This is probably the single best article that I have read that quickly and concisely points out the flaws in Carbon Dating.
Are fossils really millions years old?
Front page / Science / Planet Earth
06.02.2009
Source: Pravda.Ru
Pages: 12345
by Babu G. Ranganathan
Haven't geologists proved from scientific dating methods that the earth is 4.5 billion years old? Doesn't astronomy prove that the universe must, at least, be billions of years old since it would have required billions of years for light from the nearest stars to reach the earth? Don't all qualified scientists, including geologists, believe in Darwinian evolution and a billions of years old Earth and universe? The simple answer is "No".
Are Fossils Really Millions of Years Old?
Both evolutionists and creationists have certain built-in assumptions in interpreting and using scientific data when it comes to the earth's age. The issue many times comes down to which assumptions are more reasonable. Dating rocks is not a hard (no pun intended) science.
For example, many times one radiometric dating method will give a vast difference in age from another radiometric dating method used on dating the same rock! Radiometric dating methods have also been severely faulty when tested with the actual historical age of certain rock. For example, Hawaiian lava flows that were known to be no more than two centuries old were dated by the potassium-argon method to be up to three billion years old! (Science 141 [1963]: 634).
The reason for these huge discrepancies is that these methods are based on assumptions that no major changes have occurred in the earth's atmosphere in the past which could have affected the initial amounts and even the rates of decay of the substances involved (Industrial Research 14 [1972]: 15). If, for example, a world-wide flood the Bible describes in Genesis had actually occurred then it would have, indeed, altered the initial conditions so as to make radiometric dating less than an exact science, to say the least. The Carbon -14 dating method has been known to have fifty percent accuracy, but it is only accurate up to thousands (not millions or billions) of years and can only be used on things that were once living.
Complicated as the subject of the earth's age may be, a main reason for why evolutionists believe the earth is many millions of years old is because of their belief concerning how the fossil layers were deposited. What one believes about the deposition of the fossils in the earth will, indeed, determine one's view of the earth's age. Contrary to popular belief, the age of the fossils is not determined by radiometric dating.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Carbon dating is far from accurate. It is more accurate in today's time because th eparts of it we use are almost linear, but the big assertions against religion are based on the most non-linear and hardest to judge parts. Scientists feel very nice telling you how the Atlantic was formed frm Gondwana or Pnagaeia, but they forget to tell you this is the same story as Noah, Deucalius, Utnapistus, and Atlantis, all of which are said to have occured six thousand years ago, when dragons, or dinosaurs, were recorded by men to exist. However, this mistaken carbon dating method lead them to put both events tens of millions of years ago. If they were so good, why don't they cure cancer or fix the economy or make cheap, non-polluting gasoline before they take on such big and sacred things?
Post a Comment