Search TrueAuthority. Introduction Many people have been led to believe that carbon dating along with other radioactive dating methods proves the earth to be much older than 6, years old. If the dates received from carbon dating are accurate, it would be a huge problem for those who believe in the Genesis account of creation. However, when one starts with the Bible and interprets the information received from carbon dating accordingly, one will soon learn that in no way does carbon dating disprove the young earth. Misconception 1: Carbon dating can be used to date objects that are millions or even billions of years old Carbon dating is one of the most popular radioactive dating methods used today. Ironically, despite its popularity, it is also one of the most misunderstood methods of dating. Many people mistakenly believe carbon dating can be used to date objects that are millions or even billions of years old.
Extensive laboratory testing has shown that about half of the C molecules will decay in 5, years. This is called the half-life. In theory it would never totally disappear, but after about 5 half-lives the difference is not measurable with any degree of accuracy. This is why most people say carbon dating is only good for objects less than 40, years old. Nothing on earth carbon dates in the millions of years, because the scope of carbon dating only extends a few thousand years.
Willard Libby invented the carbon dating technique in the early s. The amount of carbon 14 in the atmosphere today is about. Since sunlight causes the formation of C in the atmosphere, and normal radioactive decay takes it out, there must be a point where the formation rate and the decay rate equalizes.
This is called the point of equilibrium. To illustrate: If you were trying to fill a barrel with water but there were holes drilled up the side of the barrel, as you filled the barrel it would begin leaking out the holes.
At some point you would be putting it in and it would be leaking out at the same rate. You will not be able to fill the barrel past this point of equilibrium.
In the same way the C is being formed and decaying simultaneously. A freshly created earth would require about 30, years for the amount of C in the atmosphere to reach this point of equilibrium because it would leak out as it is being filled. Tests indicate that the earth has still not reached equilibrium.
There is more C in the atmosphere now than there was 40 years ago. This would prove the earth is not yet 30, years old! This also means that plants and animals that lived in the past had less C in them than do plants and animals today. Just this one fact totally upsets data obtained by C dating.
Animals eat the plants and make it part of their tissues. A very small percentage of the carbon plants take in is radioactive C Houts, Ph. Jeff Miller, Ph. Bert Thompson, Ph. Branyon May, Ph. Dave Miller, Ph. Part 1 Dave Miller, Ph. Part 2 Dave Miller, Ph.
Eternal Universe True? Johnson Trevor Major, M. Brantley, M. They're Everywhere! Trevor Major, M. Yes Obviously. Justin Rogers, Ph. Again Eric Lyons, M. Evolution [Part 1] Jeff Miller, Ph. Evolution [Part 2] Jeff Miller, Ph. Grandpa SpongeBob? Joe Deweese, Ph. Materials to Homeschool Your Children? ate Jeff Miller, Ph. And an Insult Jeff Miller, Ph.
Wayne Jackson, M. Kill the People!
Cavalli-Sforza, Luigi , Genes, Peoples, and Languages (New York: North Point Press). Dahmer, Lionel, D. Kouznetsov, et al. , "Report on Chemical Analysis and Further Dating of Dinosaur Bones and Dinosaur Petroglyphs," Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Creationism, ed. Robert E. Walsh and Christopher L. Brooks (Pittsburgh, PA: Creation Science Fellowship). The radioactive dating methods like Carbon, Potassium-Argon, and others, employ assumptions. Parts of each measurement are based in known solid science, but there are assumed portions! And it is a fact that often, even when they get the radiometric dates back from a sample they'll reject it in favor of their consensus instead. Whenever the worldview of evolution is questioned, the topic of carbon dating always comes up. Here is how carbon dating works and the assumptions it is based upon. How Carbon Dating Works Radiation from the sun strikes the atmosphere of the earth all day long. This energy converts about 21 pounds of nitrogen into radioactive carbon
Fish Kyle Butt, M. Brad Harrub, Ph. Or Will It? Books Kyle Butt, M. Kevin Cain, J. Age of the Earth.
How Carbon Dating Works
Alleged Human Evolution. Bulletin Articles. Days of Creation. Design in Animals. Design in Plants. Design in the Universe. Design of the Human Body. Factual Accuracy. Fossil Record. God and Scientific Laws. Government and God. Implications of Atheism. Implications of Evolution. In the News. Legal Issues.
Secular Humanism. Theistic Evolution. Search By Keyword. Search By Bible Verse. A Bird, a Plane Nope, Just a Dinosaur.
Sanford's Genetic Entropy and the Mystery of the Genome. A Crater of Consensus, or False Assurance? A Galactic Glossary.
A Genetic Glossary. A Glimpse of Encouragement. Jerry Fausz, Ph. A Sponge with Fiber Optics. AP Staff. Abortion and Evolution. Dewayne Bryant, Ph. Alien Life, Evolution, and Telescopes.
All the Smart People. Alleged Discrepancies and the Flood. Altruistic Animals: Compatible With Evolution? Ancient Nitwits or Knowledgeable Ancestors?
Another Antiquated Dinosaur Engraving. Another Living Fossil. Another Pointless Attempt to Defeat Biogenesis. Apparent Age. Are Biblical Giants Mythical? Are You a Difference-Maker? Assumption-Based Rejection of Design. Assumptions and the Age of the Earth.
Atheism and Liberal, Missouri. Atheism or Christianity: Whose Fruit is Sweeter? Atheist Parenting Book.
How Carbon Dating Works
Atheists Admit Things Look Designed. Australia's Unique Animals. Australopithecus Sediba: Evolutionary Game Changer? Autonomous Control of Creation. Bacterial Antibiotic Resistance-Proof of Evolution? Bee Flight Physics.
Creationism vs carbon dating
Behemoth and Leviathan: Figurative or Literal? Part 1. Part 2. Behemoth and Leviathan-Creatures of Controversy. Behemoth: A Tail Like a Cedar? Better than God? Big Bang Collides with Scientific Evidence.
Big Bang False. Big Bang or "Big Crunch"? Biogenesis-The Long Arm of the Law. Biomimicry, Butterflies, and Bank Fraud. Blind, Biased Failure to See God. Britain as Evidence for the Flood. By the Numbers.
Chalk One up for Academic Freedom. Change has Limits. Chickens, Eggs, and Ultimate Origins. Christianity and Humanism. Christians and the Theory of Evolution.
Carbon Dating Undercuts Evolution's Long-Ages Claim
Combatting Evolution Education. Comets, Chameleons, and Illogical Conclusions. Complex Jellies Jump Million Years.
Confessed Conjectures and Contradictions of Paleoartists. Congressman Broun and Creation. Controversial Collagen Confirmation Points to Creation. Conveniently Redefining Design.
Nov 19, They have their work cut out for them, however, because radiocarbon (C) dating is one of the most reliable of all the radiometric dating methods. This article will answer several of the most common creationist attacks on carbon dating, using the question-answer format that has proved so useful to lecturers and debaters. Carbon Dating Undercuts Evolution's Long-Ages Claim by John Baumgardner, Ph.D. Evolutionists generally feel secure even in the face of compelling creationist arguments today because of their utter confidence in the geological time scale. Radiometric Dating Search form. Samples from top carbon creationism of a peat bog gave reasonable time intervals Science, vol. The calibrated C method dating Egyptian records, and most of the Aegean dates which were cross-dated with Egyptian dates were confirmed American Scientist, May-June.
Creation and the Age of the Earth. Creation Comment Leads to Another Casualty. Creation in Medical School Curricula?
Creationism and Academia: Mutually Exclusive? Creation's Critics Countered. Critical Thinking About the Geologic Column.
Darwin in Light of Years of Error. Darwin, Evolution, and Racism. Dating in Archaeology: Challenges to Biblical Credibility. Garry K. Unfortunately, dating methods such as the carbon dating method have only been around for a short period of time. So far, no known environmental factors have been able to significantly cause the decay rates to vary. Rather I am conceding due to no current evidence for the contrary. With this said, it would be worth while to check out this feedback session which does seem to suggest that there might have been an accelerated decay rate in the past, at least for the uranium-lead method.
Click Assumption 2: Closed systems. A correct date is not possible unless there was neither the addition nor loss of parent or daughter isotopes. This would mean that for 50, years, the specimen that is being dated must have remained in a closed system for several thousand years. Assumption 3: Known amounts of daughter and parent element from the start.
This is another assumption that is often made, but rarely addressed. In order for the dates from C to be accurate, the starting condition must be known. How do we know that the amount of C in an organism that lived 5, years ago is the same amount that organisms have today?
Misconception #2: Carbon dating can be used to date virtually anything Another misconception people have about carbon dating is that it can be used to date virtually anything. Carbon dating can only be used to date objects that were once living or even apart of a living organism. Such things are a .
Since it is assumed that an organism will have the same ratio of C as found in the atmosphere, this is a point that must be taken into consideration also.
According to Willard Libby who invented the carbon dating metho if the influx of carbon in the atmosphere were increasing at its current rate, then the atmosphere would reach equilibrium in about 20, years. Samples of historically known age can be used to estimate the amount of C in the atmosphere at that point in time.
Unfortunately, this only works for objects within the age of recorded history. Since the magnetic field is responsible for deflecting radiation,  less C would have been formed during the time when the magnetic field was stronger. That means an organism that lived and died during a time when the magnetic field was stronger would have less C to begin with. Such would make an organism look much older than it really is according to the carbon dating method.
Have anomalous dates been known to occur? Of course, no matter how well theories sound, the true test comes from actual experimentation. The Hawkesbury Sandstone has been assigned a geologic age of approx. It was doubtful if any detectable C still remained in the wood, but a test was performed anyway to see if it contained C a sample of the wood was sent to Geochron Laboratories in Cambridge, Boston, USA. One might wonder if any contamination had occurred, but according to AIGGeochron Laboratories conducted thorough tests to ensure that there was no contamination.
Such a framework is the foundation in which we interpret our evidence upon. Starting with the Bible as our assumption, we must interpret the evidence based on a Biblical foundation.
The Bible teaches the earth was covered in a watery cataclysm about 4, years ago. A global flood would have buried large pre-flood forests and animals.