In 1975, evolutionist scientist H.C. Dudley changed the decay rate of 14 different elements, some by as much as 40%! He found that you can do this by changing the pressure on the rock, temperature, magnetic field, and/or other factors. So, a decay rate that is not always constant means that we have no way of accurately dating old rocks and fossils. This false dating method is still being used because scientists have no other ideas.
Since we now know that decay rates are not constant, we cannot objectively rely on carbon dating or other similar dating methods as 100% accurate. We have no way of knowing how accurate they are. So we cannot say with any reasonable certainty that the dinosaur fossil in question with red blood cells is millions of years old. It has not been irrefutably proved that red blood cells cannot last millions of years, but the evidence leans that way. So overall the evidence is on the side of the fossil being young, although I agree it is not proven.
I guess I got a little jumpy in applying Einstein's quote to this example. We have proof that carbon dating is not infallible, and if we could accompany that with proof that red blood cells are completely gone after a certain number of years, then we'd really have something. We're not quite there yet, but what we do know about carbon dating is that the published ages of fossils by evolutionists is conveniently the theoretically oldest possible, but most likely inaccurate.
My favorite example of a known inaccuracy is the Mt. Saint Helen's eruption. I've read that the youngest dating of that rock is 340,000 years (I don't doubt that you will let me know if that is off). But we know it's actually 29 years old because we saw it happen. If you are confident in believing in a method that has been shown to be 1172% wrong at times, that's your choice.
Nick Brown, The Daily Athenaeum 40 Comments
[1/25/2010 1:24:06 AM]
Fundie Index: 40