How radiometric dating works and why it's wrong

[ThaiDuykhang]

observed facts or calculations not disputed by both sides are in green. assumption can't be proved but can be taken for granted are in brown. problematic/wrong assumptions are in red. conclusions based on facts or undisputed calculations are in blue. conclusion based on faulty assumptions are in grey. examples and comments are in black

1 There're 0.06% CO2 and 0.0000765% radioactive carbon in atmophere.

2 It's assumed that the ratio of radioactive C14 to normal C12 in the atmophere would be the same ratio found in the living plants and animals

3 Carbon dating assumes geologic column is right

4 On the balance of creation and decay of C14. It has been calculated that it would take 30000 years for the earth's atmosphere to reach equilibrium

5 Today the the ratio of C14 in atmophere is higher than the observed ratio in 1950s

6 thus C14 hasn't reached equilibrium yet.

7 This proves earth is less than 30000 years old.

8 "We know the earth is millions of years old" -- Williard Libby

9 "So we can eliminate the equilibrium problem"

10 (from observation in 5) animals today breathe in more C14 than they do a thousand years ago.

11 If one dates an animal using the ratio of C14 today, he will come to the wrong conclusion for it assumes animals in the past taken the same amount of C14 as we do today.

12 an example: we take in X amount of C14 in our life today, suppose 5700 years ago we only take in only X/2(for convenience sake) amount of C14. today we dig up one of them and find there are only X/4 of C14. if we assume they start at X amount of C14, we'll date them 11400 years, in fact they're only 5700 years old.

13 other examples: (1) living mollusk shells were dated up to 2300years old. schience vol.141, 1963 p.634-637
(2) a freshly killed seal was carbon dated 1300 years old. antarctic journal vol. 6 Sept-Oct. 1973 p.211 (3)shells from living snails were carbon dated as being 27000 years old. Science Vol. 224, 1984. p58-61. (4) "The lower leg of the Fairbanks Creek mammoth had a radiocarbon age of 15,380 RCY, while its skin and flesh were 21,300 RCY. Harold E. Anthony. "Natures Deep Freeze." Natural History, Sept 1949 p 300 (5) A geologist at the Berkeley Geochronology Center, [Carl] Swisher uses the most advanced techniques to date human fossils. Last springhe was re-evaluating Homo erectus skulls found in Javain the 1930s by testing the sediment found with them. A hominid species assumed to be an ancestor of Homo sapiens. erectus was thought to have vanished some 250,000 years ago. But even though he used 2 different dating methods, Swisher kept making the same startling find: The bones were 53,000 years old at most and...

 

[artybloke]

What has C14 dating got to do with dating fossils? (Clue: nothing. It's never used to date fossils, as fossils don't have carbon in them.) There are, however, about 15 or more other dating techniques used.

(1) living mollusk shells were dated up to 2300years old. schience vol.141, 1963 p.634-637

Anything that lived in or lives in the sea cannot be dated using C14. This has been known for years.

More PRATTs in the above than you can shake a stick at.

 

[ThaiDuykhang]

...possibly no more than 27,000 years--- a stretch of time contemporaneous with modern humans."
Kaufman,Leslie, "Did a Third Human Species Live Among Us?" Newsweek(December 23, 1996), p. 52
"Structure, metamorphism,sedimentary reworking, and other complications have to be considered. Radiometric dating would not have been feasible if the geologic column had not been erected first."
O'Rourke, J.E. "Pragmatism versus Materialism in Stratigraph." American Journal of Science, vol276 (January 1976, p54)

Moon rocks brought back in 1969, were given to many different laboratories to be dated. One rock (specimen 10017) was divided into 6 pieces and dated many times. The ages ranged from 2.5 billion to 4.6 billion years

"1-6-99 I(Kent Hovind) talked with James P. Dawson P.O. Box1328 edmond Oklahoma 73083 ph. (405)348-3410,
He was Chief of Engineering and Operations for the lunar and earth Science Division at the manned Spacecraft Center NASA in Housten. He worked on Lunar samples including the Genesis rock. He told me they found ages from 10,000 years to several billion years in the same rock. www.jpdawson.com or www.aaronc.com

"Dawson said the number they wanted was 4.6 billion so as to match the age of the earth, so that's the number they got published"

14 Geological column was invented in 1830s, the dating methods was invented in the last 50 years
15 This is how the dating methods is going out and geological column is accepted

 

[ThaiDuykhang]

What has C14 dating got to do with dating fossils? (Clue: nothing. It's never used to date fossils, as fossils don't have carbon in them.) There are, however, about 15 or more other dating techniques used.

Anything that lived in or lives in the sea cannot be dated using C14. This has been known for years.

More PRATTs in the above than you can shake a stick at.

There're radioactive carbon in atmophere right? when their react with oxygen to become CO2, they're still radioactive right? when plant absorbed CO2 during photosynthesis, these radioactive carbon is stored in plants right? when animals eat them these radioactive carbon is stored within animals right?
so animals/plants have radioactive carbons in it.

every radiometric dating is done the way I described and you think they're all idiots?

 

[ThaiDuykhang]

Things to consider about Carbon Dating:
1. Wild dates are obtained
2. Dates that don't fit evolution theory are rejected and not published. "Correct" dates match the geologic column.
3. It is based on the assumptions that:
a. the original content of the sample is known
b. the decay rate never changes
c. the sample hasn't been contaminated
4. All decays are downhill

 

[ThaiDuykhang]

What has C14 dating got to do with dating fossils? (Clue: nothing. It's never used to date fossils, as fossils don't have carbon in them.) There are, however, about 15 or more other dating techniques used.

Anything that lived in or lives in the sea cannot be dated using C14. This has been known for years.

More PRATTs in the above than you can shake a stick at.

In fact Radiometric dating is baloney and can't be used to date anything. you're right.

The fact that they can obtain a date when applying C14 dating to fossils is a direct proof that fossils do contain C14. otherwise they can't get a figure

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

2 It's assumed that the ratio of radioactive C14 to normal C12 in the atmophere would be the same ratio found in the living plants and animals

This assumption is true for terrestial animals. It does not work for aquatic animals because they are not directly interacting with the atmosphere.

5 Today the the ratio of C14 in atmophere is higher than the observed ratio in 1950s

My guess is that nuclear testing might have something to do with that. The ratio does not need to remain constant for the calculations to work. One only needs to know the history of the ratio.

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

In fact Radiometric dating is baloney and can't be used to date anything. you're right.

The fact that they can obtain a date when applying C14 dating to fossils is a direct proof that fossils do contain C14. otherwise they can't get a figure

Fossils by their nature are contaminated.

 

[Deamiter]

What a load of misconceptions! I've studied nuclear sciences and looked into carbon dating in my studies, so I'll try to answer each of your claims in turn.

1 There're 0.06% CO2 and 0.0000765% radioactive carbon in atmophere.

It doesn't seem like you used this in any calculations, so it probably doesn't matter, but current measurements are at about .03% CO2 in the atmosphere growing by .5% each year since the industrial revolution.
It's hard to find a current measurement of C14 in the atmosphere because it doesn't really matter (due to reasons I'll mention later) so I can't find a number to compare it to off hand, but again, since you didn't use it in calcuations, it probably doesn't matter.

2 It's assumed that the ratio of radioactive C14 to normal C12 in the atmophere would be the same ratio found in the living plants and animals

Indeed, it's assumed that the ratio of C14 to C12 in the atmosphere is the same in plants and animals, but WITHIN REASON. Sea creatures like fish or mollusks don't get their carbon from the atmosphere. So you wouldn't expect them to have the same ratio as the atmosphere. Similarly animals like seals or penguins get most of their food (and most of their carbon) from the sea, and so you wouldn't expect them to have the same ratio either. Carbon dating is a great tool, but if you try to misuse it, of course you're going to be able to get bad data!

3 Carbon dating assumes geologic column is right

This is such a loaded statement, I'm not entirely sure how to respond. Radioactive dating has nothing to do with the geological column. It is accurate to within 5% from 1000 to 50,000 years, but it's maximum "range" is from about 1000 to 100,000 years. The vast majority of the geological column was laid down before this, so we're only really talking about the surface layers.

Further, C14 dating isn't calibrated based on the geological column. It's been calibrated using tree rings and ice cores which very nicely preserve the ratios with little or no contamination. Different trees can be used to get a wide range of dates since they universally record major events like volcanic eruptions or meteor impacts, and trees in a given region record temperature and rainfall from year to year.

4 On the balance of creation and decay of C14. It has been calculated that it would take 30000 years for the earth's atmosphere to reach equilibrium

Well... Morris certainly claimed to have shown this. I find it rather dishonest that you would put it in green though, because the assumptions are invalid and thus are not used by scientists in the field.

Data from tree rings alone has calibrated the data back to around 9000 years, and has shown only the sort of minor change in C14 ratio that is expected. Quite simply, the Sun's 11 year cycle, and factors like overall climate (which affects how much carbon the ocean absorbs) can alter the production of C14 slightly. Tree rings show that the ratio has not changed in about 9000 years, so it's pretty clear we're AT equilibrium.

Morris based his calculations (back in 1974) on data by Lingenfelter (in 1963) well before the cycles of carbon production were established. For the life of me, I can't imagine why people are still bringing up conclusions based on data that's outdated by 4 decades, but it speaks to the (non)effectiveness of creationist science that they haven't updated their research since then -- especially with such important findings like the carbon cycle!

5 Today the the ratio of C14 in atmophere is higher than the observed ratio in 1950s

Now this is brilliant. Anybody know what was going on in the 1950s? Of course the Industrial revolution was booming, but that had a pretty constant, though not linear, effect on the C14 ratio (and remember that C14 dating isn't really accurate before 1000 years ago). The 1950s was right at the height of our nuclear testing! Suddenly we're throwing radioactive isotopes into the atmosphere at rates that are utterly uncalculable! Because of all the nuclear testing, carbon dating is actually done with respect to 1950 -- 1950 is considered year 0 in dating labs. They have very precisely corrected for the industrial revolution, but when nuclear testing started, there was no longer any reliable ratios in the atmosphere.

So yeah, the ratio is higher than in the 1950s. Quite frankly, if you think the ratio would stay the SAME after multiple nuclear explosions in the atmosphere... you shouldn't be talking about C14 dating to begin with -- besides asking questions. Questions are always welcome!

6 thus C14 hasn't reached equilibrium yet.

So here we go. Because nuclear explosions DRASTICALLY changed the ratio of C14/C12 in the 1950s, you say C14 dating is not valid period.

No it hasn't reached equilibrium -- but all available data (including measurements before 1950s, tree ring data, ice core data, measurements themselves) suggest it HAD to within the 10-15% variation in production rates due to environmental variables.

This conclusion is based both on the assumption that C14 production is constant and that nuclear explosions never happened. Guess how valid that is?

7 This proves earth is less than 30000 years old.

Please. I truly hope you've read everything I just wrote, because it would be a waste of my time and yours to explain AGAIN why this makes no sense!

8 "We know the earth is millions of years old" -- Williard Libby

9 "So we can eliminate the equilibrium problem"

I don't know about any specific quotes or claims, but there's more than just age that eliminates the equilibrium problem. Creationists generally don't cite their sources, so it would be hard for a typical scientist to know that these calculations are based on data from the 60s both before we fully understood the effects of nuclear explosions on the C14 ration, and before the carbon cycle was documented and researched.

10 (from observation in 5) animals today breathe in more C14 than they do a thousand years ago.

One more time, there were NUKES involved!

11 If one dates an animal using the ratio of C14 today, he will come to the wrong conclusion for it assumes animals in the past taken the same amount of C14 as we do today.

If one dates an animal using the ratio of C14 today, they are first assuming that nuclear explosions never happened. They are SECOND seriously misusing the technique because the AMOUNT of decay is virtually undetectable for such young tissues. That's why scientists use it from 1000 years to 50,000 years. They know the limits of the tool, and use other evidence to determine whether an artifact is within this range.

Sure, date a living animal and get a crazy date. But don't run around shouting that you've disproven C14 dating -- you've just demonstrated a limitation caused by nukes and decay rates -- a limitation that has been thoroughally documented for the entire history of C14 dating.

12 an example: we take in X amount of C14 in our life today, suppose 5700 years ago we only take in only X/2(for convenience sake) amount of C14. today we dig up one of them and find there are only X/4 of C14. if we assume they start at X amount of C14, we'll date them 11400 years, in fact they're only 5700 years old.

Remember that C14 ratios are calibrated to actual measurements take all across the globe (all the trees and ice cores agree -- what a coincidence!) So yeah, if you assume that the ratio is wrong, you'll get a wrong date. That's why scientists go to great lengths to document the C14 ratio using multiple techniques on multiple samples from all over the world.

13 other examples: (1) living mollusk shells were dated up to 2300years old. schience vol.141, 1963 p.634-637
(2) a freshly killed seal was carbon dated 1300 years old. antarctic journal vol. 6 Sept-Oct. 1973 p.211 (3)shells from living snails were carbon dated as being 27000 years old. Science Vol. 224, 1984. p58-61.

Remember that we're talking about ATMOSPHERIC carbon? Why the HECK would you date sea creatures and assume that they'll have the same ratio as the ATMOSPHERE?!?!?

Finally, I don't have any data on the last two examples, but I DO know that there are many ways that artifacts can become contaminated. Nobody is claiming that C14 dating is perfect -- it's not. Tiny rootlets from vegitation on a wooden or bone artifact will infuse it with current C14 levels. Depending on where it's from, running water can either increase or decrease an artifact's C14 ratio. And of course, there's a certain amount of uncertainty in the decay rate itself as it's based on probability. Nobody dates an artifact based on C14 data alone. It would be shot down by other SCIENTISTS. OF course the news reporters like to focus on C14 because it's something the general public has heard about, but if you read some of those papers you cited, you'll find that the conclusions are based IN PART on C14 dating, and that no matter what the date, the ratios are justified by an examination of possible contaminants and the dating of other, surrounding objects by C14 AND other means.

 

[WAB]

There is a book compiled by Dr. Don DeYoung put out in August 2005 with chapters on specific subjects by other scientists that refutes the following:

"Morris based his calculations (back in 1974) on data by Lingenfelter (in 1963) well before the cycles of carbon production were established. For the life of me, I can't imagine why people are still bringing up conclusions based on data that's outdated by 4 decades, but it speaks to the (non)effectiveness of creationist science that they haven't updated their research since then -- especially with such important findings like the carbon cycle!"

The title of the book is "THOUSANDS... NOT BILLIONS" and although I have not finished it yet, the evidence re radioisotope dating is fascinating; including new research re C-14 remnants in diamonds and zircon crystals.

At one point many creation scientists (and others)recommended not pointing to C-14 as evidence for a comparatively young earth, but it would appear the the new evidence might change that position.

 

[gluadys]

Things to consider about Carbon Dating:
1. Wild dates are obtained

Yes, when the technique is not used correctly or when the sample is contaminated.

2. Dates that don't fit evolution theory are rejected and not published. "Correct" dates match the geologic column.

The dates that are not accepted are those wild dates.

3. It is based on the assumptions that:
a. the original content of the sample is known
b. the decay rate never changes
c. the sample hasn't been contaminated

b. is not an assumption. The decay rate has never been known to vary, no matter what environmental changes are imposed on it. Changes of temperature, magnetism, humidity, pressure, etc. have all been ruled out as means to change the decay rate.

4. All decays are downhill

What does this mean? Are you sure you know what radio-active decay is?

 

[ThaiDuykhang]

This assumption is true for terrestial animals. It does not work for aquatic animals because they are not directly interacting with the atmosphere.

you can't say C14 in the atmophere never go into water, the fact that a fresh snail shell and a newly killed seal gives equally absurd answer is a prove there's nothing special about aquatic animals

My guess is that nuclear testing might have something to do with that. The ratio does not need to remain constant for the calculations to work. One only needs to know the history of the ratio.

If the ratio doesn't remain constant you don't know how much C14 the fossilized animal were taking in when they were still alive. read 12

Blaming every absurd result on nuke testing("professional" anti-Genesis guys prefer to blame it on industrial pollution) is a conspiracy theory rejected by all professionals on both side of the issue.

 

[ThaiDuykhang]

Fossils by their nature are contaminated.

Radiometric Dating works on the assumption that the dated materials are not contaminated. there's nothing not contaminated from an evolutionist point of view. can you see nuke tests or industrial pollution only contaminate fossils and not the rocks around them? the rocks, the fossils and newly dead animals. you're right there's nothing radiometric can work properly.

By the way those datings are done by professionals, you shouldn't accuse them of using a ordinary ruler to measure the length of a bacteria.

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

[/color]
you can't say C14 in the atmophere never go into water, the fact that a fresh snail shell and a newly killed seal gives equally absurd answer is a prove there's nothing special about aquatic animals

It enters the water. It just isn't at the same ratios in the water as in the air. Because of this, aquatic animals cannot be dated using C14.

If the ratio doesn't remain constant you don't know how much C14 the fossilized animal were taking in when they were still alive. read 12

Blaming every absurd result on nuke testing("professional" anti-Genesis guys prefer to blame it on industrial pollution) is a conspiracy theory rejected by all professionals on both side of the issue.

With non-constant concentrations, you just need to get a record of the levels over time.

 

[ThaiDuykhang]

Yes, when the technique is not used correctly or when the sample is contaminated.

They're all done by professionals most likely supporting evolution. so you can't accuse them of not being able to use the method properly
How do you know a sample is contaminated? because it gives wild dates. why does a sample give wild dates? because it's contaminated. circular reasoning. my friend.

The dates that are not accepted are those wild dates.

Read the passage above. actually wild dates means those don't fit evolutionism and nothing else. there's no other reason to reject them except it doesn't fit geologic column.

b. is not an assumption. The decay rate has never been known to vary, no matter what environmental changes are imposed on it. Changes of temperature, magnetism, humidity, pressure, etc. have all been ruled out as means to change the decay rate.

It's an plausible assumption. I admit. but since no one has seen what happened billions of years ago, (are there billions of years ago? )it is still an assumption.

What does this mean? Are you sure you know what radio-active decay is?

I just took it out of my book and put it here. It's not very damaging to evolutionism. but no one has observed what happened during billions of years. did they gain new C14 or lost some existing C14 for some reason? no one has seen it.

 

[ThaiDuykhang]

What a load of misconceptions! I've studied nuclear sciences and looked into carbon dating in my studies, so I'll try to answer each of your claims in turn.

I've also studied nuclear science.

It doesn't seem like you used this in any calculations, so it probably doesn't matter, but current measurements are at about .03% CO2 in the atmosphere growing by .5% each year since the industrial revolution.

It's hard to find a current measurement of C14 in the atmosphere because it doesn't really matter (due to reasons I'll mention later) so I can't find a number to compare it to off hand, but again, since you didn't use it in calcuations, it probably doesn't matter.

It is used as an assumption that the amount of C14 they took in billions of years ago (wow !) are the same as the amount we're taking in now. and they have messured it 50 years ago. and it is lower.

Indeed, it's assumed that the ratio of C14 to C12 in the atmosphere is the same in plants and animals, but WITHIN REASON. Sea creatures like fish or mollusks don't get their carbon from the atmosphere. So you wouldn't expect them to have the same ratio as the atmosphere. Similarly animals like seals or penguins get most of their food (and most of their carbon) from the sea, and so you wouldn't expect them to have the same ratio either. Carbon dating is a great tool, but if you try to misuse it, of course you're going to be able to get bad data!

so when plants in water perform photosynthesis. where does the CO2 come from? atmophere. Where did the oxygen in water come from? atmophere. when fish, seals, clams eat aquatic plants. breathe the oxygen in the water, they take in the same amount of C14 as we do on land.

Secondly, those who dated the aquatic animals are professionals. you can expect anyone with a little knowledge in physics to use a ruler to measure a bacteria or diameter of earth.

This is such a loaded statement, I'm not entirely sure how to respond. Radioactive dating has nothing to do with the geological column. It is accurate to within 5% from 1000 to 50,000 years, but it's maximum "range" is from about 1000 to 100,000 years. The vast majority of the geological column was laid down before this, so we're only really talking about the surface layers.

Further, C14 dating isn't calibrated based on the geological column. It's been calibrated using tree rings and ice cores which very nicely preserve the ratios with little or no contamination. Different trees can be used to get a wide range of dates since they universally record major events like volcanic eruptions or meteor impacts, and trees in a given region record temperature and rainfall from year to year.

Well... Morris certainly claimed to have shown this. I find it rather dishonest that you would put it in green though, because the assumptions are invalid and thus are not used by scientists in the field.

Data from tree rings alone has calibrated the data back to around 9000 years, and has shown only the sort of minor change in C14 ratio that is expected. Quite simply, the Sun's 11 year cycle, and factors like overall climate (which affects how much carbon the ocean absorbs) can alter the production of C14 slightly. Tree rings show that the ratio has not changed in about 9000 years, so it's pretty clear we're AT equilibrium.

Morris based his calculations (back in 1974) on data by Lingenfelter (in 1963) well before the cycles of carbon production were established. For the life of me, I can't imagine why people are still bringing up conclusions based on data that's outdated by 4 decades, but it speaks to the (non)effectiveness of creationist science that they haven't updated their research since then -- especially with such important findings like the carbon cycle!

Now this is brilliant. Anybody know what was going on in the 1950s? Of course the Industrial revolution was booming, but that had a pretty constant, though not linear, effect on the C14 ratio (and remember that C14 dating isn't really accurate before 1000 years ago). The 1950s was right at the height of our nuclear testing! Suddenly we're throwing radioactive isotopes into the atmosphere at rates that are utterly uncalculable! Because of all the nuclear testing, carbon dating is actually done with respect to 1950 -- 1950 is considered year 0 in dating labs. They have very precisely corrected for the industrial revolution, but when nuclear testing started, there was no longer any reliable ratios in the atmosphere.

So yeah, the ratio is higher than in the 1950s. Quite frankly, if you think the ratio would stay the SAME after multiple nuclear explosions in the atmosphere... you shouldn't be talking about C14 dating to begin with -- besides asking questions. Questions are always welcome!

So here we go. Because nuclear explosions DRASTICALLY changed the ratio of C14/C12 in the 1950s, you say C14 dating is not valid period.

No it hasn't reached equilibrium -- but all available data (including measurements before 1950s, tree ring data, ice core data, measurements themselves) suggest it HAD to within the 10-15% variation in production rates due to environmental variables.

This conclusion is based both on the assumption that C14 production is constant and that nuclear explosions never happened. Guess how valid that is?

Please. I truly hope you've read everything I just wrote, because it would be a waste of my time and yours to explain AGAIN why this makes no sense!

I don't know about any specific quotes or claims, but there's more than just age that eliminates the equilibrium problem. Creationists generally don't cite their sources, so it would be hard for a typical scientist to know that these calculations are based on data from the 60s both before we fully understood the effects of nuclear explosions on the C14 ration, and before the carbon cycle was documented and researched.

One more time, there were NUKES involved!

If one dates an animal using the ratio of C14 today, they are first assuming that nuclear explosions never happened. They are SECOND seriously misusing the technique because the AMOUNT of decay is virtually undetectable for such young tissues. That's why scientists use it from 1000 years to 50,000 years. They know the limits of the tool, and use other evidence to determine whether an artifact is within this range.

Sure, date a living animal and get a crazy date. But don't run around shouting that you've disproven C14 dating -- you've just demonstrated a limitation caused by nukes and decay rates -- a limitation that has been thoroughally documented for the entire history of C14 dating.

Remember that C14 ratios are calibrated to actual measurements take all across the globe (all the trees and ice cores agree -- what a coincidence!) So yeah, if you assume that the ratio is wrong, you'll get a wrong date. That's why scientists go to great lengths to document the C14 ratio using multiple techniques on multiple samples from all over the world.

Remember that we're talking about ATMOSPHERIC carbon? Why the HECK would you date sea creatures and assume that they'll have the same ratio as the ATMOSPHERE?!?!?

Finally, I don't have any data on the last two examples, but I DO know that there are many ways that artifacts can become contaminated. Nobody is claiming that C14 dating is perfect -- it's not. Tiny rootlets from vegitation on a wooden or bone artifact will infuse it with current C14 levels. Depending on where it's from, running water can either increase or decrease an artifact's C14 ratio. And of course, there's a certain amount of uncertainty in the decay rate itself as it's based on probability. Nobody dates an artifact based on C14 data alone. It would be shot down by other SCIENTISTS. OF course the news reporters like to focus on C14 because it's something the general public has heard about, but if you read some of those papers you cited, you'll find that the conclusions are based IN PART on C14 dating, and that no matter what the date, the ratios are justified by an examination of possible contaminants and the dating of other, surrounding objects by C14 AND other means.

The above passages mostly blame wild dates on nuke tests, I'm wondering why it's rejected universally by professionals on both sides? It's a conspiracy theory like US goverment bombed WTC. it's unprovable and unfalsifiable.

to put it simply:
If the amount of C14 is increasing, can you prove it's all because of nuke tests? no. Can you say without nuke tests the figure observed in the 1950s would be the same as it is today? no. Why do you choose to ignore it. because you believe the earth is billions of years old.

How did Charles Lyell think the earth is billions of years old without any tools? simple, it's against the Bible.

 

[ThaiDuykhang]

It enters the water. It just isn't at the same ratios in the water as in the air. Because of this, aquatic animals cannot be dated using C14.

Go study science for a while and tell me why C14 is more or less likely to enter water than C12. the solubility of CO2 made of C14 and C12 is the same in water. I guess it's 1:1 V/V

With non-constant concentrations, you just need to get a record of the levels over time.

It's simply impossible. have you seen what's the concentration of C14 billions of years ago? no one knows, no one has seen it. and professionals(someone's "scientists") today still use current concentration of C14 to measure what happened supposed billions of years ago? Why? they simply don't know what it is like "billions" of years ago.

 

[KerrMetric]

Why do you keep mentioning "billions of years" with regard to radiocarbon dating?

 

[ThaiDuykhang]

Why do you keep mentioning "billions of years" with regard to radiocarbon dating?

"millions of years" or "tens of thousands of years" are equal. since they all don't exist.

Change it to any word you like.

 

[KerrMetric]

"millions of years" or "tens of thousands of years" are equal. since they all don't exist.

Change it to any word you like.

And why don't they exist?