Here's what they don't teach you in science classes about radiocarbon dating:
For radio carbon dating to work, the scientists using the technology must make several assumptions.
First they must assume that the carbon isotopes have been in the rock since the rock's inception.
They can't know this for a fact as they where not there to measure the levels of carbon in the rock at its inception.
Before I continue I think it is important to make clear something else. When Scientists date stuff older than the realm of archaeology,
the best and most plausible method is to look at the geological column and its index fossils.
They date the rocks by the index fossils they date the index fossils by the rocks. And Christians get accused of circular reasoning!!!
They also assume, in order to date anything, that the sample they are dating had the same percentage of C14 as the atmosphere did (0.0000765%). They take a measurement of C14 levels in the sample then compare to the levels in the atmosphere. As the carbon is decaying it will be less than the levels in the atmosphere. They then use C14's half life of 5730 years to work out the age of that sample. The assumption that the sample has the same levels of radiocarbon (C14) as the atmosphere is too big an assumption to ignore and therefore, renders radiocarbon dating a little obsolete.
You guys who throw carbon dating at us as a, "proof" for the bible being wrong but, also fail to take into account that, because of C14 decay rate it is impossible to find any of it left in samples over a supposed 250,000 years.
The guys who invented radiocarbon dating realised that, for it to work the earth's atmosphere needed to have reached equilibrium (the same amount of carbon is decaying as is entering into the atmosphere) and began to calculate how long it would take a brand new planet earth to reach equilibrium. The answer is 300,000 plus or minus one or two.
They ignored this conclusion and assumed the atmosphere was already at equilibrium because, in their opinion, the earth was millions of years old.
In 2005 Scientists discovered that 30-40% more C14 is entering our atmosphere than is decaying or, in other words, there is no equilibrium.
Question: Why haven't the experts put two and two together and concluded that, because there is no equilibrium in our atmosphere the earth MUST be less than 300,000 years old?
As the earth has not reached equilibrium yet, it is impossible to know how much carbon was in the atmosphere 5000 years ago (let alone millions) and, therefore, impossible to know how much C14 was in the samples they are trying to date.
Here are some examples of studies conducted:
1971, they measured a freshly killed seal as being 1300 years old.
1984: Shells from living snails were carbon dated as being 27,000 years old.
Scienc Vol. 224, 1984 p. 58-61
In 2005 Professor Reiner Protsch Von Zieten had to resign from the oxford university panel
for claiming that Neanderthal skulls found in the 1930's where carbon dated to 21,300 years.
They made him resign because the oxford fellows dated them at 3,300 years old. What is important here isn't that the Oxford guys were right and Von Zieten was wrong. The important element is that both used the same testing methods and produced different results.
This happens all the time in carbon dating. 20% of all the carbon dating experiments ever carried out contradict the predictions scientists made about the age of the object.
It isn't unheard of that scientists will literally disregard information that juxtaposes their assumptions.
I could go on about Carbon dating all day but I shant, I want a spliff.
mks wrote:
That right there already contradicts your position on the Earth being only 6000 years old.
Why does it? As I have shown above, carbon dating is flawed and the way they date fossils is entirely circular reasoning.
There is lots of evidence to suggest that we lived with dinosaurs.
