Radiocarbon dating answers in genesis

What they did not find is that radioactive decay rates are not the same within a given isotope. As I stated above, that is set by the fine-structure constant of the universe and purely quantum mechanical processes. The parts of the same meteorite that the researchers analyzed are almost guaranteed to have formed at the same time because — in part — they are in the same meteorite.

Therefore, if the rate were to change through time, then they all should still show the same ratio of parent to daughter isotope because they all would be changing at the same rate. Therefore, what it shows and what the researchers concluded is that the original ratios were slightly different.

Radiometric Dating – Creation Perspective

He continues with standard YEC arguments after that. And this dovetails with other valid research which found similarly falsifying data. This is a standard creationist tactic: And 4 therefore God did it years ago. Every quote presented above was copy-pasted from the original ICR article. But perhaps more interestingly, the language is less scathing. For example, the opening paragraph is now, if one were to show the edits via strikethroughs and insertions:.

Creation Science Rebuttals, Dacite Dating

Is it just me, or does that actually seem to be a softening of the language? It actually seems to represent the research now. Again … the language seems softer and actually seems to represent the research. Create a free website or blog at WordPress. Andrew Snelling , astronomy , astrophysics , carbon dating , creation , creationism , evolution , geochemistry , geochronology , geology , geophysics , radiocarbon dating , radiometric dating , Robert Gentry , yec , young-earth creationism.

AiG , answers in genesis , creation , creationism , dating methods , icr , institute for creation research , noah's ark , radiocarbon dating , radiometric dating , yec , young-earth creationism.

You have Successfully Subscribed!

This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this website, you agree to their use. To find out more, including how to control cookies, see here: Any offensive language will automatically disqualify your comment for publication, even if the arguments contained are good.


  • Search This Blog;
  • Assumptions Related to other Radiometric Dating Methods.
  • June 1, 2012;
  • Radiometric Dating - Creation Perspective » Alpha Omega Institute?
  • how to reject a guy online dating;

Please comment on the ideas that are presented and not the presenter. We are looking for real arguments, not fallacious ones, so that we can present and challenge opposing ideas and arguments as they are truly believed by evolutionists. We do not want to tear down straw men as well as you do not want to be misrepresented. Also, please keep your comments as brief as possible, and if the majority of the comment does not address the current issue, but becomes a red-herring, it will not be posted as well.

Answers to Creationist Attacks on Carbon-14 Dating

If your comment does not fall into one of the above restrictions, then your comment will be posted unedited you may want to check your spelling, grammar, etc. We thank you for your time and comments. Evidence has to then be interpreted, which is not a fact…but evidence strengthening or weakening a specific hypothesis or theory. So there can be multiple ways of interpreting the same evidence. I am not being unscientific, but asking more questions and being skeptical is being more scientific. I am still working on these, so please help with your comments.

If you would like to see if an AOI seminar is right for you, or you would like to help the work of Alpha Omega Institute, please visit our website events page or our donate page. Keep up to date with what AOI is doing. Thanks for your partnership. Austin, Grand Canyon Lava Flows: What about carbon dating? Problems with the Assumptions, September 2, , Answers in Genesis, https: Ways they make conflicting results tell the same story, October , Creation 32 4: Andrew Snelling, Geological conflict: Young radiocarbon date for ancient fossil wood challenges fossil dating, March , Creation 22 2: Tas Walker, The dating game, December , Creation 26 1: Lubenow, The pigs took it all, June , Creation 17 3: The table data was taken from the following sources:.

Matthews, Radiometric dating and the age of the Earth, December , Creation 5 1: Humphreys, Young helium diffusion age of zircons supports accelerated nuclear decay, in Vardiman et al. Faure, Gunter, Principles of Isotope Geology , 2nd ed. Your email address will not be published. This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed. 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 ". 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.

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.


  • Radiometric dating;
  • June 9, 2012.
  • dating financially irresponsible man.
  • offer nissim feat maya hook up original mix download.

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. 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. Hence at least some of the missing rings can be found. Even so, the missing rings are a far more serious problem than any double rings.

Other species of trees corroborate the work that Ferguson did with bristlecone pines. Before his work, the tree-ring sequence of the sequoias had been worked out back to BC. The archaeological ring sequence had been worked out back to 59 BC. The limber pine sequence had been worked out back to 25 BC. The radiocarbon dates and tree-ring dates of these other trees agree with those Ferguson got from the bristlecone pine. But even if he had had no other trees with which to work except the bristlecone pines, that evidence alone would have allowed him to determine the tree-ring chronology back to BC.

See Renfrew for more details. So, creationists who complain about double rings in their attempts to disprove C dating are actually grasping at straws. If the Flood of Noah occurred around BC, as some creationists claim, then all the bristlecone pines would have to be less than five thousand years old.