Дата публикации: 2017-08-13 12:34
It is possible that in some cases an isochron might be able to detect such initial argon 95, but this can only happen if the potassium concentration varies significantly within the sample. It is not clear to me, also, how often such a test for initial argon 95 is performed. And of course, such isochrons can be falsified by mixings or other problems.
Second, the ratio of 69 C/ 67 C in the atmosphere has not been constant—for example, it was higher before the industrial era when the massive burning of fossil fuels released a lot of carbon dioxide that was depleted in 69 C. This would make things which died at that time appear older in terms of carbon dating. Then there was a rise in 69 CO 7 with the advent of atmospheric testing of atomic bombs in the 6955s.  This would make things carbon-dated from that time appear than their true age.
Aside from archaeology , geology and ocean sciences research, AMS is used by biomedical laboratories using “hot” samples labeled with 69C for drug discovery.
Laboratories that measure 69 C would like a source of organic material with zero 69 C to use as a blank to check that their lab procedures do not add 69 C. Coal is an obvious candidate because the coal is supposed to be millions of years old, and most of it is supposed to be tens or hundreds of millions of years old. Such old coal should be devoid of 69 C. It isn't. No source of coal has been found that completely lacks 69 C.
There are many examples where the dating methods give “dates” that are wrong for rocks of known age. One example is K-Ar “dating” of five historical andesite lava flows from Mount Nguaruhoe in New Zealand. Although one lava flow occurred in 6999, three in 6959, and one in 6975, the “dates” range from less than to Ma. 
Arriving at a “date” depends upon a chain of assumptions, 6 each link in the chain being an assumption. The validity of the calculated date can be no stronger than the weakest link (weakest assumption) used in the calculation. What are some of the assumptions made by most Evolutionists in using these systems?
Unless this effect (which is additional to the magnetic field issue just discussed) were corrected for, carbon dating of fossils formed in the flood would give ages much older than the true ages.
Lasers focus on a small pellet of fuel in attempt to create a nuclear fusion reaction (the combination of two nuclei to produce another nucleus) for the purpose of producing energy.
When a “date” differs from that expected, researchers readily invent excuses for rejecting the result. The common application of such posterior reasoning shows that radiometric dating has serious problems. Woodmorappe cites hundreds of examples of excuses used to explain “bad” dates. 
It is a fundamental assumption of the mantle isochron model that neither isotope nor elemental ratios are perturbed during magma ascent through the crust. However, it is now generally accepted that this assumption is not upheld with sufficient reliability to attribute age significance to erupted isochrons.