answer 5

Are you still asking this question?

I told you, check out the American Scientific Affiliation's email listing. There is lots of good debate on this (September and October 2007).

The ASA is a group of evangelical Christians who are scientists.

Answer 6

Radiocarbon dating
One of the most widely used and well-known absolute dating techniques is carbon-14 (or radiocarbon) dating, which is used to date organic remains. This is a radiometric technique since it measures radioactive decay. Carbon-14 is an unstable isotope of normal carbon, carbon-12. Cosmic radiation entering the earth’s atmosphere produces carbon-14, and plants take in carbon-14 as they absorb carbon dioxide. Carbon-14 moves up the food chain as animals eat plants and as predators eat other animals. With death, the absorption of carbon-14 stops. This unstable isotope starts to break down into nitrogen-14. It takes 5,730 years for half the carbon-14 to change to nitrogen; this is the half-life of carbon-14. After another 5,730 years only one-quarter of the original carbon-14 will remain. After yet another 5,730 years only one-eighth will be left. By measuring the proportion of carbon-14 in organic material, scientists can determine an organic artifact's date of death.

Disadvantages
Because the half-life of carbon-14 is short, the older a specimen is, the greater the margin of error becomes. About 40,000 years ago is the oldest the technique is reliable. Radiocarbon is also less useful for historic sites or recent sites. The standard margin of error is plus or minus 50 years. Because of this, the technique usually cannot pinpoint the date of a site better than historic records and previous knowledge of the site.
A further issue is known as the "old wood" problem. It is possible, particularly in dry, desert climates, for organic materials such as dead trees to remain in their natural state for hundreds of years before people use them as firewood, after which they become part of the archaeological record. Dating when that particular tree died does not necessarily indicate when the fire burned. This is also true of the heartwood of a tree, which will appear younger than the outer rings of the same tree because it has had less time to incorporate carbon-14 into its makeup. For this reason, many archaeologists prefer to use samples from short-lived plants (such as weeds or crops) for radiocarbon dates. The development of accelerator mass spectrometry (AMS) dating, which allows a date to be derived from a very small sample, has been very useful in this regard.

Erosion and immersion of carbonate rocks (which are older than 60,000 years and so do not contain 14C) causes an increase in 12C and 13C in the exchange reservoir, which depends on local weather conditions and can vary the ratio of carbon that living organisms incorporate. This is believed negligible since most erosion will flow into the sea
Volcanic eruptions eject large amount of carbonate into the air, causing an increase in 12C and 13C in the exchange reservoir and can vary the exchange ratio locally. This explains the often irregular dating achieved in volcanic areas
14C is known to behave chemically in a way different from 12C and 13C (due to different atomic mass), such that it is possible one isotope will be involved in decomposition reactions out of ratio with other isotopes, but the chemical behavior effects are extremely minor.
The earth is not affected evenly by cosmic radiation, the magnitude of the radiation depends on land altitude and earth's magnetic field strength at any given location, causing minor variation in the local 14C production. This is accounted for by having calibration curves for different locations of the globe. However this could not always be performed, as tree rings for calibration were only recoverable from certain locations in 1958.




Potassium-argon dating

Other radiometric dating techniques are available for earlier periods. One of the most widely used is potassium-argon dating (K-Ar dating). Potassium-40 is a radioactive isotope of potassium that breaks down into argon-40, a gas. The half-life of potassium-40 is 1.3 billion years, far longer than that of carbon-14. With this method, the older the specimen, the more reliable the dating. Furthermore, whereas carbon-14 dating can be done only on organic remains, K-Ar dating can be used only for inorganic substances: rocks and minerals. As potassium-40 in rocks gradually breaks down into argon-40, the gas is trapped in the rock until the rock is heated intensely (as with volcanic activity), at which point it may escape. When the rock cools, the breakdown of potassium into argon resumes. Dating is done by reheating the rock and measuring the escaping gas. The date received from this test is for the last time that the object was heated. Common dates tested are the firing of ceramics (archaeology), and the setting of rocks (geology).

Answer 7

Jeremy,

I am surprised you are posting this question again after getting several good answers, but I admire your persistence. Unfortunately, your argument still contains many premises that are incorrect. You say above that you want to get "a few things straight", so let's do just that:

1. You refer above to "One comment was that at such small amounts of Carbon 14 mistakes could be made". If you are referring to what I said in my previous posting, you misunderstood what I said and are misrepresenting it here. I do not debate the findings of the team of measurable amounts of C-14 in these materials. C-14 is produced in the atmosphere via cosmic radiation and there are many mechanisms by which it could enter a material. You are assuming that all of the C-14 in these materials originating from what were once equilibrium concentrations that have decayed over thousands of years. What I debate is this assumption, which is only one of several possibilities and is the ONE possibility that favors your argument. It is unfair for you to assume C-14 dating to be valid for EVERY material and then try to assign ages to any material you want based on its C-14 concentration. If you still feel at liberty to do this and are convinced that it provides a case for a young earth, than you do not have a sufficient understanding of C-14 dating to be using it in any sort of argument at all.

2. You also say above "When lava is dated using this method when the actual age is known, like lava from a known historical eruption hundreds of years old or decades, the results of radioactive dating not only produces different dates with each radioactive substance they all come out in millions of years old. And disagree with each other by millions of years for the same rock".

You need to do some fact checking. In the vast majority of instances, the results of different radiometric techniques agree with each other amazingly well, and ALSO agree with the historically known ages of deposits. Getting inconsistent results between these methods is the exception and not the rule. Arguing a case using false premises is not a very good tactic, but in fairness, you have probably been misinformed and I'm sure you are not trying to spread misinformation on purpose. Also, it is well known that C-14 does not come from uranium and I'm not sure why you bring it up.

3. You cite "salt accumulation and other minerals being added to the sea, dust accumulation from space on the moon, sediment acumulation in the ocean, the accumulation of helium in the atmosphere, other short lived radioactive isotopes, speed of erosion of water falls, speed of erosion of mountains, amount of desert varnish formed on rocks, deteriation of the magnetic field, shrinking of the sun" as "clocks" that give "ages of thousands of years". Of course some of these measurements, in some places, will give ages of thousands of years. Maybe the desert varnish on a rock has only been accumulating for thousands of years, that doesn't indicate that the EARTH is only thousands of years old. You are trying to take a broad variety of geological techniques, some of which have little to do with each other, and oversimplifying them to be pointing towards just one result. Not a SINGLE ONE of the things you list gives an age of the earth of thousands of years. You have not provided any evidence that they do. Don't just give a laundry list of geologic processes whose rates can be measured and then claim that they all indicate a young earth without providing any data or explanation. If you think that ANY of these things indicate a young earth, you have a number of grave misunderstandings about how geologic science is conducted.

4. The statement I made in my previous posting about YOUR assumption is not a contradiction at all, and you don't seem to explain why you think that it is. "Evolution" does NOT predict that the amount of C-14 in any material older than 50,000 years should be zero. (Rather, it predicts only that C-14 levels that START OUT at equilibrium values will decay through time at a predictable rate). You seem to want very much for this to be true, but IT ISN'T. You can't put words in geologists' mouths and then try to shoot them down for things they didn't say. As I've already explained, there are a number of ways that C-14 can get into a material, and background science into the possible histories of a material must be done before it is known whether C-14 dating of a material can be valid. My comment shows no bias... rather, YOUR comments show bias because you are choosing from among SEVERAL different explanations for an observation, and claiming that ONLY the explanation that supports your viewpoint is possible.

5. "The problem is you have not considered the fact that 98% of science is handled by biased evolutionists, and you object to a few biased creationists". You make an observation, and give it a HORRIBLY skewed interpretation. Yes, OF COURSE 98% of science is handled by "evolutionists". This is because 98% (or more) of scientists are convinced of the evidence that exists for evolution!!!! This is a lot like trying to make people feel sorry for the view of aristotelian mechanics by pointing out that 99% of physics is handled by "biased gravitationalists". Yes, Jeremy, you are correct that 98% of science is handled by evolutionists. Those pesky evolutionists have all been "biased" by the enormous amount of evidence that supports evolution. And BTW, creationists are NOT more honest by any stretch of the imagination, as THEY are the ones putting misinformation into public forums. You are unwittingly helping them do so with the misinformation you have put in this posting, whether you realize it or not.

You are paranoid and delusional. "Evolutionists" are not trying to brainwash anyone. Evolution is accepted because there is massive amounts of evidence that have been accumulated by many different researchers in different fields of study over many years, not because there is some kind of conspiracy to silence your view. Your view was considered and rejected by the scientific community long ago. These scientists get funding for their activities because they do careful and legitimate research, NOT the other way around. You need to go back to the books, get your facts straight, and then return with real information before you make any more postings like this one.


Edit:
Sorry, another of your pieces of misinformation that I accidently forgot to shoot down. These reports you cite of human tracks alongside dinosaur tracks have all been shown to be invalid... they've been found to simply be tracks of different types of dinosaurs. But this doesn't seem to stop creationists from clinging to the reports and citing them over and over again.... they have VERY selective hearing when it comes to erroneous results.


Another edit, because you just don't seem to get it:
Timeponderer is 100% right, it is not up to every scientist to keep every piece of scientific information in their heads at all times. Timeponderer happened to be aware of an interesting and recently discovered mode of radioactivity that I was not aware of that produces C-14 nuclei. Based on my understanding of radioactivity (which is still well above the layman's understanding), it was very reasonable for me to assume that C-14 is not produced by uranium, but Timeponderer was aware of an unusual piece of information that is somewhat counterintuitive. These sorts of minor discrepencies and gaps in knowledge about little known phenomena are not a grounds for dismissing either one of our arguments. I was making no attempt to sound overly "scientific" and hope that others will not question my statement. I was simply trying to give an intellectually honest (and reality grounded) analysis of your statements to the best of my ability. Since we have resolved the discrepency that you are so concerned about, it is worth noting that the fact that C-14 CAN be produced by uranium is yet another reason to not trust the assumption of your original question, which was that the presence of C-14 in a material is from organic carbon that has decayed over thousands of years, and that therefore the age of these materials is thousands of years. I have told you REPEATEDLY that this assumption is not valid, and NOWHERE in the subsequent misinformed rantings you have posted have you made ANY attempt to defend this original assumption that your ENTIRE ARGUMENT rests on.

As for your comments about the circular reasoning and selective choosing of radiometric dating techniques, you are once again misinformed. There are NO "evolutionary assumptions" or circular reasoning behind these methods. They are based on PHYSICS. The physics of radioactive decay is very well understood and has been experimentally verified beyond any shadow of a doubt. When these methods are applied to date rocks, they almost always yield results that are consistent with other dating methods, and establish a shockingly consistent chronology of rock formations on earth from about 3.6 billion years to present day. These dates involve no hidden assumptions that are not already checked during the method itself. Whenever a radiometric date is rejected, it is rejected because there is a well-defined reason for not trusting it that is SEPARATE from the date that was obtained. Dates are never thrown out simply because they don't agree with preconceived notions. Again, if you actually understood how radiometric methods work and are applied, you would know this and would not make these ridiculous statements about imaginary inconsistencies. You have almost no understanding of the methods you are trying to criticize, and yet in your arrogance you seem to have NO problem whatsoever in assuming that our methods are wrong. You continue to make arguments using premises that are completely false, and when we call you on it, you divert attention to something as inane as the fact that I had not previously heard of radium isotopes emitting C-14 nuclei. This gap in my knowledge of trace element geochemistry is miniscule compared to the basic understanding of radiometric dating methods that you apparently lack even at the most fundamental level.

Your comment about evolution not being proven again shows how ignorant you are of how science is done. No theory in the history of science has never been "proven". Science is not in the business of proving anything. Science is in the business of making observations and testing hypotheses, and then using the results from these tests to formulate an explanatory framework for the workings of nature that is consistent with all the available data. You never prove anything, you simply gather evidence that the theory provides an accurate picture of nature. The theory of evolution has withstood decades of tests of its validity, and every piece of information gathered so far supports the idea of evolution taking place on this planet over a 4.5 billion year history. If you are not convinced of this evidence, fine. But you are terribly self-deluded if you think that multiple generations of scientists (with no preconcieved notions, as YOU obviously have) who have worked out these things are simply making stuff up in some sort of conspiracy to silence your viewpoint, and you are terribly arrogant if you think you can argue against this evidence without any working knowledge of how it was gathered.

If you wish to continue this discussion, provide real evidence that the original materials you cite have C-14 that arose ONLY from the decay of equilibrium concentrations from organic materials and not from the numerous contamination sources that we have explained to you. It would also help you to do some background reading on C-14 dating and other radiometric techniques so that you have the background knowledge you need to carry out an intelligent and intellectually honest discussion. Otherwise, concede this point to the people who know what they are talking about.


A message to Berean:
As someone who always shows respect for other people's beliefs, I have no problem with you practicing your religious faith, and you have every right to believe the things you say in your answer. It seems, however, like you aren't showing very much respect for MY beliefs and are only using your answer to try and push your own beliefs instead of answering Jeremy's question. People who study rocks, fossils, etc. are generally really nice people! We are not out to attack your beliefs. We are not out to disprove God. We are not in league with the devil. We're just really curious people who want to understand the wonders of nature, and we enjoy going out into the world to learn about how it works. It is not fair of you to stereotype all of us as being "led down the path of the devil", and I think your attitude shows a lot of closed-mindedness and intolerance that I would NEVER have towards your beliefs. You should try to open your mind a little and imagine what it would be like to go out into the world to see amazing things, and then experience the thrill of trying to figure out where they came from. And try getting to know a geologist... you'll be surprised what good and generous people they are.