Doesn’t Carbon-14 Dating Disprove the Bible?
Browse this issue Subscribe to Creation magazine. They are both forms allotropes of carbon. Most carbon atoms are 12 times heavier than hydrogen 12 Cabout one in is 13 times heavier 13 Cand one in a trillion 10 12 is 14 times heavier 14 C. Of these different types isotopes of carbon, 14 C is best dating site for 60 and over radiocarbon, because it is radioactive—it breaks down over time.
Some try to measure age by how much 14 C has decayed. Many people think that radiocarbon dating proves billions of years. After two half lives, a quarter is left; after three half lives, only an eighth; after 10 half lives, less than a thousandth is left. So if samples were really over a million years old, there would be no radiocarbon left. But this is not what we find, even with very sensitive 14 C detectors. Diamond is the hardest substance known, so its interior should be very resistant to contamination.
Diamond requires very high pressure to form—pressure found naturally on earth only deep below the surface. Thus they probably formed at a depth of — km. Geologists believe that the ones we find must have been transported supersonically 5 to the surface, in extremely violent eruptions through volcanic pipes. Some are found in these pipes, such as kimberlites, while other diamonds were liberated by water erosion and deposited elsewhere called alluvial diamonds. According to evolutionists, the diamonds formed about 1—3 billion years ago.
Geophysicist Dr John Creationism vs carbon datingpart of the RATE research group6 investigated 14 C in a number of diamonds. Dr Baumgardner repeated this with six more alluvial diamonds from Namibia, and these had even more radiocarbon. Want the daily article sent direct to your inbox? Key Articles Created or evolved? Find your answer to the vital creation vs evolution question.
Did God create over billions of years? Engineer goes back to school —How the global flood of Noah explains landforms, rocks and fossils without millions of years. Are matters of history such as origins open to scientific 'proof? Events Request An Event Ministry Programs Speaker Bios International Events Events Calendar. Feature Archive How gay marriage harms people Rediscovering Pluto Biologos fails with Is Genesis History critique more….
Journal of Creation Archive Birth control leader Margaret Sanger: Darwinist, racist and eugenicist The age of the Jenolan Caves, Australia A challenge to traditional cultural anthropology more…. What about carbon dating? Evolution's Achilles' Heels by Nine Ph. Evolution's Achilles' Heels Product in cart. Radiocarbon dating wikimedia commons The famous Hope Diamond which was found about four centuries ago.
Objections technical and answers The 14 C readings in the diamonds are the creationism vs carbon dating of background radiation in the detector. It was the obsolete scintillation method that counted only decaying atoms, so was far less sensitive. But this would generate less than one ten-thousandth of the measured amount even in best case scenarios of normal decay. And as Dr Paul Giem points out: But the number of neutrons required must be over a million times more than those found today, for at least 6, years; and every 5, years that we put the neutron shower back doubles the number of neutrons required.
Every time we halve the creationism vs carbon dating of the neutron shower we roughly creationism vs carbon dating its required intensity. Eventually the problem becomes insurmountable. In addition, since nitrogen creates carbon from neutronstimes more easily than does carbon, a sample with 0. If neutron capture is a significant source of carbon in a given sample, radiocarbon dates should vary wildly with the nitrogen content of the sample.
I know of no such data. Perhaps this effect should be looked for by anyone seriously proposing that significant quantities creationism vs carbon dating carbon were produced by nuclear synthesis in situ. But if this were occurring, we would expect huge variations in radiocarbon dates with porosity and thickness, which would also render the method useless.
But if nuclear decay were accelerated, say a recent episode of million years worth, it could explain some of the observed amounts. Indeed, his RATE colleagues have shown good evidence for accelerated decay in the past, which would invalidate radiometric dating. This misses the point: Another point is that the 55, years is based on an assumed 14 C level in the atmosphere. Since no one, or evolutionist, thinks there has been an exchange of carbon in the diamond with the atmosphere, using the standard formula for 14 C dating to work out the age of a diamond is meaningless.
The information on this site can change lives—former atheists tell us so. keep it coming by supporting the researchers and writers at CMI. AMP ASV DARBY ESV GW HCSB KJV LEB MESSAGE NASB NCV NIV NIRV NKJV NLT TNIV YLT. In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. About What we Believe What We Are What We Do Who We Are Our Logo Contact. Articles Feature Archive Magazine Archive Journal Archive Feedback Archive Book Reviews Study Guides Creation for Creationism vs carbon dating Other Languages.
Events Request an Event Ministry Programs Speaker Bios Creationism vs carbon dating Events Event Calendar. Multimedia Creation Live Creation Video DVD Previews Genesis Unleashed Radio Spots. Store Books Media Magazines Miscellaneous Clearance Packs Specials. In your shopping cart. Go to store and Checkout. Total price does not include shipping costs.