theists, how is carbon-dating flawed?

Question

ive seen many a theist claim that carbon dating is flawed.

anyone who knows even a little bit about science can tell you carbon decays at a constant level, giving us an accurate readout on how old certain tested items are.

i doubt many theists know that.

so im just curious. how, theists and beleivers in god/opposers of evolution, is our carbon dating method flawed.

its one thing to simpl say it flawed, its another to point out HOW its flawed.

Answer 1

It's fact... not theory that carbon levels in the atmosphere are variable over time. So the "constant" carbon is not stable and can not be used as a constant. The equation for carbon assumes that the carbon level in the atmosphere has remained constant.

The rate of decay for carbon 14 is 5,730 years. After 50,000 years there is theoretically no detectable carbon 14 left in an item to be dated. Therefore, Carbon 14 can not be used to date items over 50,000 years.

The effect of solar radiation and cosmic rays have never been factored into the carbon dating equation yet we know as fact that solar radiation and cosmic rays effect the decay of carbon 14.

The Carbon 14 dating equation assumes that all plants and animals absorb carbon 14 at the same rate. This has been proven to be untrue.


So, now that I have answered your questions, tell me how creation is flawed.... it is one thing to say it is flawed, it's another all together to point out how it is flawed.



Added: There are multiple radiometric dating systems available for scientific use. None of them agree when tested against one another on a single sample. In other words there is no inter-testing agreement. What does that tell you? Either a. None of them are right or b. One of them is right and the rest are wrong.

How can we be sure that carbon 14 is correct in the light of so much doubt.

Answer 2

In order to use carbon dating techniques you have to first make some faulty assumptions.

1.) You must assume that the rate of decay of carbon-14 has remained constant over the years. We know as fact that this rate of decay is not constant. The decay rate varies with respect to the environment and other tangibles.

2.) The environment, weather, nukes, Industrial revolution, floods, etc have all led to an increase or decrease in carbon amount and decay rate. We have to assume that the concentration of carbon 14 to 12 has to have remained constant in the atmosphere. It most definitely has not.

3.) You have to assume that all animals and plants use C14 in equal relation to C12. We know this is not the case because there are examples of animals shelled and otherwise that have died recently, yet been dated to thousands of years ago.

4.) The obvious human bias factor, to believe what you want to believe.

5.) I could go on and on.

anyone who knows even a little bit about science can tell you carbon does not decay at a constant level, giving us an inaccurate readout on how old certain tested items are.

Quit relying on faulty assumptive and biased science, it isn't healthy.

Answer 3

I think you're incorrectly applying the statement. People have claimed the carbon-dating on the shroud of Turin was inaccurate due to an unknown (at that time) biological component.

Even the inventor of carbon dating went on to explain why the testing of the shroud was inaccurate.

So carbon dating is not as perfect as you want to indicate it is.

However, I've never seen anyone state carbon dating on bone fragments was inaccurate. Unless they may have the same biological contamination found on the shroud...

Answer 4

It's only a few theists that have any problem with carbon-dating. It's a red-herring that's largely been abandoned by even some of its earlier proponents. Keep in mind that the "young earthers," anti-evolutionists, etc. are not representative of theists in general - not even of Christians in general.

There are many excellent scientists who contribute to the field of evolutionary science who are also religious.

Answer 5

Many ways!

The material being carbon data my not give reliable results!

They did a small test, they took a fragment of a shell they knew was about 10000 years old and part of a shell that was from a living crustacean!

The result the old one came out 8000-8500
The living 150,000 years old!

There are other problems as well, that can throw a date off by as much as 1000 years!

Answer 6

Well, actaully, Im an atheist, and I could tell you what is flawed about it.....

The problem can be with modern bits of carbon contaminating the old carbon being tested, and can yield false results.....Figure that while youre digggin in the ground, you might mix layers, thus causing contamination.....

Answer 7

I've read that carbon dating only goes back about 14,000 years, anything further than that isn't reliable. Besides this, the decay rate may be constant now, but that doesn't mean it's always been constant. You assume that it's been constant bc you have to to get things done. But if that assumption is wrong, then any dates calculated using that rate are wrong. There have been experiments done with radioisotopes that have increased the decay rates by hundreds of times. So the assumption that the rate hasn't changed through all of those thousands of years isn't a very safe one, since we can change it quite a bit by altering the conditions.

Additionally, since radioisotope decay is exponential, if any parent or daughter element was added or removed, it throws off the calculation.

Answer 8

you're touching on people who are advised to have self belief something because of the fact it has a similar opinion with what the Bible actually says regarding the age of the Earth. those human beings in all probability are not conscious of the 50,000 365 days historic previous of the Aborigines in Australia. some human beings have self belief each thing they are advised - clever ones question issues. The exciting area regarding the those that say that the Earth is in simple terms approximately 6,000 years old is that those are the comparable those that say the Bible should not be interpreted, yet taken actually, forgetting that the Bible grew to become into no longer written in English, and grew to become into translated from Aramaic and Hebrew, which motives issues because of the fact the meanings of the words do no longer constantly translate to different languages.

Answer 9

I have had discussions about this with creationists who think they can bamboozle the less knowledgeable into thinking that radiometric dating can be discredited. Unfortunately for them, they give up when they find out that even a minimal understanding of the technique will convince any reasonable person that radiometric dating is valid and accurate - If it were not so, we would not have multiple *independent* dating techniques all giving the *same* answers. Moreover, for the techniques to be wrong, something in fundamental physics would have to be different to the way physicists think it is, and that would have immediately obvious effects on all sorts of other aspects of physics.

So, radiometric dating methods are sound and extremely useful.

Answer 10

I just saw a fundie try and use that excuse on a 3 million year old fossil. That's funny since carbon dating is only good for about fifty thousand years. It's the typical fundie regurgitation of b.s. they heard somewhere from some guy...