Many people think that the dating methods evolutionists use are infallible. It is also commonly thought that all dating methods point to an old earth. In reality there are many flaws in these processes. This entry will deal with carbon dating.
Carbon dating is one of the most commonly cited methods for the dating of dinosaurs and other organisms. It works only in things that contain carbon. Here's how it works: Cosmic rays knock neutrons out of atoms high up, which travel downwards at high speeds and collide with nitrogen, forming 14C. This form of carbon is radioactive and decays over time. One thing this carbon can do is combine with oxygen to make a special form of carbon dioxide. This carbon dioxide is taken in by plants in photosynthesis. Animals eat the plants, and thus the 14C enters the food chain. 14C is constantly changing back into nitrogen, but in living animals it is replaced by more 14C. When an animal dies, it begins to lose the 14C in its body. Thus, the ratio of 14C to normal carbon diminishes over time; the 14C goes away, the normal carbon stays. This is what the scientists measure: the less 14C, in relation to normal carbon (12C), the older the rock.
Now, according to the ratio of decay, the 14C should no longer be measurable beyond 50,000 years. This is not the only thing; most plants take in less 14C than 12C thus reducing the ratio more. This causes the specimen to look older than it really is, and thus has to be counted in.
Another thing is that the ratio of 14C to 12C has not always been constant. (e.g. the Industrial Age, and the testing of nuclear in the atmosphere changed the levels). When I mentioned the decay of the magnetic field to Axinar, he said that it wasn’t accurate because of magnetic field reversals in the past. These polarity reversals weaken the magnetic field so that more radiation can get through, causing things to look older than they are. The Flood also lowered the ratio of 14C to 12C because plants were taking in more 14C and 12C after the Flood without the 12C being replaced by many animals or decaying plants. Volcanism during the Flood would further change the amount of 14C in the atmosphere.
Some of these things can be corrected for by taking tree samples etc. that have carbon and seeing the ratio at that time. But this can only be used within about 4,000 years.
Thus carbon dating is useful with things of a relatively young age, but guesswork with things older than that. Plus, as we saw, carbon dating cannot give dates larger than 50,000 years.
Most of the material for this article was taken from The Revised and Expanded Answers Book, Masters Books.
3 comments:
Thus carbon dating is useful with things of a relatively young age, but guesswork with things older than that. Plus, as we saw, carbon dating cannot give dates larger than 50,000 years.
Yes, but all you have to do is find just a bit of charcoal from a camp fire that dates back further than 6000 years and you have a reasonable doubt as to the possibility of a literal Genesis.
AND, the good thing is that carbon 14 is remarkably good at dating things up to a couple of thousand years old and there is a TON of stuff that has a reliable paper record pedigree within the last thousand years.
If carbon 14 levels varied significantly in that time period it would certainly be obvious.
Plus there are many, many, many other dating techniques.
Yes, but fluctuations influence even the formation of coal. Not to mention that no one has yet found any coal with no carbon 14 in it.(i.e. older than 50,000 years)If the earth really was millions of years old, we should find coal all over the place with no carbon 14.
Yes, I know that it's good at <4,000 year old things.
I'm going to deal with the other dating methods tommorow, Lord willing.
Yes ... that's right ... you'll never find organic remnants with NO carbon-14 in it. Carbon-14 decays on a half-life basis the same as any other radioactive material. In other words if you have a certain quantity of Carbon-14 a certain percentage of it will decay every year.
However, after 50,000 years the amount is so small that it makes it quite difficult to calculate a meaningful age for the sample.
Post a Comment