Scientific proof against carbon dating
Such a view totally ignores the known forces at work within our sun.Infinitely more likely is the possibility that our sun might alternate between small periods of shrinking and small periods of expansion, a kind of oscillation. This magic bullet mentality, the tendency to rely on a single, isolated argument to win all the chips, has gotten creationists into more trouble than possibly anything else.Unfortunately, Mother Nature does not give little, gold ribbons to certify the accuracy of our proofs!Facts successfully explained do carry weight and cannot be ignored; facts that don't fit are not necessarily fatal to the central ideas behind a hypothesis.Good scientific judgment is the art of weighing all these variables and properly evaluating the big picture.When great scientific ideas do fall, on rare occasions, they do so of many grievous wounds followed by the rethinking of the total picture.The idea, literally worshiped in creationist circles, that you can disprove a theory by whipping out some cute, isolated "proof" that settles everything at once and for all, is not scientific.
) If there is one thread running through the scientific world, it is an emphasis on the total picture.
Since careful inspection shows no signs of such a flood, the earth can't be older than a few weeks! We do need to know something about the system under study. No one familiar with tides would assume that the rate of water going out is constant over weeks of time!
Just as obvious, at least to the experts, our sun could not have been continuously shrinking over millions of years as described by some creationists.
Great care is taken to survey all the relevant literature and to arrive at a balanced judgment of the known facts.
Scientists are trained to overcome a one-shot, "cowboy" mentality.