Arguments against relative dating cyberdatingexpertweeklyflirt com
It's a great argument except for one, little thing.The water is coming out of the hose at a steady rate as our model assumed!Figure 19.5, curve C, shows the dipole field strength calculated from measurements of magnetism of lava flows and of artifacts such as pottery and bricks, whose age can be determined.The curve is roughly fitted to mean values determined about every 500 to 1,000 years...Contrary to creationist Barnes' totally discredited claims, which I've covered in Topic 11, the earth's magnetic field (dipole moment) has, indeed, increased and decreased over time.Strahler presents a graph of the earth's dipole moment going back 9000 years.Creationists don't want their readers to be distracted with problems like that -- unless the cat is already out of the bag and something has to be said.
The water level just sits there even though the hose is going full blast.This nullifies the carbon-14 method as well as demonstrating that the earth is less than 10,000 years old. One suspects that the scientific world would not be using the carbon-14 method if it were so obviously flawed.Could it be that the whole scientific community has missed this point, or is it another case of creationist daydreaming?The following material has been taken from a sheet entitled Several Faulty Assumptions Are Used in all Radiometric Dating Methods.Carbon 14 is used for this example:, which was put out by Dr. is presently only 1/3 of the way to an equilibrium value which will be reached in 30,000 years. Knowing how faulty creationist "facts" can be, let's do a little research of our own.
This argument was popularized by Henry Morris (1974, p.164), who used some calculations done in 1968 by Melvin Cook to get the 10,000-year figure. Whitelaw, using a greater ratio of carbon-14 production to decay, concluded that only 5000 years passed since carbon-14 started forming in the atmosphere!