Is carbon dating the truth

And 4,500 years is less than one radiocarbon half-life, so from Figure 2 we might expect 4,500-year-old samples to have C found within organic samples thought to date from the time of the Flood is generally only about 0.1 to 0.5 p MC.From Figure 1, a value of 0.098 ≈ 0.1 p MC corresponds to 10 half-lives or about 57,000 years.Could this be a clue that radioisotope “clocks” might have “ticked” at different rates in the past, and that this variation in “ticking” is different for different radioisotopes?If so, this would explain the discrepancy between the radiocarbon method and other radioisotope techniques.Because the present decay rates of these heavier isotopes are so small, the assumption that these rates have always been constant naturally leads to age estimates of millions and even billions of years.

Instead of arbitrarily blaming these anomalous results on contamination, a far better (and more scientific) approach would be to question the correctness of the assumptions behind radioisotope dating methods.

Second, such large calculated ages are based on the C/C ratio has remained unchanged for tens of thousands of years.

A global flood like the one described in the Bible would invalidate this assumption.

You need to know some basics to refute the myth of evolution.

What does it really tell us about the age of the earth?

Leave a Reply