ICR creationists claim that this discredits C dating. How do you reply? It does discredit the C dating of freshwater mussels, but that's about all. Kieth and Anderson show considerable evidence that the mussels acquired much of their carbon from the limestone of the waters they lived in and from some very old humus as well. Carbon from these sources is very low in C because these sources are so old and have not been mixed with fresh carbon from.
Thus, a freshly killed mussel has far less C than a freshly killed something else, which is why the C dating method makes freshwater mussels seem older than they really are. When dating wood there is no such problem because wood gets its carbon straight from the air, complete with a full dose of C The creationists who quote Kieth and Anderson never tell you this, however. A sample that is more than fifty thousand years old shouldn't have any measurable C Coal, oil, and natural gas are supposed to be millions of years old; yet creationists say that some of them contain measurable amounts of C, enough to give them C ages in the tens of thousands of years.
How do you explain this? Radiocarbon dating doesn't work well on objects much older than twenty thousand years, because such objects have so little C left that their beta radiation is swamped out by the background radiation of cosmic rays and potassium K decay. Younger objects can easily be dated, because they still emit plenty of beta radiation, enough to be measured after the background radiation has been subtracted out of the total beta radiation.
However, in either case, the background beta radiation has to be compensated for, and, in the older objects, the amount of C they have left is less than the margin of error in measuring background radiation. As Hurley points out:. Without rather special developmental work, it is not generally practicable to measure ages in excess of about twenty thousand years, because the radioactivity of the carbon becomes so slight that it is difficult to get an accurate measurement above background radiation.
Cosmic rays form beta radiation all the time; this is the radiation that turns N to C in the first place. K decay also forms plenty of beta radiation. Stearns, Carroll, and Clark point out that ".
Carbon Dating Does Not Disprove the Bible
This radiation cannot be totally eliminated from the laboratory, so one could probably get a "radiocarbon" date of fifty thousand years from a pure carbon-free piece of tin. However, you now know why this fact doesn't at all invalidate radiocarbon dates of objects younger than twenty thousand years and is certainly no evidence for the notion that coals and oils might be no older than fifty thousand years. Creationists such as Cook claim that cosmic radiation is now forming C in the atmosphere about one and one-third times faster than it is decaying.
If we extrapolate backwards in time with the proper equations, we find that the earlier the historical period, the less C the atmosphere had. If they are right, this means all C ages greater than two or three thousand years need to be lowered drastically and that the earth can be no older than ten thousand years. Yes, Cook is right that C is forming today faster than it's decaying. However, the amount of C has not been rising steadily as Cook maintains; instead, it has fluctuated up and down over the past ten thousand years.
How do we know this? From radiocarbon dates taken from bristlecone pines. There are two ways of dating wood from bristlecone pines: Since the tree ring counts have reliably dated some specimens of wood all the way back to BC, one can check out the C dates against the tree-ring-count dates. Admittedly, this old wood comes from trees that have been dead for hundreds of years, but you don't have to have an 8,year-old bristlecone pine tree alive today to validly determine that sort of date.
It is easy to correlate the inner rings of a younger living tree with the outer rings of an older dead tree. The correlation is possible because, in the Southwest region of the United States, the widths of tree rings vary from year to year with the rainfall, and trees all over the Southwest have the same pattern of variations. When experts compare the tree-ring dates with the C dates, they find that radiocarbon ages before BC are really too young—not too old as Cook maintains. For example, pieces of wood that date at about BC by tree-ring counts date at only BC by regular C dating and BC by Cook's creationist revision of C dating as we see in the article, "Dating, Relative and Absolute," in the Encyclopaedia Britannica.
So, despite creationist claims, C before three thousand years ago was decaying faster than it was being formed and C dating errs on the side of making objects from before BC look too young , not too old.
Carbon-14 Dating Does Not Disprove the Bible
But don't trees sometimes produce more than one growth ring per year? Wouldn't that spoil the tree-ring count? If anything, the tree-ring sequence suffers far more from missing rings than from double rings. This means that the tree-ring dates would be slightly too young, not too old. Of course, some species of tree tend to produce two or more growth rings per year. But other species produce scarcely any extra rings.
Most of the tree-ring sequence is based on the bristlecone pine. This tree rarely produces even a trace of an extra ring; on the contrary, a typical bristlecone pine has up to 5 percent of its rings missing. Concerning the sequence of rings derived from the bristlecone pine, Ferguson says:. In certain species of conifers, especially those at lower elevations or in southern latitudes, one season's growth increment may be composed of two or more flushes of growth, each of which may strongly resemble an annual ring.
Answers to Creationist Attacks on Carbon-14 Dating
In the growth-ring analyses of approximately one thousand trees in the White Mountains, we have, in fact, found no more than three or four occurrences of even incipient multiple growth layers. In years of severe drought, a bristlecone pine may fail to grow a complete ring all the way around its perimeter; we may find the ring if we bore into the tree from one angle, but not from another. The verse also says that the world perished by water. The sinful world perished. If you had accurately read the verse you would have had the correct interpretation. Just face it, religion is out dated, if religion was created today by someone with all the knowledge that we now have from science then that person would be locked up in the loony bin.
When Adam was created he was a man ,if any one could go back to the day after he was created and looked upon him how old would we say he was,in his twenties maybe,but how old would he be. ONE DAY We could say that it took one hundred thousand years for some thing to crawl out of the mud and evolve into Adam but he was made the day before. If we could be there the day after god put the stars in the sky,we could say it took millions of years for their light to reach us but it took at the most a day. Every thing god created has appearance of age.
We must trust in the Bible. Notify me of follow-up comments by email. Notify me of new posts by email. One of the biggest scientific misconceptions that plagues the untrained minds of Christians and non-believers alike is Carbon dating. Many non-believers point to it as evidence that the Bible is untrue.
Many Christians shift their worldview to accommodate it scientifically while still reconciling the Biblical telling of Creation. Both are actually incorrect.
Scientific Assumptions There are two major assumptions that are impossible to prove or disprove. Biblical Assumptions The magnetic field is decaying.
This article is part of the Compassion and Fear Series Share this: Contact Us You are here for a reason. It doesn't matter why you came. It only matters that you received the message that was meant for you. If you have any questions, suggestions, desires to contribute, or simply want to talk, please feel free to reach out to us. We are humbly ready to learn together. About Us We are not a traditional church, at least not in the way that most accept.
We have no building in which we gather. We have no congregation. We are not classically trained at seminary or other religious institution. We read the Bible. We listen to commentaries. We discuss the possibilities. We strive to maintain an open heart to stay receptive to the Holy Spirit. We watch what is happening in the world. We see the changes, the disasters, the shift in opinions and consciousness that both saddens us and exhilarates us simultaneously.
Creation scientists cannot accept these dates as accurate since they believe that the world was created sometime between and BCE. Since the accuracy of the Bible cannot be questioned, C dating must contain massive errors -- by as much as a factor of five. Similarly, other radiometric measurements which do not use carbon, have dated rocks in northern Quebec, Canada, at almost four billion years old. It is our policy to accurately portray both or all sides to each belief whenever multiple viewpoints exist.
If you feel that we are not fairly describing one side, please use the " Contact Us " button at the bottom of this page to send us a complaint. Please be sure to include the name of this file c14datc. Seasonal events Science vs. Laws and news 2. Gays in the military. We don't have all the answers, but we do have the sure testimony of the Word of God to the true history of the world. From internal biblical information, they have concluded that the earth, its life forms, and the rest of the universe were created by God, less than 10, years ago; i.
Most of them believe that creation took only six days or a total of hours. They further believe that only very minor changes within various biological species have happened since creation. No new species have evolved or been created since. They believe that people gathered in Babel with the intent of building a tower that would reach Heaven.
God confounded the speech of the people in that city so that they could not understand each other's language.
The Basics of Carbon-14 Dating
They then left Babel and radiated in all directions, forming new civilizations around the world. Rejection of the C dating method: They were unable to date the object directly since it is made from oolitic limestone. However, they were able to date many personal objects found with the object in the same archaeological layer of the Willendorf deposit.
Reasons for rejection of C dating, with rebuttals: Some direct criticisms of the C dating technique are: A team of researchers, headed by Willard F. Libby calibrated the C measuring technique by comparing the measured age of samples from ancient Egypt with their known date. For example, they tested a piece of wood from Pharaoh Zoser's tomb with the known tomb date, which was known to be circa to BCE. The agreement was excellent. That work pushed the calibration back well beyond recorded history to 10, BP years before the present.
- drake dating someone on glee.
- Search form.
- is carbon dating accurate?
- dating agency manchester.
Other correlations have extended that to 26, years BP. It may eventually go back as far as 45, years, which is the approximate limit of the C technique. This will increase the level of cosmic rays in the upper atmosphere, generate more C, and upset the C dating process. The Earth's magnetic field has been decreasing for many decades.