That is circular reasoning - defending the method by using the very same method!On top of that, radiocarbon dating coral presents great difficulties that make it unreliable. Because of another assumption in radiocarbon dating: that it is a closed system.So scientists made calibration charts to make up for the variation.But they still have to verify their calibrations with samples of known dates. Radiocarbon dates can only be trusted up until the record left by trees can back them up.C." When comparing radiocarbon dates with dates derived from tree rings, known as dendrochronological dating, the dates only agree accurately as far back as A. 640, and only generally well back to the time of Christ.Anything further back and the dates are as much as 800 years off.Once the "clock" starts, there is no gain or loss in radiocarbon elements used in dating. In coral, the carbon-14 decay rate is not stable; it picks up radioactive isotopes over time.
"Fancy statistical treatments" that didn't even resolve all of the discrepancies?Everyone assumes that dates that follow the word "radiocarbon" are accurate, precise and sure. The basic principle of radiocarbon dating is that plants and animals absorb trace amounts of radioactive carbon-14 from carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere while they are alive but stop doing so when they die.The carbon-14 in a sample decays at a steady rate after it dies, and thus works like a clock.Scientists from the Animal Cell Technology Unit published a paper in Scientific Reports journal that was now selected as one of the top 100 read papers in Cell Biology for Scientific Reports in 2017.i BET & Gen Ibet, through Pharma Portugal, were present for the first time at the CPh I North America 2018 - International Pharmaceutical Industry Convention, which ran from April 24 to 26 in Philadelphia, USA.Even with such manipulation, the scientists still can't remove all the discrepancies. It is under this pretense that scientists take up the false hypothesis of evolution as their religion, the foundation of their knowledge.That is what the Bible terms "the oppositions of science falsely so called" (1 Timothy ).This book was written on the basis of the calibration that intcal has been developing for over 20 years, a process that has unfolded in the stages listed above. In an article titled "Radiocarbon Daters Tune Up Their Time Machine," magazine explained: "[T]hanks to new and more accurate data from foraminifers, corals, and other sources - plus some fancy statistical treatments that help predict which way data gaps bend the curve - the intcal group has been able to resolve most of the discrepancies.'It took the group quite a while to come together and agree,' says intcal team leader Paula Reimer, a geochronologist at Queen's University Belfast in Northern Ireland.That is about the only thing the scientists agree on, yet it causes much confusion and chaos.Data has to be manipulated, skewed and given fancy treatment to make evolution fit the facts.