The inherent assumptions are that there may have been a different ratio of carbon 14 vs. "other carbons" in living things in the past or that a fairly consistent ratio exists? That means you can question the accuracy of a date given to an object, but that has nothing to do with believing in evolution. An argument for carbon dating exists at least and it ought to be testable to some degree albeit with a limited frame of reference. Uncertainty exists in all arguments, but that doesn't make supporting them faith. The variability in determining what you will believe based on evidence and reason is what matters. So if there is sufficient error found in a particular dating process it will be refused and hopefully be replaced with a more accurate one. It won't be believed in for the sake of believing in it, or it shouldn't be.Quote:
But that all depends on the premises of the argument in question. For example, one of the premises of evolutionism, as well as the Big Bang, is/can be carbon 14 dating. However, when you take a look at the dating process, as well as all of the conjecture involved, it most certainly becomes much more a matter of faith, as the premise of carbon 14 is assumed, and not proven; therefore, the entirety of the aforementioned "argument" is as much a question of faith (that is, how much belief you place in the carbon 14 dating process and it's inherent assumptions, as well as any other premise you care to mention) as creationism is.
