Radiocarbon dating and creationism

Rated 3.84/5 based on 936 customer reviews

How can we know without being there to measure the various factors to see if the assumptions hold true?There is actually some solid evidence that many of the assumptions discussed above do hold true.Do we know about all the forest fires and volcanic eruptions that have occurred in the distant past? Noah’s Flood would have uprooted and buried entire forest systems, decreasing the release of C into the atmosphere through the decay of vegetation. Humphreys, and Steve Austin, Measurable 14C in Fossilized Organic Materials: Confirming the Young Earth Creation-Flood Model. Baumgardner, 14C evidence for a recent global flood and a young earth. Consequently, the calibration is a circular process and the tree ring chronology extension is also a circular process that is dependent on assumptions about the carbon dating system (see: B. Creation scientists have investigated this, and believe the Flood explains why most dinosaur bones typically cluster between 17,850 to 49,470 radiocarbon years.[xx] [i] See Paul Giem, Carbon-14 Content of Fossil Carbon, 51 (2001): 6-30; J. Newgrosh, “Living with radiocarbon dates: a response to Mike Baillie.” , 2nd Ed.

The Geological Observatory of Columbia University in New York has proved that the C14 results given in past years are in error by as much as 3,500 years in dating fossils, artefacts and events of the past 40,000 years, and the further back we go in time, the greater the error. Fairbanks of the observatory staff points out that since the C14 dating depends on the ever-variable quantity of C14 in the atmosphere produced by cosmic rays, any alteration of that production either by nature, or by the solar system, or by man-made interference (such as thermo-nuclear bombs) must cause a collapse of the whole hypothesis. (editors), Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth: Results of a Young-Earth Creationist Research Initiative, 2005, pp. (El Cajon, CA: Institute for Creation Research and Chino Valley, AZ: Creation Research Society). Carbon dating today assumes that the system has been in equilibrium for many thousands of years. Yamaguchi, “Interpretation of cross-correlation between tree-ring series.” , 46 (1986): 47–54: Yamaguchi recognized that ring pattern matches are not unique. Chaffin (editors), (August 2015), 112 (31): 9542–9545. “Fossil Fuel Burning Obscures Radiocarbon Dates Increasing atmospheric carbon from burned fossil fuels will make historic dating more difficult,” Climate Wire: Our mission statement is: “Strengthening the faith of God’s children by grounding them in biblical truth and equipping them to discern error, one divine appointment at a time.” Genesis Apologetics is a non-profit organization that is committed to providing Christian families with biblically- and scientifically-based answers to the evolutionary theory that many children are taught in public school.

It begins by measuring the ratio of radioactive versus stable versions of an element.

Carbon dating works by basing an age calculation on the ratio of radioactive carbon (C) in the atmosphere before nuclear bomb testing to the same ratio in the sample. Using a formula that compares that ratio to a standard modern ratio produces a “percent modern carbon” (p MC) value that scientists use to estimate carbon ages for carbon-containing materials.

The Specific Decay Rate (SDR) is known to be only 16.1 disintegrations per gram per minute.”[xviii] If it takes about 30,000 years to reach equilibrium and C is still out of equilibrium, the earth must not be very old.

When scientists attempt to stretch the results of carbon dating back many thousands of years, do they inadvertently violate any of the assumptions discussed above?

Leave a Reply