Radio carbon dating doesnt prove anything

The barrel represents the earth's atmosphere in which the carbon-14 accumulates.

The water leaking out the sides of the barrel represents the loss (mainly by radioactive decay) of the atmosphere's supply of carbon-14.

" This article addresses that question, which represents the thinking of a large number of people today.

Certainly the majority of scientists accept radiometric dating.

The first is that atoms have always decayed at the same rate.

And this isn’t really an assumption as the decay rates have been tested in the laboratory for a hundred years or so, we have an example of a natural nuclear reactor where we can measure the various products and determine the decay rates (and the fine structure constant), and we can observe the past by looking deep into the past of the universe. The sigh isn’t for the effort of writing, it’s for the effort of finding all the references.

Indeed, by doing almost 20 seconds of research on google (type in “variations in C14”, click on Google Scholar) the second link is this article from 1954: Carbon 13 in plants and the relationships between carbon 13 and carbon 14 variations in nature So, this issue has been known about for a long time. Then we compare the two and adjust the radiocarbon date to the known date. That’s less than 1% if you’re interested in that sort of thing. But this is already almost a thousand words and I’ve only done ONE! Long story short, scientists have always known that variations in C-14 concentration happen.

However, the above statement is very misleading in that it insinuates that the geologic column is somehow a “figment of the evolutionist’s imagination.” The truth is that the geologic records all over the world are very well correlated with each other, not only with stratigraphy (i.e., which layer overlies which layer) and fossils, but with paleomagnetism, radiometric dating, and many other important factors, all of which fit together remarkably well.This process moves at about an inch or two per year, so the average age of the ocean floor is in fact a few tens of millions of years, and thus the result is completely consistent with old-Earth science.In many mountainous areas, rock layers thousands of feet thick have been bent and folded without fracturing.But we won't discuss the C-14 method in this article.C) dating usually want to know about the radiometric[1] dating methods that are claimed to give millions and billions of years—carbon dating can only give thousands of years.Earlier this week they told us about the common myths about creationism that I had a fun time dissecting as not myths at all, and now they have presented us with, So I would like to take a look at these 10 pieces of evidence and explain why they could not be further from evidence for something as silly as young earth creationism.1.


Leave a Reply