carbon dating

[bigJerm]

does anybody have a good argument against carbon dating?

 

[laptoppop]

Check out the materials at icr.org and answersingenesis.org.

Bottom line - no problem at all. As a matter of fact, there are lots of cases where there's unexplainable carbon products in things supposedly too old to have any.

 

[MatthewDiscipleofGod]

The first thing we need to keep in mind is carbon dating can only be used on once living things and can only be used to measure things up to about 50,000 years old. The problem with carbon dating plus other dating methods that evolutionists often use is that they are many times inaccurate if we know the date of the object. Carbon dating also doesn't take into account possibilities that the carbon half life could have changed in the pass or what kind of affects things like a global flood could have had. Here is a chapter from a book that gives much more information if you are interested.

What about carbon dating?

 

[bigJerm]

so you're in favor of an old earth stance....i mean since you say that science can prove an age of up to 50,000 years.....even believe in that has some far reaching implications.

 

[keyarch]

does anybody have a good argument against carbon dating?

It doesn't seem to be very "Scientific" for more than just one reason. The following web page outlines some of those in a fairly short exposition. It's hard to get too detailed in a quick reply.
http://contenderministries.org/evolution/carbon14.php

 

[MatthewDiscipleofGod]

so you're in favor of an old earth stance....i mean since you say that science can prove an age of up to 50,000 years.....even believe in that has some far reaching implications.

No, I'm not an "old earther". I can see how one may think that from my post though. I believe Ussher is pretty accurate with his dating that the earth was created in 4004 B.C. I just wanted to point out that even evolutionists, those that know what they are talking about atleast, will have to admit that carbon dating will not help prove millions and billions of years. That is why they use other dating methods which also have a lot of the same flaws that carbon dating has. I believe Answers In Genesis has a pretty good list of reasons why the evidence points to a young earth.

 

[bigJerm]

yeah the millions and billions of years is ridiculous, i think, along with evolution.

 

[mark kennedy]

yeah the millions and billions of years is ridiculous, i think, along with evolution.

There are too many assumptions in radiometric dating for me to take it seriously. They observe the decay rate for weeks or months and then simply project it over millions and billions of years.

My take is that it is based on false assumptions.

 

[TheGloryisHere]

No, I'm not an "old earther". I can see how one may think that from my post though. I believe Ussher is pretty accurate with his dating that the earth was created in 4004 B.C. I just wanted to point out that even evolutionists, those that know what they are talking about atleast, will have to admit that carbon dating will not help prove millions and billions of years. That is why they use other dating methods which also have a lot of the same flaws that carbon dating has. I believe Answers In Genesis has a pretty good list of reasons why the evidence points to a young earth.

I heard a preacher say that the Bible doesn't say when the beginning is. We know man that was made in the image of Diety or God, as we know him is only 6,000 years old; no where does it say how old the earth is. It could be ten thousand, 50,000, millions of years old, or who know how many years old.

 

[Scotishfury09]

You're right, the Bible doesn't clearly lay out when the earth was created, thus the arguments between YEC's OEC's and TE's. Ussher looked at the genealogies in the Bible and estimated 4004 B.C. if there is a literal 6 day creation.

 

[bigJerm]

h

 

[bigJerm]

seems the young earthers are really adamant about the age of the fossil record because all of that death prior to the fall would be contradictory.....at least thats what ive read

 

[MatthewDiscipleofGod]

seems the young earthers are really adamant about the age of the fossil record because all of that death prior to the fall would be contradictory.....at least thats what ive read

You are correct, having animals all around Adam and Eve before the fall dying of cancer, old age and battle to the death doesn't sound like the very good creation God told us about. We know the whole world groans because the sin of man. We know also that things will be made like they once where and are meant to be. No more death or cancer.

 

[MatthewDiscipleofGod]

CMI just published an article about carbon dating and dating that showed the sample was from the future. It again just goes to show how inaccurate dating methods can be. Some scientists do way too much assuming.