how do creationists explain away carbon dating?

Question

carbon dating is a process to approximate the age of all material on earth. carbon dating also proves that the earth is way older than the creationists theory states. and also proof in fossils that creationists timeline is way way way off.

Answer 1

The devil is trying to trick us or god is testing us. "Sigh" It's hard to argue logic with people like that.

Answer 2

We don't have to. We just have to wait for Science to do that for us. One day Science will come up with a new and better method and that method could vary drastically with Carbon 14.

We don't, for example, know if reativity plays a part thing things.

The universe is expected to fall back upon itself. This means that the speed of all things in the universe can be gradually slowing in a steady, logarithmic method that we are acclimated to.

Under the concepts put forth by Einstein as things speed up time contracts, as this slow time expands.

Atomic decay could be a constant, but if there is a time dilation factor this may not be precieved or noticed.

If we are gaining one second of time every 100 years this can throw things off over 4 billion years of time.

If we are gaining one minute eveyr 100 years this can throw things in the millions of year off.

If we are gaining an hour every 100 years this can throw things off in the thousands of year catagory.

We have no way of knowing, one way or the other, if there is a time dilation and to what degree is affects things.

We expect atomic decay to be a constant, maybe.

But if the physical is changing by the nature of time and growing larger and slowing down, then Carbon 14 could be off, relativistically speaking.

That's a hypothesis and it's based on Einstein's views.

Answer 3

Radiocarbon dating isn't appropriate for time spans beyond about 100,000 years. The reason for this is because there are not typically enough of the stuff left compared to what started out to produce an accurate statistical inference (which is what one does in obtaining the date). It's a central (and basic) matter of statistics that it only makes accurate inferences on "large" sample sizes. The size of a "large" sample is defined by the level of accuracy desired of the inference. Now, where radiocarbon dating would be valid regarding fossils would be in testing the hypothesis that all fossils are only a few thousand years old at most, and radio carbon dating would be _very_ accurate and consistent in the dates that it returns for samples IF the literal biblical creation chronology were true.

Answer 4

Carbon dating rests on three premises:
1. the rate that unstable, radioactive C-14 decays in to stable, non-radioactive isotope.
2. The ratio of C-12 to C-14 in a given specimen
3. The ratio of C-12 to C-14 in the atmosphere at the time the specimen died.

The problems with these premises are that they can't be measured with certainty.

First, you have to assume that the decay rate (supposedly about 5,700 years half life) has remained constant throughout time. However, evidence suggests that any number of variables can slow or increase the rate of decay.

Second, you have to assume that the ratio of C-12 to C-14 in the atmosphere has remained constant throughout the past (in order to estimate the amount present at the time the specimen died). However, studies suggest that radioactive carbon is current forming faster than it is decaying and science has shown that CO2 emissions from factories (and cars and all that other modern stuff) decreased the ratio during the industrial revolution (and would have likely had the same effect during times of high volcanic activity...also dumping lots of CO2 in to the atmosphere).

In addition, you have to consider the rate of decay in relation to the ability to measure minute differences. With a half-life of 5700 years, radiocarbon dating is pretty accurate for things less than 5 to 6 thousand years old...reliability decreases when you go to 10,000 years and by the time you get to 25,000 years you're trying to accurately measure the amount of C-14 with less than 9% of the original assumed amount remaining. Thus, radiocarbon dating becomes questionable with anything older than about 25,000 years.

Finally, to assume carbon dating is "accurate" you have to ignore wild fluctuations in the results. Reliability (consistency) is a necessary condition for validity and while radiometric dating methods have become more reliable over the past 30 years, they still aren't at a level of reliability that would be considered acceptable by a court of law (not anywhere close to DNA, more comparable to polygraph testing in terms of consistency).

Answer 5

They try to make claims about "accellerated decay" and other nonsense without offering any evidence that such things actually happened.

They are also unable to explain the fact that multiple dating techniques all often yield the exact same answer: If the methods of dating were as unreliable as the Creationists claimed, different methods would all get different answers regarding the same sample. But they don't.

Answer 6

They also think that because the half life of C-14 is only 5730(i think) years that it can't trace back any further than that. Or that because it's not truly the most accurate method that it must be wrong. And it's true that it may be off by a few hundred years but I don't think it's been off by an order of magnitude. Also there's the idea similar to the stars that it was placed there already decaying.

Answer 7

God went to all the trouble of calibrating carbon13 decay to coincide with our anthopic ideas of time, so that he can test our 'faith'.

BTW, the age of the earth is not determined by carbon dating but radio-potassium dating.

Answer 8

Now scientist are saying carbon dating is not accurate. That's kind of bad for these Bible scholars too cause now they have to discredit the supposed dating of thousands of Greek Manuscripts of the New Testament.

Answer 9

They say "were you there?"

Also, science has been wrong before so a lot of people (not everyone mind you) aren't willing to put their faith in carbon dating when they don't truly understand the science behind how it works.

Answer 10

carbon dating on Mt. Saint Helens shown trees that were in the explosion were about 5,000 years old. When they were living the time of the eruption.

Answer 11

how do you intend to confirm the theory and results of
carbon dating?