What do believers not think carbon dating is real?

Question

You are the same people that not believe in globe warming, and are ruining our planent. Also, carbon dating is not the only way to find out how old fossils are, there is also many types of radioactive dating and fossil records.

Everyone is telling me about carbon dating errors but what about the other dating methods.

Answer 1

carbon dating - method of dating organic remains

What do you mean in your question, which has no connection on the category of religion and spirituaity?

Learn to categorize which is religion and spirituality. Examine yourself first before writing it on this category.
jtm

Answer 2

Any tool will give bad results when misused. Radiocarbon dating has some known limitations. Any measurement that exceeds these limitations will probably be invalid. In particular, radiocarbon dating works to find ages as old as 50,000 years but not much older. Using it to date older items will give bad results. Samples can be contaminated with younger or older carbon, again invalidating the results. Because of excess 12C released into the atmosphere from the Industrial Revolution and excess 14C produced by atmospheric nuclear testing during the 1950s, materials less than 150 years old cannot be dated with radiocarbon (Faure 1998, 294).

In their claims of errors, creationists do not consider misuse of the technique. It is not uncommon for them to misuse radiocarbon dating by attempting to date samples that are millions of years old (for example, Triassic "wood") or that have been treated with organic substances. In such cases, the errors belong to the creationists, not the carbon-14 dating method.


Radiocarbon dating has been repeatedly tested, demonstrating its accuracy. It is calibrated by tree-ring data, which gives a nearly exact calendar for more than 11,000 years back. It has also been tested on items for which the age is known through historical records, such as parts of the Dead Sea scrolls and some wood from an Egyptian tomb (MNSU n.d.; Watson 2001). Multiple samples from a single object have been dated independently, yielding consistent results. Radiocarbon dating is also concordant with other dating techniques (e.g., Bard et al. 1990).

Answer 3

Cordell, Carbon dating has been found to have serious errors. Such as tress that are obviously 100 years or less old, but carbon dating shows them to be thousands of years old. It isn't just Christians that turn a thumbs down on carbon dating, but so do a good many secular scientists. If the secular group isn't using it as much or if at all any more, why poke at Christians. The facts are, these dating methods are in fact flawed, and Christians have nothing to do with it. It appears that you are holding onto something you believe, but have not researched, thoroughly. That is very bad science. Science looks at ALL data, not just what we might prefer to be the truth. I believe that you need to be fair in what you poke at, and know all of the details.
So far as global warming goes, your assertion is again baseless. You have in fact condemned all based on little true data, and your own beliefs.

Answer 4

Carbon relationship is precise, the earth is a lot over 6,000 years previous, no question. Dinasaurs did exist on earth. while it says create interior the bible, it could have been translated prepared, seeing it is the real fact. count can't be destroyed nor created. God the Son (John a million:a million----) prepared and created a house for people to stay in. It replaced into the close to ideal ecosystem, no longer too chilly or warm. even nevertheless, I consider him. The earth is purely too complicated to easily take place. issues evolve, yet stay of their species. the wonderful evidence of it is the tse tse fly which existence span is 20 days. interior the 6,000 years on account that guy has been on earth there have been 108,000 generations of tse tse flies. in no way has there ever been a case the place a tse tse fly gave start to an Eagle.

Answer 5

carbon dating is real... but unless things have changed since the last time i read about it..

it can be useful in some things. but it doesnt do so well in dating bones taking from any given area of the layers of dirt where it was found.
its not accurate. it can only give a range from #x to #x. and its up to the observer to guess which number he wants to represent how old the bone is.

fossil records are not consistant from place to place. the layers with fossil deposits that look so clear cut in one mountain-side show up with fossil deposits at a totally different arrangement at another mountain-side somewhere across the world, due to different chaotic disasters that effected results differently in that area.

radioactive dating... is a failure. url below talks about "Recent New Zealand lava flows yield ‘ages’ of millions of years"
...

Answer 6

If you call our planet rising a couple of degrees on average global warming then what do you call the warm up from the last ice age to what we have now? DO YOU SEE THIS? I ASK A SERIOUS QUESTION FOR OUR SCIENTIFIC MINDED FOLK AND WHAT DO I GET INSTEAD OF A SERIOUS ANSWER? A THUMBS DOWN, REAL INTELEGENT. There are no records dating back any farther than a hundred years or so and no one alive to tell us of any kind of cycles this earth has, no one really knows, all we can do is record what is going on and keep it for future reference, is that not what science does? It would be nice if they would stop burning down our rainforests for grazing lands. Dating of most old objects is inaccrurate because of the global deluge God brought upon the earth, we no longer have a shield of water around our earth that would have filtered out harmful radiation from space and the waters from the flood would have stirred up all the dirt and debris and just deposited it in such a manner as making dating difficult at best.

Answer 7

If it is true, that carbon dating is accurate and determines the age of something that was once alive and is thousands or millions of years old. Then science tells us that it takes a diamond millions of years to be created but Man can make a diamond [even if it is a fake] and it doesn't take millions of years. Then how can we believe that carbon dating is accurate!!

Answer 8

I'm pretty sure carbon dating is not used for objects older than 60,000 years.
The Bible says a formless earth was the pallet God used to create life on. That means it is very plausible a bald water covered earth could have been floating in space for 4.5 billion years. I think you might want to read some recent article written in support of creationist ideas. Do not get your information from other evolutionists or from the Colbert Report. It is not as far fetched as some claim it to be.

Answer 9

Carbon Dating is only usefull for organic matter, and does not work on fossils.

Carbon Dating is only accurate for up to 65,000 years due to the short half-life of Carbon 14.

Answer 10

Those people are young earth creationists, which are just a small subset of "believers". They would rather focus on creationism than the New Testament. Not believing in global warming is more of a political position than a religious belief, because politics is all about disagreeing with the other side no matter if it's actually true or not.

Answer 11

The C-14 dating method is flawed. It's completely inaccurate. You can't get the same reading twice even on the same matter being tested. Other scientific methods of dating are flawed as well. According to Radiometric dating the Grand Canyon is upside-down! The Geological Scale shown in textbooks and for dating fossils is utterly useless. Show me anywhere on earth where the actual earth is layered the way they say it's layered. It's impossible because the Geological scale used for dating is man made.