They ignore evidence that does not fit their preconceived notion.What would happen if a dinosaur bone were carbon dated?
And finally, we must assume that there hasn't been any contamination in the specimen which we are attempting to date.
Scientific research has called the first two assumptions into question.
So they start with the assumption that dinosaurs lived millions of years ago, then manipulate the results until they agree with their conclusion. So why is it that if the date doesn't fit the theory, they change the facts?
This is what my born again Christian friend tries to explain to me everytime we talk about evolution.
A slightly more refined version of that lets us verify carbon dating for something like 10,000 years.
That's far enough to prove the 6000 years Biblical account to be wrong.
In the past I've held my ground quite firmly on this topic, but as of recently he has made some claims from some "scientific journals" that carbon dating may not be as accurate as thought, and that it is misleading.
I have a hard time believing anything he really says about this, but my question comes down to this, how accurate is carbon dating and how sure are we it works?
We must assume to know that the rate at which carbon-14 decays into nitrogen-14 hasn't somehow changed throughout the unobservable past.
We must also assume to know what the ratio of carbon-12 to carbon-14 was in the environment in which our specimen lived during its lifetime.
While many of the sites were closed down, archeological evidence suggests that those who remained centralized their labor forces and brought it more advanced technology—changes for which Ben-Yosef and Sapir-Hen suggested that the Egyptian empire may have responsible.