Radiocarbon Dating Can't Prove an Old Earth

[rangerrebew]

 Radiocarbon Dating Can't Prove an Old Earth
by Vernon R. Cupps, Ph.D. *
Evidence for Creation

Recently, I conversed with an educated man who maintained Earth must be millions of years old because radiocarbon dating proved it. Although this argument is common, it’s simply inaccurate. Even evolutionary scientists acknowledge that radiocarbon dating cannot prove ages of millions or billions of years. Why?

Radiocarbon (14C) is an unstable form of carbon that spontaneously decays into nitrogen over time.1 The best instrument for detecting radiocarbon is an accelerator mass spectrometer (AMS),2 which can typically detect one radiocarbon atom per quadrillion (1015) carbon atoms.3 Most AMS devices cannot detect radiocarbon in something older than 57,000 years because the amount of 14C will have decayed to unmeasurable levels. Therefore, no rock formations, minerals, or organic material older than 57,000 years should contain detectable 14C. Radioisotope dating with 14C decreases in reliability with increasing age and cannot be reliably used without historical or archaeological artifacts to corroborate the dates obtained.4

http://www.icr.org/article/9937

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

Oh please, tell me you don't believe in this young earth garbage?

[Smokin Joe]

Oh please, tell me you don't believe in this young earth garbage?

Radiocarbon (AKA Carbon 14) dating has its limits. There are Potassium Argon, and Uranium/Lead among other methods, all with a general age range in which they are most accurate.

Carbon 14 dating can't prove an 'old earth' under ideal circumstances, all assumptions of isotope ratios having been the same back when taken as a given. It is a limitation of the method. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiometric_dating

[Oceander]

Pathetic.

I am constantly amazed by the blasphemy of people whose tiny little imaginations cannot fathom that God did actually create the world in the wondrous ways we keep discovering.

It takes significantly longer than 50,000 years to form vast reserves of oil, to lay down hundreds of feet of sedimentary rock, to mineralize fossils, to ....

If you believe that God created the world in less than 50,000 years, then you are necessarily committed to the belief that God falsified all of these things to make them appear to be much older than they actually are, which means that you necessarily believe that God is a liar. 

So, here's your choice: either the world really is remarkably old, notwithstanding your inability to imagine that, or else God is a liar who created a false world.

Take your pick.

[bolobaby]

I presented a very simple argument to a young-earth Baptist minister when I was in college:

When I look into the sky at night, I see stars that are hundreds of millions of light years away. The light has taken hundreds of millions of years to reach Earth, indicating that there is a past at least hundreds of millions of years old.

He replied, "In God's universe, the speed of light need not be constant." (Just ignore the ridiculousness of what it would mean if God sped up the light between here and there and what that would mean for the future of light coming to us. Ignore that part.)

"OK, true," I replied, "but why would God show us a past that does not exist? Is God trying to trick us into believing the universe is millions or billions of years old? Is God a god of deception?"

His answer? "Get out of my office."

Now, I'm a follower of Christ and faithful to God, but that experience - and others similar to it - have led me to believe that young earth creationists are not interested in getting at truth, only to reaffirm their own beliefs. Need further proof? Read a book like "Scientific Creationism." In one chapter, they present an argument like that in the original post, designed to cast doubt on radiocarbon dating because of uncertainty around decay rates. A couple chapters later, they will use decay rate science to claim that the earth must be young based on the presence of certain elements on Earth because - you guessed it - the absolute nature of decay rates indicates that these elements would all be gone if the earth was old.

Sigh.

[ABX]

Radiocarbon (AKA Carbon 14) dating has its limits. There are Potassium Argon, and Uranium/Lead among other methods, all with a general age range in which they are most accurate.

Carbon 14 dating can't prove an 'old earth' under ideal circumstances, all assumptions of isotope ratios having been the same back when taken as a given. It is a limitation of the method. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiometric_dating

Thank you. You beat me to it. ICR has always played fast and loose with the truth to make its point. There are many forms of Radiometric Dating and in most cases, several are used in a test. Deceivers like ICR like to play on the public's lack of knowledge that there is just one 'carbon dating' because they hear that in movies and TV shows.

ICR claims to stand for 'Biblical Truth' but they seem almost to be purposefully deceiving a lot of people on both science and the Bible.  At least, I hope it isn't purposeful and just willful ignorance.

[roamer_1]

Pathetic.

I am constantly amazed by the blasphemy of people whose tiny little imaginations cannot fathom that God did actually create the world in the wondrous ways we keep discovering.

No, the blasphemy is in speaking contrary to the Word of God. Accepting your premise does terrible damage to the Bible, and tries to diminish it's reliability. It destroys prophecy contained within the Jubillee cycles. It denies the flood.

So, here's your choice: either the world really is remarkably old, notwithstanding your inability to imagine that, or else God is a liar who created a false world.

Take your pick.

You forgot one choice... The one that is faultlessly true, because It IS Written:
He will cause your learned men to be fools... laughingstocks.

The third choice, that your science is wrong.
Believe YHWH's evidence, or believe yours... The choice in that is easy.

[Cripplecreek]

Radiocarbondating.com where really senior people meet.

[mirraflake]

No, the blasphemy is in speaking contrary to the Word of God. Accepting your premise does terrible damage to the Bible, and tries to diminish it's reliability. It destroys prophecy contained within the Jubillee cycles. It denies the flood.

You forgot one choice... The one that is faultlessly true, because It IS Written:
He will cause your learned men to be fools... laughingstocks.

The third choice, that your science is wrong.
Believe YHWH's evidence, or believe yours... The choice in that is easy.

Carbon dating is justanother measurement. Sediment layers of soil just like tree rings tell us how old the Earth is and it aint young.

@roamer_1

[Idaho_Cowboy]

I presented a very simple argument to a young-earth Baptist minister when I was in college:

When I look into the sky at night, I see stars that are hundreds of millions of light years away. The light has taken hundreds of millions of years to reach Earth, indicating that there is a past at least hundreds of millions of years old.

He replied, "In God's universe, the speed of light need not be constant." (Just ignore the ridiculousness of what it would mean if God sped up the light between here and there and what that would mean for the future of light coming to us. Ignore that part.)

"OK, true," I replied, "but why would God show us a past that does not exist? Is God trying to trick us into believing the universe is millions or billions of years old? Is God a god of deception?"

His answer? "Get out of my office."

Now, I'm a follower of Christ and faithful to God, but that experience - and others similar to it - have led me to believe that young earth creationists are not interested in getting at truth, only to reaffirm their own beliefs. Need further proof? Read a book like "Scientific Creationism." In one chapter, they present an argument like that in the original post, designed to cast doubt on radiocarbon dating because of uncertainty around decay rates. A couple chapters later, they will use decay rate science to claim that the earth must be young based on the presence of certain elements on Earth because - you guessed it - the absolute nature of decay rates indicates that these elements would all be gone if the earth was old.

Sigh.

That's a good point.
The truth is what it is no matter how much work we have to put into figuring it out. To a casual observer stuck in the great plains thousands of years ago the earth would appear to be flat without careful study to prove otherwise. There are plenty of counter intuitive things in this world.

I always figured God created old trees and animals, and it doesn't seem Adam was created as a baby. I guess it never really bothered me if God also made old rocks and stars. If He is God and can create everything He can create a trail of light photons emanating from the stars.

[Polly Ticks]

So, here's your choice: either the world really is remarkably old, notwithstanding your inability to imagine that, or else God is a liar who created a false world.

Take your pick.

God exists outside of time.  He can do anything anywhere within a time flow as we understand it.  That doesn't make Him a liar, it just means we don't see the whole picture.

Not that I'm arguing for a young Earth or six 24-hour days of creation, mind you.  I don't presume to understand HOW God created the world; I only believe that He did so.

YMMV

[roamer_1]

Carbon dating is justanother measurement. Sediment layers of soil just like tree rings tell us how old the Earth is and it aint young.

According to whom?

The problem with theories (and yours is a theory), is that no matter how elegant and self-evident it might seem, a single point of errata causes the whole of it to collapse.

Science, in it's hubris, ignores it's own errata.
I suggest you look there.

@mirraflake

[ABX]

God exists outside of time.  He can do anything anywhere within a time flow as we understand it.  That doesn't make Him a liar, it just means we don't see the whole picture.

Not that I'm arguing for a young Earth or six 24-hour days of creation, mind you.  I don't presume to understand HOW God created the world; I only believe that He did so.

YMMV

There is an old quote attributed often to C.S. Lewis.

The Bible teaches us why God created the universe.
Science shows us how.

[Oceander]

God exists outside of time.  He can do anything anywhere within a time flow as we understand it.  That doesn't make Him a liar, it just means we don't see the whole picture.

Not that I'm arguing for a young Earth or six 24-hour days of creation, mind you.  I don't presume to understand HOW God created the world; I only believe that He did so.

YMMV

Nope.  That God exists outside of time does not absolve Him of falsifying the existence of things that exist only within time.  If God intentionally made something so that it necessarily appeared to be older than it in fact is, then He intentionally created a falsehood, which is what liars do. 

There are no two ways around the question, and no amount of hairsplitting will finesse it. 

[Idaho_Cowboy]

Nope.  That God exists outside of time does not absolve Him of falsifying the existence of things that exist only within time.  If God intentionally made something so that it necessarily appeared to be older than it in fact is, then He intentionally created a falsehood, which is what liars do. 

There are no two ways around the question, and no amount of hairsplitting will finesse it.

How old was Adam when he was created. Was that also the work of a liar?

You can't hold God responsible for all the misconceptions about the nature of creation throughout history. At one time scientist thought the elements were earth water, air, and fire. Mankind still has much to learn.

[Polly Ticks]

Nope.  That God exists outside of time does not absolve Him of falsifying the existence of things that exist only within time.  If God intentionally made something so that it necessarily appeared to be older than it in fact is, then He intentionally created a falsehood, which is what liars do. 

There are no two ways around the question, and no amount of hairsplitting will finesse it.

You are in essence saying that God has to conform to your viewpoint or He is a liar.  I personally don't think it works that way. 


Edit to add:  Oops.  This was a discussion on the nature of radiocarbon dating, not the nature of God.  I apologize for side-tracking into a theology discussion, which I know the owner does not encourage.

[bolobaby]

How old was Adam when he was created. Was that also the work of a liar?

You can't hold God responsible for all the misconceptions about the nature of creation throughout history. At one time scientist thought the elements were earth water, air, and fire. Mankind still has much to learn.

@Idaho_Cowboy

Cowboy,

There is a world of difference between making a fully grown man and making a fully grown man complete with baby pictures from a childhood he never had.

When we look at stars at a great distance, we are seeing the baby pictures of those stars. I'm pretty sure God isn't trying to trick me and that those stars really are millions of years old.

[Idaho_Cowboy]

@Idaho_Cowboy

Cowboy,

There is a world of difference between making a fully grown man and making a fully grown man complete with baby pictures from a childhood he never had.

When we look at stars at a great distance, we are seeing the baby pictures of those stars. I'm pretty sure God isn't trying to trick me and that those stars really are millions of years old.

That's your interpretation. Could be right. All we really know is that there are a lot of light photons out there and last I checked the first thing God made was light. 

[roamer_1]

When we look at stars at a great distance, we are seeing the baby pictures of those stars. I'm pretty sure God isn't trying to trick me and that those stars really are millions of years old.

No, we think we are seeing....

[bolobaby]

No, we think we are seeing....

See? Go back to my original post. Young earth creationists are only interested in reaffirming what they think is true despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

Bolobaby, out.

[roamer_1]

See? Go back to my original post. Young earth creationists are only interested in reaffirming what they think is true despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

Bolobaby, out.

The evidence is not overwhelming... As I said before, quit looking at the theories, and look to the errata. That is what scientists are supposed to do - That has not been the case for decades.

[the_doc]

Good article.  (Ah, but it will be a lightning rod for TBR guys who are not well-informed about the topic.)

I knew Dr. Henry Morris personally.  He was a brilliant and scrupulously honest scientist, but he got trashed over and over and over by less objective scientists.   

[Idaho_Cowboy]

Good article.  (Ah, but it will be a lightning rod for TBR guys who are not well-informed about the topic.)

I knew Dr. Henry Morris personally.  He was a brilliant and scrupulously honest scientist, but he got trashed over and over and over by less objective scientists.

Dr. Morris has done a great job on the subject; I love his study Bible. Kent Hovind did excellent work on creationism as well before he got railroaded. If you haven't seen his tapes they are well worth the time.

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

God exists outside of time.  He can do anything anywhere within a time flow as we understand it.  That doesn't make Him a liar, it just means we don't see the whole picture.

So you think God wrote the bible? Mortal men wrote the bible, even according to the tenets of Christianity.

You don't have to be an atheist to dispute the young earth stuff.

[driftdiver]

See? Go back to my original post. Young earth creationists are only interested in reaffirming what they think is true despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

Bolobaby, out.

@bolobaby @roamer_1
I think its the height of folly to think we can determine conclusively how the universe was created and how it functions from our little corner with our tiny little brains.

It takes significantly more belief inthe unprovable and unknown than it takes to believe in a creator.