Add Chris Jones to the list of pro athletes that think the earth is flat

[BeardoMSU]

Since all your points contain C14, I'll try and explain what I said/meant. In the end, you need to study the evidence of God, Bible, etc. for yourself. I can't convince you of any truth until you discover it for yourself. Now back to your counter points.

C14 dating is about the only science we have to date something but it is not accurate past 25-30,000 years. It was only invented in 1947, by Willard Libby. C14 is measures the % of unstable carbon 14 isotopes in once living objects. The half life of C14 is only 5730 years so in 5 half lives (29,000 years) very little C14 remains. Here are a few examples of known C14 dating discrepancies: Since C14 has only been around for 70 years, the rates over thousands of years is assumed constant which in real science is not really science at all when you extrapolate that far.

Several things:

For one, C14 is definitely not the only scientific dating method we have; as I mentioned before, we have numerous other absolute chemical dating methods, as well as some other absolute methods that rely on rhythmic layering such as dendrochronology and and ice/snow-fall cores.

Second, you are correct in your research regarding Libby and the half-life, but again, as I said, precision has increased substantially, and, as is the nature of science, incorrect dates have been corrected and new dates are continuously checked against current calibrations. The nature of science is that it is in a constant state of self-policing. That's really a great thing.

Third, your statement of "the rates over thousands of years is assumed" is simply not true. I mentioned in my previous post that C14 calibrations are "checked and rechecked against standards"....well, one of those standards derives from dendrochonology (i.e., analysis of tree ring growth). Trees, as part of their physiology, like mollusks and other sequential growers, absorb distinct chemical signatures within each annual ring as they age. Based on these signatures, geochemists are able to correct for fluctuations of carbon (and other variations) in the Earth's atmosphere and adjust the curve accordingly.

Mollushs living test dated at 2300 years old (dead) yet they were alive?, Mortar from an English castle known less than 800 years old tested at 7370 years old, Fresh seal skins dated 1300 years old. There is more but moving on.

I'd like to see where you're getting this info from. I find these type of critical errors extremely dubious, not to mention convenient for this discussion. It's easy, with all chemical analyses, to really **** up your samples, via contamination of all sorts (easy, and sadly, expensive...these things aren't cheap). So I'm suspicious of 1) how these "samples" were collected, 2) where they were collected from, and what is the history of the area/location, 3) how the samples were handled after recovery (this is extremely important), 4)what laboratory conducted the analysis, what mass-spectrometer was used, how was it calibrated, who was the technician, when was the last time it was serviced, etc. etc.

You may think I'm being petty, but I assure you, all of these are important questions.

There are several factors that can alter C14 decay rates such as volcanic activity, burning, solar activity, cosmic radiation, meteors, Point is if conditions on earth were different in the past, then C14 dating is not reliable beyond about 5000 years.

This is very true. However, as I pointed out earlier, C14 calibrations are constantly adjusted to reflect these changes in the atmosphere.

I am not an expert on C14 dating

Well...I am.