These deranged fundamentalists are not interested in Science; they don't carry out any field work or research.
All they ever do is throw around their banter and how that someone, somewhere, will lap up and believe in their God-induced beliefs, which coincidentally, have not scientific merit whatsoever.
This is also actually kind of trivial and easily determined in the lab. Let’s see what the Missing Universe Museum thinks are the assumptions of radioactive dating methods. I guess we have to start at the top and work our way down… During an organisms life, it takes in CO have the common 6 protons and 6 neutrons. However, due to some interesting nuclear chemistry (which I’ll go into if requested), there’s another version of carbon (called an isotope) that has 6 protons and 8 neutrons. Note that if the number of protons change, then the atom is no longer carbon. Amazingly (and unlike what is claimed by the creationists), scientists have known about a variety of methods that create carbon-14 and how those methods have varied over time. Well, we take a carbon sample from a material of a known age and date that. Basically, the calibration curves are off by no more than 16 years over the historical range (6,000 years or so) and no more than 163 years over the last 20,000 years.
Indeed, by doing almost 20 seconds of research on google (type in “variations in C14”, click on Google Scholar) the second link is this article from 1954: Carbon 13 in plants and the relationships between carbon 13 and carbon 14 variations in nature So, this issue has been known about for a long time. Then we compare the two and adjust the radiocarbon date to the known date. That’s less than 1% if you’re interested in that sort of thing. But this is already almost a thousand words and I’ve only done ONE! Long story short, scientists have always known that variations in C-14 concentration happen.
So with that said, let's go back to the question of how do we know if one of these guys are going to decay in some way. That, you know, maybe this guy will decay this second. Remember, isotopes, if there's carbon, can come in 12, with an atomic mass number of 12, or with 14, or I mean, there's different isotopes of different elements. So the carbon-14 version, or this isotope of carbon, let's say we start with 10 grams. Well we said that during a half-life, 5,740 years in the case of carbon-14-- all different elements have a different half-life, if they're radioactive-- over 5,740 years there's a 50%-- and if I just look at any one atom-- there's a 50% chance it'll decay. Now after another half-life-- you can ignore all my little, actually let me erase some of this up here. So we'll have even more conversion into nitrogen-14. So now we're only left with 2.5 grams of c-14. Well we have another two and a half went to nitrogen. So after one half-life, if you're just looking at one atom after 5,740 years, you don't know whether this turned into a nitrogen or not.
The first is that atoms have always decayed at the same rate.
The other is that the decay products of various atoms are always the same. Just looking at this list, I can see that none of these are actually assumptions used by radioactive dating methods and/or they are known issues and compensated for. Something that this particular website has none of. Basically, just like all creationists, they are making stuff up and then hoping you won’t check them on it. 1) atmosphere has always had the same amount of C-14 This is obviously in reference to carbon-14 dating of formerly living tissue.
This has to do with figuring out the age of ancient things.
If you could watch a single atom of a radioactive isotope, U-238, for example, you wouldn’t be able to predict when that particular atom might decay.
So, without further ado, I would like to proceed to one of the more controversial topics amongst the Creationist community (not the Scientific Community): Carbon Dating.
Long regarded with as much vitriol as Darwin's revolutionary idea of Evolution, carbon dating debunks the "Young Earth" Creationist Model: Because of its ability to date fossils upwards to 60,000 years, radiocarbon dating has long been regarded as Darwin's (Read Satan's) advocate.