Carbon relative and radioactive dating

When a “date” differs from that expected, researchers readily invent excuses for rejecting the result.

The common application of such posterior reasoning shows that radiometric dating has serious problems.

Unless this effect (which is additional to the magnetic field issue just discussed) were corrected for, carbon dating of fossils formed in the flood would give ages much older than the true ages.

Creationist researchers have suggested that dates of 35,000 - 45,000 years should be re-calibrated to the biblical date of the flood.[6] Such a re-calibration makes sense of anomalous data from carbon dating—for example, very discordant “dates” for different parts of a frozen musk ox carcass from Alaska and an inordinately slow rate of accumulation of ground sloth dung pellets in the older layers of a cave where the layers were carbon dated.[7] Also, volcanoes emit much COC.

To derive ages from such measurements, unprovable assumptions have to be made such as: There is plenty of evidence that the radioisotope dating systems are not the infallible techniques many think, and that they are not measuring millions of years. For example, deeper rocks often tend to give older “ages.” Creationists agree that the deeper rocks are generally older, but not by millions of years.

Geologist John Woodmorappe, in his devastating critique of radioactive dating,[8] points out that there are other large-scale trends in the rocks that have nothing to do with radioactive decay.

Also, the Genesis flood would have greatly upset the carbon balance.

It makes no sense at all if man appeared at the end of billions of years.However, even with such historical calibration, archaeologists do not regard C produced and therefore dating the system.The amount of cosmic rays reaching the Earth varies with the sun's activity, and with the Earth's passage through magnetic clouds as the solar system travels around the Milky Way galaxy.It does not give dates of millions of years and when corrected properly fits well with the biblical flood.There are various other radiometric dating methods used today to give ages of millions or billions of years for rocks.

Search for carbon relative and radioactive dating:

carbon relative and radioactive dating-26carbon relative and radioactive dating-72carbon relative and radioactive dating-51

This is the “half-life.” So, in two half-lives, or 11,460 years, only one-quarter of that in living organisms at present, then it has a theoretical age of 11,460 years.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

One thought on “carbon relative and radioactive dating”

  1. But it may just be the ladies who like to be spoken to – as the survey also revealed that one of the top things they don’t like about their partners is making “too much noise”.