Carbon Dating

Anonymous · Post by **Anonymous** » Sun Feb 20, 2005 1:02 am

After attending a couple of YEC creationist seminar's I realized that they in fact have evidence for a young earth. What sums up everything however is their claim that Carbon and other subsequent dating are grossly inaccurate. I've come to realize that this is more of a possibility then I once thought and if in fact dating in general is inaccurate, then the theory of evolution basically crumbles in a second. Anyway with so much fraud in science, particularly evolution, I'm wondering if this issue of Age is one big conspiracy. Also it seems to be that the flood was in fact a global one.

Tash · Post by **Tash** » Sun Feb 20, 2005 2:15 am

Look up christopher dunns, article 'the carbon 14 mystery' (really sorry, i would have found the link but i dont have alot of time

)

it states that carbon 14 dating can be up to 7000 years off, (this article deals mainly with the aging of the egyptian mummies)

which doesnt do that much for the fact that the curent known age for modern humans is around 160 000 years, and with dinosaus, as you know, millions of years old. proved by core samples and geology

Kurieuo · Post by **Kurieuo** » Sun Feb 20, 2005 4:29 am

Carbon dating is not meant to be used for dating things beyond 50,000 years, which is why scientists use many other methods. So of course using carbon dating for something millions of years old, or even thousands of years old, is going to be useless. Yet, to read about the usefulness of carbon dating, I'd recommend reading over http://www.reasons.org/resources/apolog ... on14.shtml.

I've noticed many YECs tend to setup a strawman by focusing entirely on Carbon-14 for ages it is not supposed to be used on. I'd highly recommend to anyone who wants to understand more about the various dating techniques and so forth, having a read of Radiometric Dating - A Christian Perspective (PDF).

Kurieuo.

AttentionKMartShoppers · Sun Feb 20, 2005 2:46 pm

http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebo ... #wp1303390

I'd put it into my own words but I'd mangle it. Basically, of the many errors with it, they assume a relatively stable relationship between C-12 and C-14 (for every part of C-14, there is so many parts of C-12). This was based on the idea that if the earth were at least 30,000 years, they should have reached equilibrium. They guy who came up with the technique later found out that the levels aren't at equilibrium...several times.

proved by core samples and geology

Pardon?

Carbon dating isn't the only flawed one...they alllll are.

http://members.aol.com/acoxon1274/dating_flaws.html

GT Emery discovered that long half life radioactive elements don't have consistent half
lives.

HC Dudley changed the decay rates of 14 different radioisotopes using pressure,
temperature, electric and magnetic fields, and stress in molecular layers.

Westinghouse labs changed the rates by placing inactive iron next to radioactive lead.

The lunar rocks and Skull 1470 are great examples of how dating methods do not agree.

Kurieuo · Post by **Kurieuo** » Sun Feb 20, 2005 8:42 pm

I take it you wouldn't have any problems with the dating methods used to confirm the Edomite kingdom (http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/edom.html), or dates of Solomon and Egyptian king Shishak being confirmed (http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/tel-rehov.html), and I'm sure many others?

Kurieuo.

AttentionKMartShoppers · Sun Feb 20, 2005 9:57 pm

You didn't look at the link....did you....nooooot likely. The concentration of C14 is assumed to be a certain level in the past (as an earth of more than 30,000 years should have C12 and C14 at equilibrium), but as I think I said, it has been increasing. If the thing being dated was around after the Flood (which caused C-14 to jump up, because pre-flood forests (in places like Siberia) kept C-14 in the atmosphere down), then ya might ballpark it better. It's as if we're in trenches, but instead of artillery...LINKS

Anonymous · Post by **Anonymous** » Sun Feb 20, 2005 10:38 pm

Ok nevermind I did some research and it appears the Flood wasn't global, and I'm still gonna stick to an Old Earth.

YEC seminars can be quite persuasive

Kurieuo · Post by **Kurieuo** » Sun Feb 20, 2005 10:41 pm

There was a meeting over here in Oz I remember hearing about. They gathered together all Hugh Ross books (and I'm sure other books), then burned them all.

Kurieuo.

AttentionKMartShoppers · Sun Feb 20, 2005 10:43 pm

As I'm not acquainted with Ross.... are you being sarcastic/humorous/other? No comprendo.

Anonymous · Post by **Anonymous** » Mon Feb 21, 2005 12:07 am

Yeah ive noticed YEC are against OEC almost as much as they are against Evolution.
It's about time we concentrate on bashing evolution instead of eachother.

Kurieuo · Post by **Kurieuo** » Mon Feb 21, 2005 2:04 am

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:As I'm not acquainted with Ross.... are you being sarcastic/humorous/other? No comprendo.

No I wasn't being sarcastic or humourousthis literally happened according to my Dad who was told about it by a YEC trying to win him over.

You'd think that amongst Evangelicals, as long as Christians uphold Scripture as authoritative, that one could look beyond differences of interpretations. Oh well... I suppose we all have within us the desire to have, and pass on, correct doctrine whether of primary or secondary importance.

Kurieuo.

AttentionKMartShoppers · Mon Feb 21, 2005 10:29 am

*Never burned a book*

this literally happened according to my Dad who was told about it by a YEC trying to win him over.

I feel sorry for those knuckleheads. The Catholic Church did the same to the Bible. They bought all the Bibles they could, thus funding the guy who was translating it to make improved editions, and, of course, more Bibles.