YOU DECIDE


The Bible and Radiometric dating
(The Problem with Carbon 14 and other dating methods).

Many people are under the false impression that carbon dating proves that dinosaurs and other extinct animals lived millions of years ago. What many do not realize is that carbon dating is not used to date dinosaurs.

The reason? Carbon dating is only accurate back a few thousand years. So if scientists believe that a creature lived millions of years ago, then they would need to date it another way.

But there is the problem. They assume dinosaurs lived millions of years ago (instead of thousands of years ago like the bible says). They ignore evidence that does not fit their preconceived notion.

What would happen if a dinosaur bone were carbon dated? - At Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Scientists dated dinosaur bones using the Carbon dating method. The age they came back with was only a few thousand years old.

This date did not fit the preconceived notion that dinosaurs lived millions of years ago. So what did they do? They threw the results out. And kept their theory that dinosaurs lived "millions of years ago" instead.

This is common practice.

They then use potassium argon, or other methods, and date the fossils again.

They do this many times, using a different dating method each time. The results can be as much as 150 million years different from each other! - how’s that for an "exact" science?

They then pick the date they like best, based upon their preconceived notion of how old their theory says the fossil should be (based upon the Geologic column).

So they start with the assumption that dinosaurs lived millions of years ago, then manipulate the results until they agree with their conclusion.

Their assumptions dictate their conclusions.

So why is it that if the date doesn't fit the theory, they change the facts?

Unbiased science changes the theory to support the facts. They should not change the facts to fit the theory.

A Dinosaur carbon dated at 9,890 and 16,000 years old NOT millions of years old like evolutionists claim

I have documentation of an Allosaurus bone that was sent to The University of Arizona to be carbon dated. The results were 9,890 +/- 60 years and 16,120 +/- 220 years.

"We didn't tell them that the bones they were dating were dinosaur bones. The result was sample B at 16,120 years. The Allosaurus dinosaur was supposed to be around 140,000,000 years. The samples of bone were blind samples."

This test was done on August 10, 1990

Comment from a reader:
"Of course carbon dating isn't going to work on your Allosaurus bone. That method is only accurate to 40,000 years. So I would expect to get some weird number like 16,000 years if you carbon date a millions of years old fossil. 16.000 years by the way is still 10,000 years before your God supposedly created the Earth."
Amy M 12/11/01

My response:
I explain the limits of Carbon dating below. One thing you might want to ask yourself though, is how do you know it is millions of years old, giving an "incorrect" date (one that you think is too young) or if it actually is only a few thousand years old.

As far as your comments that 16,000 years is older than when God created the earth, we know that there is more carbon in the atmosphere than there was a thousand years ago. So a date of 9,000 or 16,000 years is more likely to be less. Perhaps only 6,000 years old.

30,000 year limit to Carbon dating

Carbon dating is a good dating tool for some things that we know the relative date of. Something that is 300 years old for example. But it is far from an exact Science. It is somewhat accurate back to a few thousand years, but carbon dating is not accurate past this. Thirty thousand years is about the limit. However, this does not mean that the earth is 30 thousand years old. It is much younger than that. (1)

Because of the earth’s declining magnetic field, more radiation (which forms C14) is allowed into the earth’s atmosphere.

Willard Libby (December 17, 1908 – September 8, 1980) and his colleagues discovered the technique of radiocarbon dating in 1949. Libbey knew that atmospheric carbon would reach equilibrium in 30,000 years. Because he assumed that the earth was millions of years old, he believed it was already at equilibrium. However each time they test it, they find more c14 in the atmosphere, and have realized that we are only 1/3 the way to equilibrium. (1)

- What does this mean? It means that based on c14 formation, the earth has to be less than 1/3 of 30,000 years old. This would make the earth less than 10,000 years old! (1)

Carbon dating is based on the assumption that the amount of C14 in the atmosphere has always been the same. But there is more carbon in the atmosphere now than there was 4 thousand years ago. (1)

Since carbon dating measures the amount of carbon still in a fossil, then the date given is not accurate. Carbon dating makes an animal living 4 thousand years ago (when there was less atmospheric carbon) appear to have lived thousands of years before it actually did.

What was the original amount of Carbon in the atmosphere?

A great book on the flaws of dating methods is "Radioisotopes and the age of the earth" (edited by Larry Vardiman, Andrew Snelling, Eugene F. Chaffin. Published by Institute for Creation Research; December 2000)

Dating methods are based on 3 unprovable and questionable assumptions:

1) That the rate of decay has been constant throughout time.
2). That the isotope abundances in the specimen dated have not been altered during its history by addition or removal of either parent or daughter isotopes
3) That when the rock first formed it contained a known amount of daughter material
("Radioisotopes and the age of the earth" pg v)

We must recognize that past processes may not be occurring at all today, and that some may have occurred at rates and intensities far different from similar processes today.
( "Radioisotopes and the age of the earth" pg vii)

To know if carbon dating is accurate, we would have to know how much carbon was in the atmosphere in the beginning, and also how long it has been increasing, or decreasing. Since no one was there, no one knows for sure. It's like trying to figure out how long a candle has been burning, without knowing the rate at which it burns, or its original size.

God cursed the ground (the rocks too!)

See my commentary on Genesis 3 verse 17 "..cursed is the ground for your sake"

When this happened there was a burst of radioactity that made the rocks appear older than they were.

Wouldn't this make all the rocks appear the same age?

"The rock question is fairly simple and has to do with the basic elements which made up these rocks in the beginning. When each of these elements, uranium, potassium, radium etc. were switched on, it would only be natural for them to behave according to their individual properties, eventually acquiring stable half-lives of decay, at different rates. Let's say initially every radioactive element was "exploded" into existence from pre-existent elements. None of these early faster half-lives would be the same as they are today.

As time progressed each would begin to acquire its slower modern-day stable half-life, but would they all acquire these stable rates in a uniformity which would keep them all in synchrony? I doubt it. If they did, all would give the same ages, you are right. Each would probably arrive at equilibrium at different times.

Look at biological breakdown everywhere, it proceeds at different rates. Look at the world from a devolutionary viewpoint and see how perfection has been lost and breakdown has proceeded in spurts and stasis periods. Some of us have lost more information than others, that's why some are at Harvard, but others, more unfortunate, [the same] age struggle with debilitating genetic degenerative diseases like Lupus, MS, ALS, Crohn's and many other autoimmune diseases. The keys of which are locked in the "vault of degeneration knowledge" that evolutionists are unwilling to open for fear that we creationists might be correct."

Carbon dates they did not like

Carbon dating is frequently an embarrassment to Scientists.
Here are some Carbon 14 dates that were rejected because they did not agree with evolution

Penguins

Living penguins have been carbon dated and the results said that they had died 8,000 years ago! This is just one of many inaccurate dates given by Carbon dating.

Mollusks

The shells of living mollusks have been dated using the carbon 14 method, only to find that the method gave it a date as having been dead for 23,000 years!

Dead seal

The body of a seal that had been dead for 30 years was carbon dated, and the results stated that the seal had died 4,600 years ago!

Living seal

What about a freshly killed seal? Well, they dated one of those too, the results stated that the seal had died 1,300 years ago.

Antarctic seawater has a low level of C14. Consequently organisms living there dated by C14 give ages much older than their true age. (Antarctic Journal, Wahington)

A lake Bonney seal known to have died only a few weeks before was carbon dated. The results stated that the seal had died between 515 and 715 years ago. (Antarctic Journal, Washington)


Snails

Shells from living snails were dated using the Carbon 14 method. The results stated that the snails had died 27,000 years ago. (Science vol. 224 1984 pg. 58-61)


Potassium-argon dating

The potassium-argon method was used to date volcanic material in this next example.

"Scientists got dates of 164 million and 3 billion years for two Hawaiian lava flows. But these lava flows happened only about 200 years ago in 1800 and 1801.


Volcanic ash has also been known to give dates much older than they actually were .

Lava flows at Mt Ngauruhoe, New Zealand gave erroneous dates (from K-Ar analyses) ranging from <0.27 to 3.5 (± 0.2) million years old. These rocks were "observed to have cooled from lavas 25-50 years ago".("Radioactive ‘dating’ failure: Recent New Zealand lava flows yield ‘ages’ of millions of years" by Andrew Snelling published in: Creation Ex Nihilo 22(1):18-21 December 1999 - February 2000)

The equipment was checked and the samples were run again to exclude the possibility of lab error but similar results were obtained.("Radioactive ‘dating’ failure: Recent New Zealand lava flows yield ‘ages’ of millions of years" by Andrew Snelling published in: Creation Ex Nihilo 22(1):18-21 December 1999 - February 2000)

Because the actual age of these rocks is known to be less than 50 years old, it is clear that these K-Ar ‘ages’ are due to ‘excess’ argon which was inherited from the magma source area deep in the earth.("Radioactive ‘dating’ failure: Recent New Zealand lava flows yield ‘ages’ of millions of years" by Andrew Snelling published in: Creation Ex Nihilo 22(1):18-21 December 1999 - February 2000)

Has the rate of decay remained constant?

The biggest problem with dating methods is the assumption that the rate of decay has remained constant. There is no way to prove it. In fact there is much evidence to show this rate has not remained constant, and that it is decaying quicker and quicker. Just what the bible, and a Devolution and degenerating model of the earth would predict.

A joke about Dinosaurs and dating

Dinosaur Bones

Some tourists in The American Museum of Natural History were marveling at the dinosaur bones on display. One of them asked the guard, "Can you tell me how old the dinosaur bones are?"

The guard replied, "They are 65 million, four years, and six months old."

"That's an awfully exact number," says the tourist. "How do you know their age so precisely?"

The guard answered, "Well, the dinosaur bones were sixty five million years old when I started working here, and that was four and a half years ago."

Now THAT I enjoyed reading!!!

where in the bible does it talk about dinosaurs?

Carbon dating is not the only way for people to determine how old things are. Other circumstances are considered. Layering in the earth is also used for determining how old or what time frame something layed into the layer.

Trying to prove that the earth is younger than it is is ludicrous. We know that the earth is old, very old in our time frame but probably very young in the universal time frame.

There is no way to prove that the bible is accurate so people really need to stop trying. It is a story book, as with all stories, there may be a certain event of truth to build the story around but it is still just a book of old stories.

Book of JOB for one..

Oh really dragoness....tell me how you know how old the earth is.....because you were taught this in school? And please stop preaching your theories of of story book bibles. There is proof of it all over the place....you just need to open your eyes and look....the last three threads I did....would be a good start.....Unless of course you want to give me the proof that so far no one has.....either in evolution or how old the planet really is.....

Proof not saying there is.....show me.

Well that makes me happy happy.

thank you.....I was looking.....and torn between Job and Genesis.

What a crock of bull.

So is this a subliminal brainwashing technique or I have I just caught you red-handed with your hand in the cookie jar?

A religious fantastic preaching outright lies?

Didn't they teach you in Bible Study that it's not nice to lie?

Or is it ok if you’re "Lying For Jesus".

Don't forget the Fire-breathing Dragon in Job too.

Behemoth and Leviathan.

May as well get it all in there whilst we're at it.

that does explain why they avoid sharing that there are fossilized sequoia trees in California on the durface where they fell in the forests where they fell, not buried under tons of esrth.

tey say that the rock is formed by leaching when buried..

if you don't mummify a human it acn decompose completely in no time.

wht then would a sequoia fossilize on the surface?


Oh yup.

the aliens came and planted it there to cover up there game. Ludicrous? no more than the foolishness of thses esteemed professors seeking funding.

wever notice that they aren't getting anywhere any more? not because they can't get funding, but they can't get funding for their private witch hunts anymore

they have failed to deliver the goods.

oh, we have textbooks...

yup, and we have surface born fossils in California.

more growth occurs in my lawn every year than that?

why hasn't the forest floor risen by the debris shed to cover up the fallen trees then?


I cN BURY THE LEVEL OF THE LAWN BY 4' in a few shport years.

something is a miss.

a HUGE SWING AND A MISS.

proof?

there is none.

but can I prove God?


yup.

look at the world around you

By your estimations, you silly scientists, we are all duped.

That is what you thought you could fool everyone with in your esteemed imagination.

so few, supposing to know so much in the name of science.


But the Christian and Jewish scientist freak you out.

They have a hidden agenda...
yeah right.

and you don't?

they are finding you all out and have already discreditted you science.


but you have the textbooks oin the schools.


now that is proof.


and on every page that dares to cite any credible conclusions to prop up the pipe dream of your secular religious dogma, there are ifs and ands and buts.

but that gets edited out of the textbooks.


yup and are textbooks credible at all any more?>

nope.

they are full of errors.

facts are misrepresented and ignored in all of them.

they are selectively marginal at best.

ant the grades reflect that too.

they can't teach anyone anything.


Here, let me shake my head for you.

yours are too stiff necked to go look for youerself.

same thing happens with your great knowledge ogf the Biblke.

parrots.

echoes.


mob mentality.


proof kids, show us the proof.


show us here.

what?

I can't hear you.

Oh, this is just a forum?


oh well, then by all means, you are excused from being credible here then.

Don't mind me, I am just asking far too muich.



dance kiddies, dance.




don't forget to pay the fiddler.

Believing the bible as fact, is your choice. You may want to read some other story books also as they some of them are more interesting and more informative than the bible is.

As for proving how old the earth is, the proof is all around you all you have to do is open your eyes or mind whichever you are choosing to keep closed up in that fantasy book of yours and you will see it. The age of this planet is obvious to anyone with eyes. My opinion of course.

Very cool thread Feral Deb

I second that.

the age of man. not the planet.

the bird's wing. no transition.

you people have no understanding of the necessary significance of the rtansition of the wing of a bird.

the feather isthe most critical link to make the jump work. what a leap.

The age of man and his roots as a monkey are not about anything more than spoon feeding the ignorant and the blind a bill of goods that would promise to negate the shed blood of Jesus and the ten commandments.

-please, you poaRADE AS INTELLIGENT PEOPLE.

YOU ARE NOT.

not when it comes down to this pliumb line of the bill of goods spoon fed your ready minds seeking excuse for your love of unrighteousness and depravity.




No mincing of words.

let's get to it.

let's get it on,


let's hash this out.

the ramifications of screwing around with the truth and parading conjecture as fact and truth had its hey day and it passed.

come on you weak and timid whiners.

come out of the closet and speak your mind.


You won't.


you are ashamed to admit it even to yourselves.

so dance kiddies.


come on, dance.

it's party time.

but be ready to pay the fiddler.

very good i enjoyed it

Absolutely. To beleive the nonsense that Deb posts about science a person would need to believe that all of astrophysics is wrong, all of quantum phsyics is wrong.

They'd also have to believe their the comptuers they are typing into don't really exist. They'd have to believe their cell phones don't work. They'd have to believe that there's no such thing as a nuclear power generator. The atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were myths. That's a nice thought I suppose. Unfortunely it's not a myth.

But a lot of people fall for this kind of nonsense because it lends credence to their fairytales.

May everyone be blessed.

I still think it's a disgrace to lie in the name of religion though. Just doesn't seem like a worthwhile thing to do. But that's just my point of view. To each their own.

awwwww poor abra.....the truth gets your dander up....hey your more then welcome to prove it wrong.....

No the burden of proof is on you. I can't stand this pushing religion as fact ****.
And actually the Bible is kind of a story book. Didn't jesus use parables?

Yeah!!! I want the rights to the MOVIE!!!

That 'sci-fi' stuff will give christians all over the world, a stupendous reality check as to how far the 'genie' has gone out control!!!

Keep writing that spaced-out stuff 'feral'.

It's real COOL! as they used to say after a fews 'joints'!!!