Geologists do not directly measure the age of a rock. Attempts to transform these ratios into dates are where this becomes problematic. It is similar to assuming that the constriction in an hourglass has always been the same diameter, and the same number of sand grains passes every minute. Radioisotope decay rates are renowned for constancy under normal conditions, so this assumption appears reasonable. First, scientists have observed that radioactive isotope radioisotope decay rates do fluctuate, including Th, Rn, and Si Although these particular isotopes are not used to date rocks, they illustrate that radioisotope decay radiodecay is not always constant.
While it is Carbon 14 it is floating around in the atmosphere and latches onto oxygen becoming carbon dioxide. During photosynthesis plants breathe in carbon dioxide and make it part of their tissue. Animals eat plants and make it part of their bodies as well.
This is how Carbon 14 gets into the living world. It gets produced in the atmosphere from the sun, the plants breathe it in, and the animals eat the plants. We have all either eaten plants or eaten animals that have eaten plants.
The plants are breathing in this carbon dioxide and some of the carbon is radioactive. If the atmosphere contains.
So, you probably have. When a plant or animal dies it stops taking in carbon 14 and whatever it had starts to decay.
It was decaying while it was alive, but now there is nothing coming in to replace it. So what they do is compare the amount of carbon 14 in the fossil to the amount of carbon 14 in the atmosphere. If the fossil only contains half as much carbon 14 as the atmosphere, it is assumed to have been dead for one half-life, or 5, years.
While it was alive it should have had. If a fossil only has. In theory the amount of carbon 14 never goes to zero. However, for practical purposes we cannot measure passed a certain amount.
There should be no measurable carbon 14 after about 40, - 50, years. Yet it has proven impossible to find any natural source of carbon below Pleistocene Ice Age strata that does not contain significant amounts of carbon 14, even though such strata are supposed to be millions or billions of years old.
These constitute very strong evidence that the earth is only thousands, not billions, of years old.
Now think for a minute of what this means. The textbooks say that coal formed million years ago. However, when coal is tested it still has carbon How is that possible? If all of the carbon 14 atoms would have disappeared at a maximum ofyears, why would there still be carbon 14 atoms in coal?
In order for carbon dating to work (and this applies to other dating methods as well), the parent and daughter concentrations must have not been altered throughout the specimen's history. Common sense would seem to indicate that this is an unreasonable assumption, especially if carbon dating can be used to 'date' objects up to 50, Jan 03, "Radiometric dating would not have been feasible if the geologic column had not been erected first. [i]" They do not date fossils by carbon dating. Fossils are dated by their geological position. And as we mentioned earlier the dates on the geologic column were chosen out of the clear blue sky with no scientific basis. (Young-earthers) If radiometric dating doesn't work, why is it consistent with other dating methods? Christianity I've seen young-earth creationists make various fairly shoddy arguments that the world is less than years old because radiometric dating does not actually work, and the ages given for fossils and rock layers are far older than.
Obviously it is not million years old. Also diamonds, which they say formed millions and millions of years ago, still have carbon 14 in them. So how do you get carbon 14 in diamonds?
Why radiometric dating doesnt work
Again it is obvious that they are not millions of years old. The carbon dating assumptions need to be pointed out. It is also losing carbon 14 through decay. The question is how long would it take the atmosphere to reach a stage called equilibrium? They wanted to figure out how long it would take the atmosphere to reach a point where the construction rate and the destruction rate of carbon 14 was the same.
Science Confirms a Young Earth—The Radioactive Dating Methods are Flawed
They determined that it would take about 30, years to reach this equilibrium state. They made two bad assumptions after they came up with this calculation. They assumed that the earth was millions of years old and then assumed that they could ignore the equilibrium problem.
Jan 31, by Brian Thomas, M.S., and John Morris, Ph.D. * Geologists do not directly measure the age of a rock. They choose rocks containing radioactive "parent" isotopes that emit particles and radiation to become a different "daughter" element and measure ratios of elements to their isotopes. Attempts to transform these ratios into dates are where this becomes . Perhaps no concept in science is as misunderstood as "carbon dating." Almost everyone thinks carbon dating speaks of millions or billions of years. But, carbon dating can't be used to date either rocks or fossils. It is only useful for once-living things which still contain carbon, like flesh or bone or wood. Rocks and fossils, consisting only of inorganic minerals, cannot be dated by this.
It has been discovered that the earth has still not reached equilibrium. Now think about that for a minute. If radiocarbon is still forming faster than it is decaying, that means the earth is less than 30, years old. It also means that you cannot carbon date anything! The reason is because you would have to know when the fossil was alive to know how much carbon 14 was in the atmosphere at that time.
It simply does not work. If you find a fossil in the dirt, the amount of carbon 14 can be measured and the rate of decay can be determined. However, that is all that can be determined. It is impossible to know how much carbon 14 was in it at death and it is impossible to know if carbon 14 has always decayed at the same rate.
An accurate radiometric date can be obtained only if the mineral remained a closed system during the entire period since its formation this is why radiometric dating can't be used with accuracy. Radiometric dating does not usually work with sedimentary rocks because they . are too old to be accurately dated form too quickly to be accurately dated never contain particles of radioactive isotopes form from many older rock particles See answers (2) . Oct 04, T he presupposition of long ages is an icon and foundational to the evolutionary model. Nearly every textbook and media journal teaches that the earth is billions of years old. Using radioactive dating, scientists have determined that the Earth is about billion years old, ancient enough for all species to have been formed through evolution.1 The earth is now Author: Mike Riddle.
If the earth had a canopy of water above the atmosphere, or a canopy of ice, that would have blocked out a lot of the radiation from the sun. This would have prevented most of the carbon 14 from even forming.
Animals that lived before the flood would have lived in a world with much less carbon 14 to begin with. There may have been none at all, but the amount would certainly be less than what we have today.
If it does not entirely contradict them, we put it in a footnote.
If the decay rate of C were not always constant, then this would be devastating to the technique's credibility. Unfortunately, dating methods such as the carbon dating method have only been around for a short period of time. So far, no known environmental factors have been able to significantly cause the decay rates to vary. Rather I am conceding due to no current evidence for the contrary. With this said, it would be worth while to check out this feedback session which does seem to suggest that there might have been an accelerated decay rate in the past, at least for the uranium-lead method.
Click Assumption 2: Closed systems. A correct date is not possible unless there was neither the addition nor loss of parent or daughter isotopes. This would mean that for 50, years, the specimen that is being dated must have remained in a closed system for several thousand years. Assumption 3: Known amounts of daughter and parent element from the start. This is another assumption that is often made, but rarely addressed.
Doesn't Carbon Dating Prove the Earth Is Old?
In order for the dates from C to be accurate, the starting condition must be known. How do we know that the amount of C in an organism that lived 5, years ago is the same amount that organisms have today?
Since it is assumed that an organism will have the same ratio of C as found in the atmosphere, this is a point that must be taken into consideration also.
According to Willard Libby who invented the carbon dating metho if the influx of carbon in the atmosphere were increasing at its current rate, then the atmosphere would reach equilibrium in about 20, years. Samples of historically known age can be used to estimate the amount of C in the atmosphere at that point in time.
Unfortunately, this only works for objects within the age of recorded history. Since the magnetic field is responsible for deflecting radiation,  less C would have been formed during the time when the magnetic field was stronger. That means an organism that lived and died during a time when the magnetic field was stronger would have less C to begin with.
Such would make an organism look much older than it really is according to the carbon dating method. Have anomalous dates been known to occur? Of course, no matter how well theories sound, the true test comes from actual experimentation.
The Hawkesbury Sandstone has been assigned a geologic age of approx. It was doubtful if any detectable C still remained in the wood, but a test was performed anyway to see if it contained C a sample of the wood was sent to Geochron Laboratories in Cambridge, Boston, USA. One might wonder if any contamination had occurred, but according to AIGGeochron Laboratories conducted thorough tests to ensure that there was no contamination.
Such a framework is the foundation in which we interpret our evidence upon. Starting with the Bible as our assumption, we must interpret the evidence based on a Biblical foundation.
The Bible teaches the earth was covered in a watery cataclysm about 4, years ago. A global flood would have buried large pre-flood forests and animals. As a result of this, the flood buried large amounts of carbon.
Animals that lived right after the flood may not have had as much carbon available because of the global flood. Well-known creationists seem to be split on this one. Conclusion Creationists have nothing to fear from carbon dating, as it does not disprove the young age of the earth.
Most importantly, outside of known or recorded history, there is no way of verifying these old ages. Related Quote: "If a C 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. Save-Soderbergh and I.
The only problem is, the barrel has holes in the side. So, as you're pouring water into the barrel, it is also being leaked out of the barrel. Edward J.