How reliable is science? (Assumption 3/7) (The limitations of science)

by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Sunday, April 15, 2012, 17:39 (4387 days ago) @ xeno6696

[edit]
> 
> And by "exists everywhere" I mean the authors of papers based on these artifacts are *forced* to try and explain why the dates don't match. In nearly all cases... the arguments are dropped, because you can't argue with radiation.
> 
From your article:->Radioactive carbon, that is 14C, occurs naturally and is formed continuously in the atmosphere. As cosmic radiation from space enters the earth's atmosphere, neutrons are created that slow down as they collide with nitrogen atoms. These collisions result in a 14C atom and a proton. The 14C combines with oxygen to form CO and CO2 that then mix with the bulk of the atmosphere containing the other stable isotopes of carbon (e.g., 12C and 13C). These latter isotopes are present in the atmosphere in amounts of 98.9% of 12C and 1.1% of 13C. The 14C exists in a known ratio with these two other forms of carbon such that the dynamic equilibrium concentration ratio, between 14C and 12C + 13C, is about one in 1012.-So, am I to understand that you are saying that an isotope that was FORMED by cosmic radiation can no longer be affected by it, and that cosmic radiation can have no effect because the elements are embedded in sedimentary layers even though you yourself point out that cosmic radiation passes through the whole of the earth? ->In principle, then, there is not a period in Iron-Age history that cannot be investigated using radiocarbon dating. As long as assumptions hold (the iron-based material is manufactured using only contemporaneous charcoal—no old wood, no reworking, no coal, no limestone flux), the radiocarbon dating of iron-based materials has been shown to be very reliable.-Those are pretty major assumptions. Also, as I mentioned in my other post, other fuel sources used come from organic materials, like trees, that can live for hundreds if not thousands of years and that draw the carbon molecules that make up their structure from all around them. I.E. A tree with a deeper root system could be drawing carbon from different sedimentary layers, causing further error. This same is true for all organic life, as what we consume becomes part of us, such that any particular carbon element could have come from one of a wide variety of sources. They assume that all sources are contemporary, that is an invalid assumption. The circle of life makes certain of that. -For example, if a tree was felled and hauled from its original location, and for whatever reason was left in a different location where it rotted and became part of a sedimentary layer over time, you have introduced something that we can not account for nor would we likely even notice.

--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.