More on Carbon Dating

Most people have heard of Carbon-14 dating, but it is a wide misconception that this method provides proof that the earth is millions of years old. Even if we don’t consider the assumptions on which Carbon dating is based, this process is still unable to provide dates more than 100,000 years into the past. This is because C-14 has such a fast decay rate. Every 5,730 year, half of the C-14 in a specimen will have decayed into Nitrogen. This is called a half-life. In another 5,730 years, another half will have decayed. After about 100,000 years, there would not be enough C-14 present to detect with modern instruments.

There are five other radiometric dating methods that use elements with longer half-lives (uranium-238, uranium-235, potassium-40, rubidium-87, and samarium-147). These are the ones that produce readings of millions of years. But Carbon dating actually undermines these figures.

Wood has been found trapped within lava flows that date into the millions of years. But this wood still has detectable amounts of C-14 in it. If it was actually millions of years old, the Carbon would be long gone. Coal and diamonds have been found in rock layers dated in the millions of years. However, both coal and diamonds were found to contain C-14. It is physically impossible for these things to be more than 100,000 years old.

Let me assert that radiometric dating is not as reliable as we have been told.

Advertisements

2 thoughts on “More on Carbon Dating

  1. Hey, where are your cited sources? How/why should anyone believe what you are saying if you don’t give the articles that you used to write your information? Do you have any background in science so that any of what you say is actually credible? I’m being serious– I try to be open minded about all sides but this is absolute garbage if you can’t support what you are saying. ANYONE can write what they want online and make it appear as truth. Without sources what you say is meaningless. Could you send me a list of articles?

    1. Science was not my primary field of study in college. However, I leaned about half-lives in basic chemistry. They are widely known. My sources for the wood, coal, and diamond finds are as follows:

      C. Sewell, “Carbon-14 and the Age of the Earth,” 1999. http://www.rae.org/pdf/bits23.pdf

      M. Riddle, Does radiometric dating prove the earth is old?, in K.A. Ham (Ed.), The New Answers Book, Master Books, Green Forest, Arkansas, pp. 113–124, 2006.

      A.A. Snelling, Radioactive “dating” in conflict! Fossil wood in ancient lava flow yields radiocarbon, Creation Ex Nihilo 20(1):24–27, 1997. A.A. Snelling, Stumping old-age dogma: Radiocarbon in an “ancient” fossil tree stump casts doubt on traditional rock/fossil dating, Creation Ex Nihilo 20(4):48–51, 1998. A.A. Snelling, Dating dilemma: Fossil wood in ancient sandstone: Creation Ex Nihilo 21(3):39–41, 1992. A.A. Snelling, Geological conflict: Young radiocarbon date for ancient fossil wood challenges fossil dating, Creation Ex Nihilo 22(2):44–47, 2000. A.A. Snelling, Conflicting “ages” of Tertiary basalt and contained fossilized wood, Crinum, central Queensland, Australia, Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal 14(2):99–122, 2000.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s