Arguments against carbon dating

Rated 3.83/5 based on 698 customer reviews

Radiocarbon dating can easily establish that humans have been on the earth for over twenty thousand years, at least twice as long as creationists are willing to allow.Therefore it should come as no surprise that creationists at the Institute for Creation Research (ICR) have been trying desperately to discredit this method for years.However, in either case, the background beta radiation has to be compensated for, and, in the older objects, the amount of C-14 they have left is less than the margin of error in measuring background radiation. Question: Creationists such as Cook (1966) claim that cosmic radiation is now forming C-14 in the atmosphere about one and one-third times faster than it is decaying.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. 108) Cosmic rays form beta radiation all the time; this is the radiation that turns N-14 to C-14 in the first place. If we extrapolate backwards in time with the proper equations, we find that the earlier the historical period, the less C-14 the atmosphere had.

The creationists who quote Kieth and Anderson never tell you this, however.

Question: But don't trees sometimes produce more than one growth ring per year? Answer: 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.

Carbon from these sources is very low in C-14 because these sources are so old and have not been mixed with fresh carbon from the air.

Thus, a freshly killed mussel has far less C-14 than a freshly killed something else, which is why the C-14 dating method makes freshwater mussels seem older than they really are.

Leave a Reply