time can tell exactly how long ago the organism died. For any logical method, if the assumptions are right, and the reasoning is valid, then the conclusion is right. Carbon-14 dating assumptions ratio has never changed. Nothing but radioactive decay would alter the ratio in a dead plant or animal. We will look at the method first, and then the assumptions.There are three simple steps to getting a carbon-14 date: sample preparation, getting the ratio, and using a calibration chart to get the age from the ratio. Before dating, samples are first soaked in an 8% HCL, and then an Na OH caustic solution to clean them of contaminants, such as dirt, microbes, and tree sap.Do you honestly think that no one has done anything about it? By making thousands (if not millions) of these adjustments we get a very good idea of how old a piece of unknown material can be. The 2009 calibration set extends the ‘well calibrated range’ to 50,000 years using the varves in a Japanese lake. This is unlike the creationists which think it happened, but can’t be bothered to check.Scientists, using rigorous methods have established a process to eliminate this problem by calibrating radiocarbon dating results to items of a known age.While doing so, we will have to learn about how radiometric dating works. There exists different versions, or isotopes of many elements.There are many different kinds of radiometric dating and not all conclusions we will reach can be extrapolated to all methods used. These isotopes differ in the number of neutrons they have in their nuclei.
(Aside, my dad doesn’t know how old I am, he usually misses by about two years, giving him an error of almost 5%.) Not only, is this not a ‘false assumption’. Oh and here’s a link to the Table of Contents for this set of creationist misconceptions.Familiar to us as the black substance in charred wood, as diamonds, and the graphite in “lead” pencils, carbon comes in several forms, or isotopes.One rare form has atoms that are 14 times as heavy as hydrogen atoms: carbon-14, or C ratio gets smaller.And this isn’t really an assumption as the decay rates have been tested in the laboratory for a hundred years or so, we have an example of a natural nuclear reactor where we can measure the various products and determine the decay rates (and the fine structure constant), and we can observe the past by looking deep into the past of the universe. The sigh isn’t for the effort of writing, it’s for the effort of finding all the references.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.