You're going extremely far off-topic. It is irrelevant how speculative it is, because c-14 assumptions are still speculative, and therefore not in the realm of science.
Except that they are not speculative. For example, the rate of c14 decay (and other kinds of radioactive decay) is no more speculative than the rate of gravitational attraction, so for you to suggest that it is speculative because we don't have all the information about it is akin to suggesting that the universal theory of gravity is speculative because we don't have all the information on it.. It goes the same way for your other assertions - you have no evidence to back them up either. So holding them up as reasons for why carbon dating isn't reliable is no more believable than asserting that gravity might have worked differently in the past, or might work differently somewhere else in the universe, without providing evidence to show that it was actually the case.
Now, it is true that they are assumptions, after a fashion. But they are assumptions based on the fact that we've never seen them fluctuate, and we don't have any scientific evidence (observational, experimental, or historical) that shows that they ever have in the past either. So it isn't reasonable to conclude that despite this, they might have fluctuated anyway, and thus we can't rely on carbon dating. If someone comes up with solid evidence to show that they have fluctuated in the past, it'll be different, but until then, trying to dismiss carbon dating (and other branches of science that contradict the Biblical narrative) based on "well, things might have been different" isn't going to fly.
Tree rings are not always reliable http://www.treeringsociety.org/TRBTRR/TRBvol46_47-54.pdf
I realise that may not be an easy read, but note the part about "missing and intra-annual rings"
Bristlecone pine rings are much more reliable. First off, they almost never produce extra rings, and while they do have missing rings, the ring patterns of different trees can be measured and correlated with each other due to the rainfall patterns of the Southwest. In any case, missing rings would result in younger
ages for tree ring counts. There's also the fact that scientists have worked out the tree ring sequences for other species of trees, such as the sequoiah (to at least 1250 BCE) and the limber pine (to at least 25 BCE), on top of having worked out the bristlecone pine to at least 6200 BCE. And those have been correlated with the bristlecone pine - it's not just one species of tree and one sequence of tree rings that we're talking about here.
But here's the far more serious problem you have to consider. If there was a worldwide flood around 5,000 years ago as the Bible claims, that means all the bristlecone pines would have been younger than that. Meaning that 8,200 years of tree rings would have had to form in those 5,000 years, requiring 60% of all of those rings to be extra rings. In a species that almost never has extra rings to begin with. See the problem?
You have to be more specific or site sources about c-14 decay fluctuation
I did. It was in this link
(note, this is where I got the info I posted just above). That also answers your objection about tree rings not always being reliable.
I think, being PhDs, they thought of that possibility. Perhaps you should ask them if you feel like this is the case.
If they were doing their jobs properly, they would have included it when they published their findings. Because that's how scientific publication works - you include everything you worked with, no matter how trivial it might seem. If they didn't include it in their publications, that means they either didn't account for it, messed up somewhere and didn't notice, or they intentionally left it out.
Only using older methods of dating. Learn about
I heard about that, actually. But I doubt that the RATE scientists used it, since it's newer than their publications.
I mentioned it as a possibility for you to consider, not that I was unaware, but I'm glad you researched it. Like I said, I generally agree with dates in the last few thousand years, using c-14. HOWEVER there is evidence of accelerated decay in other radioisotopes, but it may take a long time to debate this with you.
No offense, but I doubt that there is such evidence, since it is only creationists - with a vested interest in disproving the science of radioisotopic analysis - who have seemingly found it. Other scientists who have investigated those things haven't found it.
Because the dogs are still dogs, regardless of how old the findings are.
You are trying to have this both ways, though. You are trying to say that the age doesn't matter, because they are still dogs no matter what, but you are also trying to say that the age does matter - since you used the most ancient dog remains anyone has yet found. If the age doesn't matter, why not use dog remains from a couple of thousand years ago? The fact is that it wouldn't prove anything, since we know dogs have existed much longer than that. So you used dog remains that were dated from long before the Biblical flood - indeed, the Biblical creation itself - because they would strengthen your assertion...except that you also want to say that the date doesn't matter, because that demolishes your assertion. You can't have that both ways.
I don't want to be mean, but this is a bit muddled. I'd prefer you make a clear sentence or two statement about what you're saying. Really tho, I don't think my original point is very vital to this whole argument anyway.
In short, you're claiming that scientists think that other sciences have to be made to fit to evolution, without actually quoting any who do - but at the same time, you're shifting the burden of proof onto me, by demanding that I find scientists who don't think this.
"It is like claiming that meteorological science promotes atheism by providing a naturalistic explanation of weather"
is a false analogy, because no religion claims that weather is not a natural phenomenon.
Rather, they don't now. And you know why they don't? Because scientists showed that they were natural phenomenons rather than the actions of a supernatural entity. So it is not a false analogy.
"that medicine and germ theory promote atheism by providing a naturalistic explanation of how diseases work"
is also a false analogy, at least for Christianity, but possibly not for some witchdoctors, who presumably ignore germ theory.
This is also not a false analogy, for the same reason I gave above. Just because most modern-day Christians do not now believe it - long after germ theory was introduced and shown to work - does not mean that Christians always thought that way. Indeed, before germ theory was developed, a lot of Christians believed that they were caused by supernatural influences (either divine or diabolic). Some Christians still think that today, not just witch doctors.
"In short, this claim is no different than claiming that any other science promotes atheism rather than theism because it provides a naturalistic explanation for why something happens, rather than a divine one"
Unless, of course, it is 1 Tim 6:20 "...science falsely so called" which I'm trying to show, and which this article and you are ipse dixit-ing that it is not.
You're the one who linked the article to begin with. Don't start accusing me and it of things like ipse dixit when you didn't read it fully in the first place, especially now that I have shown that it detracts from your argument rather than supporting it.
By the way, you are wrong. I do not expect you to simply accept any of my assertions as valid simply because I say they are. I expect you to think about them and to answer them intelligently, rather than using your own dogma as an excuse to disregard them.
1. Irrelevant irrelevance, I wasn't suggesting it was true or untrue.
Except you just said that you were trying to show that it was "science falsely so-called", effectively, that it was false science.
2. Also irrelevant, we already discussed theistic evolution
This isn't about theistic evolution, it's about your statement that atheism demands evolution. Except that it doesn't, any more than atheism demands any other science. That makes the appeal to consequences relevant, because you are trying to claim that since atheism demands evolution, evolution is required for atheism. I.e., one must be an 'evolutionist' to be an atheist.
3. The whole point of this argument is to show how evolution is not a necessary outcome of the scientific method.
Nothing in science is a "necessary outcome of the scientific method". The scientific method is just a process for checking ideas against reality. So trying to claim that it is not necessary is immaterial. What matters is whether it's falsified by the scientific method, and evolution has not been.
4. That could be easily argued with Darwin's book, not that this "fallacy" is relevant to the quote at all
I assume you mean the same Charles Darwin who specifically stated that he was not an atheist two decades after publishing "On the Origin of Species"? Given that he is the man who discovered evolutionary theory to begin with, trying to claim that you can use his own book to argue that evolution is linked to atheism is absurd. Thus the objection is also relevant.
5. Something that could be even more easily argued
Sure, but not very effectively.
I did that already. C-14 is bogus, the dog fossils are not. Also, dogs descended from wolves.
Until you find evidence showing that it is 'bogus', this is nothing more than your opinion (shared by a lot of YECists, not that it matters), and not a particularly well-informed one at that. Thus dismissing it only demonstrates cognitive dissonance on your part.
I told you twice to actually read it. If you are not going to, don't pretend to know what I'm talking about. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/Taxonomy/Utils/wprintgc.cgi
I did read it, though it's not my field of study and thus is not easy to understand. So I had a friend who is a biologist and who works with this stuff in his job read it too. He's the one who made the "genes for eyes suddenly coding for giant fingers" comparison. Thus, I question whether you actually know what you're talking about here. But here's an easy way to prove that you do - tell me where in that document it shows that different DNA codes can't be overcome via evolution. Specifically, which line.
It has to do with evolution because the supposed ancestors of certain animals have different amounts of polyploidy and chromosomes, whereas the variations within a kind (which is slight changes within a chromosome) generally do not, the exceptions generally being sterile or stillborn.
And you know they had different numbers of chromosomes because... I'm quite serious here. As far as I can tell, this is a totally baseless assertion.
See previous argument
Until you show that said argument is actually based on something, there isn't much to see.
You could just as easily say that the differences in all those animals suggests they did not have a common ancestor. Also to my previous point, similarity does not imply relationship.
What you're saying here is virtually the same as saying, "well, just because wolves and dogs have certain similarities, it doesn't mean that they come from a common ancestor". Except that this is incorrect, as you know. Your argument here is just as bad - basically that it doesn't matter that they are consistently similar in ways that bridge the divide between genus and family, not just species, because they're different 'kinds' (or as you say, 'types') and couldn't possibly have come from a shared ancestor. If someone who did not accept speciation came up to you and asserted that there's no way that the various species could ever have been anything but different species, you would probably call him on it - but you are doing essentially the same thing by asserting that it arbitrarily stops once you get past the species level (i.e., species all share common ancestors, but genuses do not, or families do not).
Is this another ipse dixit? I already showed you a case of DNA dissimilarities, did you need a certain number of them?
The apparent genetic similarity (despite their evident physical differences) between horses and bats is an exception to the rule (and not the only one, either). Simply pointing to something like this doesn't actually prove anything, especially when physical similarities are paired with DNA similarities much more often than not.
You may be right that it is difficult to tell motives and attitude online, but I assure you I'm not attempting to be mean to you in any way. I encourage you to do more research if you don't know what I'm referring to, and I will do the same for you, with a mutual understanding that it doesn't mean the other is somehow inferior.
I wasn't talking about myself here. You seem to not realize how you're coming across to other people - responses which you intend as humorous are coming off as flippant, dismissive, or arrogant, for example, so I was trying to point it out for your benefit.