Radiocarbon dating inaccurate, so the implications?

Question

In the Proceedings of the Symposium on Radiocarbon Variations and Absolute Chronology held at Uppsala in 1969, T. Säve-Söderbergh and I. U. Olsson introduce their report with these words:

"C-14 dating was being discussed at a symposium on the prehistory of the Nile Valley. A famous American colleague, Professor Brew, briefly summarized a common attitude among archaeologists towards it, as follows: If a C-14 date supports our theories, we put it in the main text. If it does not entirely contradict them, we put it in a footnote. And if it is completely out of date WE JUST DROP IT. Few archaeologists who have concerned themselves with absolute chronology are innocent of having sometimes applied this method. . ."

Should geologic chronologies be reconsidered? Do young earth agers have a viable claim?

Answer 1

Evolutionists will never admit this. It will destroy what is left of their sham of a theory.

They keep setting them up, and Creationists keep knocking them down.

Now supporters of Evolution are so nervous about the the lack of evidence for their theory, they have retreated into their only defense: make fun of anyone who disagrees with them WITHOUT ACTUALLY DISCUSSING THE FACTS!

Answer 2

Young earth agers do have a viable claim.
Radio-Carbon 14 dating methods are based upon the fact that the isotope degrades at a constant rate over time.
However, it only degrades at that same constant rate if atmospheric conditions remain the same.
If the Biblical flood of Noah took place, or if a more localized yet widespread flood took place (and there is evidence that it did) then it follows that atmospheric conditions may well have been changed during that time.

In other words, Radio Carbon 14 dating methods cannot yield consistently accurate results beyond four to six thousand years. Scientific method requires that duplication of all conditions must be made in order to prove the results of any experiment. Since we cannot know what atmospheric conditions might have been prior to a massive flood, scientists cannot state with any certainty the age of any ancient artifact.

Answer 3

http://www.asa3.org/aSA/resources/Wiens.html
Radiometric dating--the process of determining the age of rocks from the decay of their radioactive elements--has been in widespread use for over half a century. There are over forty such techniques, each using a different radioactive element or a different way of measuring them. It has become increasingly clear that these radiometric dating techniques agree with each other and as a whole, present a coherent picture in which the Earth was created a very long time ago. Further evidence comes from the complete agreement between radiometric dates and other dating methods such as counting tree rings or glacier ice core layers. Many Christians have been led to distrust radiometric dating and are completely unaware of the great number of laboratory measurements that have shown these methods to be consistent. Many are also unaware that Bible-believing Christians are among those actively involved in radiometric dating.

Answer 4

They do not. Note that this was forty years ago; the art has progressed since then. With the cross-correlation of carbon dates with dates determined from tree rings, carbon dating is the most reliable technology available, and no scientific paper on prehistory would be considered complete without good dating. The number of dating techniques has skyrocketed in the past few years as scientists have gotten cleverer, and all of these give consistent and reproducible results.
Postscript: I note realchurchhistorian's answer. This is hopelessly silly, as evolution is now a proven fact.

Answer 5

Last time I checked, you needed to have a shred of prove-able and repeatable theory for anything to be scientific. Here is the implication for that: Neither Creationist or Evolutionist have a science of how the world began. Unfortunately for both sides, rocks and fossils don't have a date on them like my 2% Milk carton does, so any thought as to the legitmacy of anything past a couple of thousand years both the Young Earther's and the Millions of Years old theorist can contine to debate a subject that simply takes faith to believe.

Answer 6

C-14 dating is highly accurate in some applications, not in others. However, there are currently at least 16 different isotopes that can be used for accurate dating, and which can be used in unison to corroborate one another. Young earthers are so out of touch with science that they are not even aware of such developments, and just keep harping on C-14 as though it was the sole available source of dating data.

Answer 7

The implication is that the Flying Spaghetti Monster created the world in 1623. Note - this claim is just as 'viable' as the Young Earth Creationist Christians

Answer 8

Radiocarbon dating is only accurate to a certain degree. True. But trashing RC-14 isn't going to make the planet 6,000 years old.

Answer 9

Fallacy: One objection does not disprove a theory.

For a good treatise on radiocarbon dating, start here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiocarbon_dating ) and dig deeper if you want something more credible.

Your source comes from a Creationism website. Please backup your sources with peer-reviewed journal articles if you wish to be taken seriously.

Answer 10

Why does it matter what happened back before we were born? Our problem is living the best we can here and now. I believe God will handle it for me, so I have other things to be doing.

Answer 11

an article form 1969!?? Is that the best you can do?