Radiocarbon dating diamonds

This nullifies the carbon-14 method as well as demonstrating that the earth is less than 10,000 years old. One suspects that the scientific world would not be using the carbon-14 method if it were so obviously flawed.Could it be that the whole scientific community has missed this point, or is it another case of creationist daydreaming?It is an elegant take-down of yet another antievolution argument whose pseudo-technical gloss is intended to impress rather than to inform.The ASA also hosts several other essays concerning the RATE project.Measuring the ratio of radioactive to stable carbon, we can estimate the age of carbon-bearing samples.On the other hand, the technical details of radiocarbon analysis are difficult to understand. It is widely used in dating fossils or archaeological samples containing organic material such as wood, charcoal, bone, shells, etc.

The reason is that Ai G authors do not simply try and persuade their readers to discount this method as wholly unreliable (even when the ages obtained exceed 10,000 years) but actually present the results as positive evidence for a young Earth.The barrel represents the earth's atmosphere in which the carbon-14 accumulates.The water leaking out the sides of the barrel represents the loss (mainly by radioactive decay) of the atmosphere's supply of carbon-14.We stick the garden hose in and turn it on full blast.The water coming out of the hose is analogous to the continuous production of carbon-14 atoms in the upper atmosphere.The third point is most relevant to our discussion, since it results in 'both sides' affirming the accuracy of radiocarbon dating for any 'recent' samples (as opposed to nearly any other method, which must be discounted in all cases by anyone that believes in a young Earth).


Leave a Reply