The Age of the Earth - Radiocarbom Dating as a Current Scientific Clock: Jonathan Ring
Evolutionists have long used the carbon, or radiocarbon, dating technique as a . And a radiocarbon result that contradicts old-earth dogma is not a good enough view, this is, in fact, a much more serious problem for the old-earth view!. They define all old-earth views as "evolutionary" and imply that an old-earth claims for young-earth evidence (from geology, radiometric dating, astronomy. Whenever the worldview of evolution is questioned, the topic of carbon dating always comes up. Here is how carbon dating works and the.
But modern conventional geological science, which is accepted by almost all geologists, is a "hybrid combination" proposing that slow uniformitarian processes produced most features, but fast catastrophic events produced some features, as explained by Mark Isaak and Greg Neyman. Scientific Methods and Logical Evaluations This page begins by asking, Can we use historical science to get reliable information about the history of nature? Usually, advocates of a young earth say NO.
More Problems with Carbon-14 and Old-Earth Assumptions
Frank Sherwin, a young-earth scientist, seems to disagree when he explains why scientists should Follow the Evidence but John Morris thinks scientists cannot study the past with confidence so Biblical interpretation not historical science is the most reliable way to know the history of nature.
To gather information about their young-earth YE views of science, ask a YE believer, "Is there any scientific evidence that would convince you the earth is old? For a variety of reasons — personal and interpersonal, spiritual and scientific — it's important to ask, " Is young-earth belief an essential part of Christian theology? Paula Weston describes coral biology, with appendix not by her? Why do scientists think reefs required a long time to grow? Roth is often cited, re: Varve Layers — a YE solution?
Age of the Earth - Science Evidence
In some rock formations we observe millions of thin layers that, according to conventional geology, were produced in millions of years. How do layers form? Can varves form in less than a year? The problem for flood geology is the patterns, because the "evolution" in the patterns requires only minor macro-evolution with small differences between successive species which is accepted by most young-earth creationists.
Carbon dating uses the radioactive decay of carbon into nitrogen, which currently has a half-life of 5, years. The carbon should have long since decayed to the point where it is no longer detectable, even with the best scientific instruments we have today. However, creation scientists have carbon-dated fossils, diamonds, and coal that are all supposed to be millions of years old. Nevertheless, they all have detectable amounts of carbon in them.
For example, this study shows detectable levels of carbon in a range of carbon-containing materials that are supposedly million years old.
Surprisingly, the study includes diamonds from several different locations! Another study showed that fossil ammonites and wood from a lower Cretaceous formation, which is supposed to be million years old, also have detectable levels of carbon in them.
If these studies are accurate, they show that there is something wrong with the old-earth view: Of course, both options could also be true.
Radiometric Dating and Creation Science
While these studies use several different samples, they represent the work of only a few scientists. As a result, it is always possible that they are not as reliable as they seem. However, as time has gone on, more people have been looking for carbon in carbon-containing materials that are supposed to be millions of years old, and the results are becoming more and more convincing.
The minute presentation, which you can watch herewas given by Dr. Thomas Seiler, a German physicist. In it, he reports on the carbon dating of dinosaur bones, other megafauna such as mammothsand plants. In all cases, these materials are supposed to be millions of years old, but they all have detectable levels of carbon in them. This is in agreement with the two studies mentioned above, strengthening the overall case.
Of course, one possible explanation for these results is contamination.
More Problems with Carbon and Old-Earth Assumptions – Proslogion
In his presentation, however, Dr. Seiler gives several lines of argument that tend to cast doubt on such an explanation. First, all the standard treatment used to make a fossil ready for carbon dating was done, which is supposed to get rid of contamination. Second, in some cases, they were examining actual proteins, such as collagen.