Originally Posted by Geko45
The same Melvin A. Cook that authored "Science and Mormonism"? Do you have any scholarly (non-apologetic) sources for this claim?
An excerpt from Melvin's wiki article
The problem with your/his claim is that when we use the carbon-14 dating method to date samples of a known age, we only see errors in the range of 10%+/-. If the amount of carbon-14 in the atmosphere has previosuly been both 10% higher and 10% lower than current levels then that indicates expected variations around a reasonably certain equilibrium level.
Now, we might be in the middle of an increasing trend at the moment, but unless that variation can be shown to exceed historic variations by a statistically significant amount then it is errant to assume that it is anything other than normal fluctuations in a relatively stable system.
The so called "calibrations," which should be more correctly termed assumptions, are nothing more than manipulation of figures within the equation derived out of testing a sample with a KNOWN age.
Then these same manipulated figures are assumed to take out "C14 fluctuation errors" for testing samples of an UNKNOWN age. Even you cannot call that good Science. At best it is literally guessing
based on two or three assumptions, and at worst it is akin to medieval quackery of old, but now a bit modernized (i.e., technologically speaking)
with an evolutionary timeline bias so as to make the results fit into an expected outcome.
You claim that C14's dating errors have been fixed by taking into account the fluctuation of the amount of C14 for a given time period.
I claim that C14 is still not reliable based on the assumptions used as well as the declining strength of the Earth's magnetic field, which I admit I use the latter fact to ASSUME
that C14 rates are rising and have been doing so since they were first scientifically measured over 60 years ago (e.g., 1950's).
Simply put, I think my assumptions are easier to ultimately realize as closer to fact, from a purely scientific stand point, than are the assumptions used for obtaining supposedly "correct" radiocarbon dates, but if we are going to be both intellectually honest, then we both must admit we are assuming facts not derived from empirical, scientific methodologies.
As far as other radiometric dating methods, the tried and true tenet of the evos still holds true; namely, the rocks date the fossils and the fossils date the rocks.
This is an undeniable and major tenet of those evos whom choose to religiously worship at their altar of time.
Here's one example of a bivalve adding 50 million years to a previously established date for dino tracks in Alaska. You have to read it carefully as they don't clearly admit to using the bivalves as index fossils for the site, but it is plainly evident to anyone reading this article and whom has half a brain.
The following is a clear example of "the fossils dating the rocks" for the evos, and then in turn using the "index fossil dated rocks" to date the footprints.
...Blodgett, who studies invertebrates, said fossilized bivalves called Buchia mosquensis found at the site date back to the late Jurassic Period, the name geologists give the time between 142 million and 205 million years ago.
Blodgett said the Chignik area is known for its Jurassic rock formations. That alone was enough for them to suspect that the dinosaur prints were from the period. ...
(Completely laughable conclusions in the light of empirical scientific methodologies.)