"1. Radiodating
I HAVE PUT TEXT IN YOURS........DENOTED BY //
There is a basic pattern that occurs in the decay of radioactive substances. In each of these disintegration systems, the "parent" or original radioactive substance, gradually decays into "daughter" substances and this process is irreversible. The theory asserts that by measuring the amount of parent and daughter elements in a given sample and knowing the decay rate, one might be able to calculate the time elapsed from its formation.
Several types of radiodating methods are used today, but when applied to the same sample, they give different dates[1].
//THIS IS INEVITABLE AS DIFFERENT RADIOACTIVE MATERIALS HAVE DIFFERENT DECAY RATES. IT IS NO GOOD USING A MATERIAL WITH A HALF LIFE OF 1 SECOND TO LOOK AT A SAMPLE THAT IS MILLIONS OF YEARS OLD. ERRORS CREEP IN ALL OF THE TIME.....THAT DOES NOT MEAN THAT YOU CAN DISREGARD THE EVIDENCE. HOW DIFFERENT WERE THE DATES?
A very good example of how scientists interpret the results of their radiodating method is presented in reference [2]. They select only the "most reasonable" dates, the ones that agree with the evolutionary theory of long ages and discard the ones that do not fit in. Well, this method is far from an objective and precise scientific approach!
//LOL......A BLATANT MISREPRESENTATION. THIS IS DONE SOMETIMES........BUT BY NO MEANS ALWAYS.
These special dating methods are seriously flawed: too many assumptions are made without any factual evidence. We can easily show the problems arising from the disregard of the following:
The parent and daughter products could easily have been contaminated during their long decay process underground.
//CONTAMINATED BY WHAT EXACTLY? I AM TRULY INTERESTED IN THE ANSWER TO THIS BECAUSE I CANT THINK OF A WAY THAT A SAMPLE COULD BECOME CONTAMINATED IN ORDER TO SKEW THE RESULTS.
For the results to be accurate, the systems had to be closed during the decay process, but this doesn't happen in nature.
Nobody was there at the beginning to make sure that no daughter products were present in a certain rock, whereas the radiodating method assumes exactly this.
//BEING BURIED UNDER A FEW THOUSAND TONNES OF ROCK AND SAND IS PRETTY CLOSED. THE SAMPLE IS TAKEN FROM WITHIN A ROCK.......AGAIN HOW EXACTLY WILL IT BECOME CONTAMINATED?
It is impossible to know what had initially been in a given piece of radioactive mineral.
The decay rate is not constant. Many environmental factors, such as pressure, changes in cosmic radiation level, nearby radioactive materials, high temperatures influence it [3]. In one of their studies, Westinghouse Laboratories have been able to change the decay rates simply by placing inactive iron next to radioactive lead.
//SHOW ME THE REFERENCE PLEASE. I AM INTERESTED IN HOW MUCH THE DECAY RATE REALLY ALTERED.
Part of the radioactive substances could have been leached out. Experiments show that even distilled water and weak acids can do this.[4]
//THIS MIGHT BE A GENUINE PROBLEM IF ISOLATED SAMPLES WERE TAKEN. NO SELF RESPECTING SCIENTIST WOULD USE ONE SAMPLE!!
Rocks could have been altered by sediment displacements.[5]
//SHOW ME THE EVIDENCE!!! HOW DOES THIS ALTER THE CONTENT OF PARTICULAR RADIOACTIVE MATERIALS THAT ARE FOUND WITHIN A FOSSIL?
A few examples of the accuracy of this method:
Hawaiian lava flows known to be less than two centuries old have been dated at up to 3 BILLION years old!
Laboratories that "date" rocks insist on knowing in advance the "evolutionary age" of the strata from which the samples were taken—this way, they know which dates to accept as "reasonable" and which to ignore.
//THIS IS SO THAT THEY LOOK AT THE APPROPRIATE RADIOACTIVE MATERIAL. THIS IS NOT ESSENTIAL.
2. Radiocarbon Dating
Wollard F. Libby discovered the carbon 14 method in 1946, while working at the University of Chicago. This was considered to be a great breakthrough in the dating of plant and animal remains of earlier times. It is the special method used by scientists to date organic materials not older than a few thousand years.
The radioactive carbon isotope (C-14) called radiocarbon is generated in the upper atmosphere by cosmic rays. Living organisms accumulate radioactive carbon from the atmosphere via carbon dioxide (CO2) during their lifetime. This accumulation ceases at the death of the organism and the radiocarbon starts decaying into inert carbon. By measuring the ratio of radioactive and stable carbon in an organic material, and ASSUMING what the original ratio was, one can calculate the time of death of that organism.
Let's hear from those people, who actually use this method, how its results are interpreted:
Pensee, 3 (Spring), p.44.:
//WOW A WORLD REKNOWNED USER OF THIS METHOD.......
If a C-14 date supports our theories, we put it in the main text. If it does not entirely contradict them, we put it in a footnote. And if it is completely 'out of date,' we just drop it.
The accuracy of this method is just catastrophic [6]. Just consider the following ridiculous findings[7]:
mortar from the 785 year old Oxford Castle in England was dated at 7,370 years old
freshly killed seals were dated at 1,300 years and seals dead for 30 years at 4,600 years
living snails being dated at 2,300 years old
new wood cut from growing trees after few days was dated at 10,000 years
muscle tissue from beneath the scalp of a mummified musk was dated to 24,000 years, while the the radiocarbon age of hair from a hind limb was established to be 17,200 years—a rather long living animal as it appears!
We cannot just assume that the C-14 concentration in the carbon dioxide cycle has always been constant, that the cosmic ray flux has always been the same [8] and that no contamination of the sample occurred. These assumptions are obviously erroneous, otherwise how can one explain that hair from a mammoth has been dated at 26,000 years while the peat right above the carcass at only 5,610 years?
Because of the short half-life of C-14, this method is only suitable for dating relatively young samples. Practically, any organic material would be left with an undetectable amount of radioactive carbon after 10 half-lives of C-14. This means that most of the fossils claimed to be millions of years old, would have to show an "infinite" age. It is not so. Radiocarbon dating of coal deposits gave ages less than 50,000 years, when the evolutionary theory claimed them to be millions of years old.
//THIS IS PRECISELY WHY YOU DO NOT USE CARBON DATING WITH FOSSILS. THE COAL DATING IS A JOKE......IT WOULD BE STUPIDLY INACCURATE DUE TO ITS AGE. A BETTER METHOD IS POTASSIUM-ARGON DATING.
Conclusion
After the discovery of the radiocarbon dating method, scientists tried to correlate their results with the dates "established" a century before. But they have not been able to do so. Of thousands of measurements, they have been able to correlate only three. These three successes were enough to make the original century old fossil/strata dating "scientific". It is on this basis that evolutionists claim that the fossiliferous strata have been dated by radioactive minerals! "
//IF THEY USED CARBON DATING I AM NOT SUPRISED. I JUST EXPLAINED THAT ONE.
does that give you a better idea i pulled that from a website which has references i can post if you like. i dont know about how we could count the stars...nor do i believe we can even estimate. All you can say for sure is that there are alot of them
Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below 
