Do creationists realize there is more than just one method for carbon dating fossils?

Question

I constantly hear creationist claim the earth is 6000 years old and that Carbon dating cannot be trusted. But do people actually think scientists settle on the first methods and results they come across before they proclaim something as fact?

Several other radiometric techniques exist, like K/Ar dating, Ar/Ar dating, U/Pb dating, Pb/Pb dating, and Nd dating. In these cases, you are generally dating the rock in which the fossil was found and not the fossil directly. Other non-radiometric techniques also exist, like fission-track or thermoluminescence. Techniques like paleomagnetism or dating according to what fossils are present (biostratigraphy) can also be used. Creationists like to argue that these last techniques are circular, but they fail to understand that the magnetic and biostratigraphic time scales are calibrated using radiometric or other chemical methods.

Answer 1

I'm sure there are some that do. A lot of times if there are subtle methods of reality that conflict with ones beliefs, it is more pleasurable to simply ignore the truth, and remain in willful naivety.

Answer 2

I expect part of the problem - apart from bias - is not understanding how these methods work in principle.

Usually they relay on some radioactive element being trapped in the sample, having been at a known level at the moment of entrapment.

For instance, the level of a radioactive gas in the air may be constant because it's being replenished by stratospheric infall, or actual creation in the stratosphere by incoming cosmic rays.

This will mean that a sediment, rock or ice core will contain a sample of the original gas, that has been decaying radioactively since it was trapped.

Radioactive decay causes one element to turn into another - a gas may turn into a metal, for instance. By measuring the ratio between the gas and the metal element, you can tell how long it's been decaying, because the decay happens at a precise rate that varies only with the element or isotope.

This will give a date for the sample that can be extremely acccurate -especially if all contamination can be ruled out.

CD

Answer 3

I've talked to about 100 creationists and I've only encountered 3 that have ever even read 1 scientific book about evolution. So no, most creationists will never look into this kind of information.

BTW, your question should read: "Do creationists realize there is more than just one method for dating fossils." (The other methods you've mentioned are not carbon dating.)

All these methods work on different principals (such as ice core and tree core samples) and still give the same answers.

Answer 4

There is more than one type of creationist. The most vocal group takes a hyper-literal view of Genesis and insists on a 6,000 year old earth. However, there are other groups that can accept an old earth based on scientific evidence, and can see that as not conflicting with scripture at all. You see, the word in Genesis that is translated "day" can also mean "indefinitely long period of time". See http://www.answersincreation.org/ for more info and answers to all sorts of questions.

So, please do not reject God because some overzealous people ignore a mountain of scientific evidence and claim the earth is only 6000 years old. It is possible to believe in God and the Bible, and to accept that the earth is billions of years old. God bless you!

Answer 5

Edward, I think the main trouble you're going to come across here is that you are trying to debunk a spiritual line of thought using a scientific one. Both draw off of different logics. Neither side will convince the other. However, I will try to help you with this in a later edit. Joe, human evolution does not negate the existence of a soul. You're creating a false dichotomy.

Answer 6

Even carbon dating itself has different techniques. Although Creationists harp on the vagaries of the early C12/C14 scintillation methods, they have never discredited measurements by C12/C13/C14 mess spectrometry. They rely on the limits of 1960's methodologies to dishonestly discredit all subsequent science.

Answer 7

Creationists can just say the same thing about all these other methods of dating: that it can't be trusted. Or they can be even more pragmatic, and say that God gives the results he wants to test the believers. There's no logic to it.

Answer 8

You are correct that there are several processes for "carbon dating" fossils. One of the problems with them is that they rarely agree with each other, often varying by millions of years.

Answer 9

I'll bet that there is not one creationist that is a brain surgeon. Don't you agree? To believe in Genesis is a good indication of lack of intelligence in my opinion.

Answer 10

I can say that all the provens in the world are the joke only. This proven only last long for 10 years. The other proven ruin my proven too.