Radiocarbon dating inaccurate

28 Oct

As far as your comments that 16,000 years is older than when God created the earth, we know that there is more carbon in the atmosphere than there was a thousand years ago. It is somewhat accurate back to a few thousand years, but carbon dating is not accurate past this. However, this does not mean that the earth is 30 thousand years old. Because of the earths declining magnetic field, more radiation (which forms C14) is allowed into the earths atmosphere.

So a date of 9,000 or 16,000 years is more likely to be less. Carbon dating is a good dating tool for some things that we know the relative date of. Willard Libby (December 17, 1908 September 8, 1980) and his colleagues discovered the technique of radiocarbon dating in 1949.

The age they came back with was only a few thousand years old. And kept their theory that dinosaurs lived "millions of years ago" instead. They then use potassium argon, or other methods, and date the fossils again.

This date did not fit the preconceived notion that dinosaurs lived millions of years ago. They do this many times, using a different dating method each time.

Carbon dating makes an animal living 4 thousand years ago (when there was less atmospheric carbon) appear to have lived thousands of years before it actually did.

A great book on the flaws of dating methods is "Radioisotopes and the age of the earth" (edited by Larry Vardiman, Andrew Snelling, Eugene F. Published by Institute for Creation Research; December 2000) Dating methods are based on 3 unprovable and questionable assumptions: 1) That the rate of decay has been constant throughout time. That the isotope abundances in the specimen dated have not been altered during its history by addition or removal of either parent or daughter isotopes 3) That when the rock first formed it contained a known amount of daughter material ("Radioisotopes and the age of the earth" pg v) We must recognize that past processes may not be occurring at all today, and that some may have occurred at rates and intensities far different from similar processes today.

The results can be as much as 150 million years different from each other! They then pick the date they like best, based upon their preconceived notion of how old their theory says the fossil should be .

So they start with the assumption that dinosaurs lived millions of years ago, then manipulate the results until they agree with their conclusion. So why is it that if the date doesn't fit the theory, they change the facts?

What many do not realize is that carbon dating is not used to date dinosaurs. Carbon dating is only accurate back a few thousand years.

Let's say initially every radioactive element was "exploded" into existence from pre-existent elements.

None of these early faster half-lives would be the same as they are today.

( "Radioisotopes and the age of the earth" pg vii) To know if carbon dating is accurate, we would have to know how much carbon was in the atmosphere in the beginning, and also how long it has been increasing, or decreasing. It's like trying to figure out how long a candle has been burning, without knowing the rate at which it burns, or its original size.

See my commentary on Genesis 3 verse 17 "..cursed is the ground for your sake" When this happened there was a burst of radioactity that made the rocks appear older than they were.