While the methodology is a good one in theory, those two are indeed valid concerns in practise.
I think that i) has been established that it is in fact uniform in the air, water etc.
ii) on the other hand, has been proven to be wrong and that at the poles, the c-dating cannot be trusted for this reason (but I can be mistaken, radioactive decay isn't my forte). You need to take into account the location and time.
1. I think that they were able to draw a graph of the ratios thanks to archeology (based on the concentration in layers of rock or something like that?) but I have problems finding a link. When I do, I'll post it here. It is defenately dependant of time though (that has been proven).
2. Once again: has been proven to be not the case.
[font=Arial][size=4]3. Is correct afaik.
[font=Arial][size=4]4. Don't really know what they mean by this.
[font=Arial][size=4]5. Contamination is always a possibility but can be checked.
[font=Arial][size=4]6. Loss of C14 except for decay? How would that happen?
[font=Arial][size=4]That source is 30 years old. Not really up to date of recent and even less recent discoveries.
The magnetic field is decaying with a half life of 1.400 years? That's a bold statement. I'd love to see the science behind that. Knowing that even today, we don't know all that much about our magnetic field, and that the book is 30 years old, I'm having a lot of trouble believing it tbh.
Has there been any progress on that variable the last 30 years? Any idea how much that variable varies? I've read that there are variations of 3% (but without sources) which would mean that C-14 dating is wrong by 3%. That is acceptable imo.
The sizes, the temperature, the mass, the behaviour on impact, the number of bodies affected, the forces applied to the bodies, ... In fact, almost nothing is the same so claiming that the principle is the same is simply worng.
The sphere is ofcourse not the effect of the collision but a combination of the temperature of the colliding bodies (hot enough to melt metal and stones) and the moon spnning around its axis.
There wouldn't be craters on the earth due to plate tectonics if it would leave any craters at all on a molten piece of planet.
What do you mean with left over debris?
I haven't read everything in this topic yet but tbh if you are going to give me links to fragments of books that are 30 years old, if you are going to compare two things that aren't the same in any way imaginable, and on top imply a complot, then I can honestly get why people wouldn't react.
It is claimed to be "relatively" uniform meaning there are discrepancies... You "missed" that bit in the quotation, and it was quoted from a text book no less..
This is all an aside from my main point of not knowing the initial concentration, which is a critical flaw, however having all these assumptions should make one pause and wonder if the process is more based on luck than actual science.
Carbon loss occurs all the time in the form of dead cells, hair growth, nail growth, as well as via waste excrement.
However I really don't mind if carbon dating is correct because its max age is about 15,000 years... My main focus was initially about the other radiometric dating that somehow gives "millions" of years. Not knowing the inital amount means the process is 100% based on an assumption, there is no way you can deny this unless you figure a way to work out how much of the isotope was present at its initial creation.... (There is one way but that gives an age of 6000 years)
The basic principle is that there are two objects colliding... this IS the same. Yes there are variances with size mass temp etc I never said these are the same. However your replies (excuses) to the problems I have cited show a complete lack of evidence... (thus unscientific, unsupported stories)
So you claim that
a) the moon was a molten mass when it hit and since it was molten when it was in space was able to form a sphere- Firstly the impact caused by a molten mass would be vastly different and the "fragment" coming off would be more like a spray, as such it wouldn't conglomerate rather it would spray in all directions.
So you assume that the Earth was molten when it supposedly occurred... Where is the evidence for this?
c) its VERY simple logic that if the moon is a "fragment" then there must be the bulk of the debris somewhere on Earth... Go find that first before proposing wild "theories" that have no evidence...
Science is about the evidence not how well a scientist can sell a story. You're only displaying your own faith in evolutionist dogma when you propose answers that have no evidence.