Bill Nye Lost the Creationism Debate—Just by Showing Up
According to evolutionary scientists, radiocarbon dating also known as carbon dating is totally ineffective in measuring time when dealing with millions of years. In his book, Genes, People, and Languagesrenowned Stanford University geneticist Luigi Cavalli-Sforza, in a discussion on the theory of human evolution, commented on radiocarbon dating, stating: Staunch evolutionist Richard Dawkins also dealt with the limitations of radiocarbon dating a few years ago in his highly touted book, The Blind Watchmaker.
He was even creationism vs evolution carbon dating critical of this dating method than was Cavalli-Sforza, saying:. Different kinds of radioactive decay-based geological stopwatches run at different rates. The radiocarbon stopwatch buzzes round at a great rate, so fast that, after some thousands of years, its spring is almost wound down and the watch is no longer reliable. Both evolutionists and creationists stand in agreement that radiocarbon dating, which can be creationism vs evolution carbon dating only to date organic samples, is totally ineffective in measuring the alleged millions or billions of years of the evolutionary timetable.
Creationists would like to see evolutionists apply this method to items believed to be millions of years old, because it might help convince evolutionists that coal, diamonds, fossils, etc. When geophysicist John Baumgardner and creationism vs evolution carbon dating obtained 10 coal samples from the U. Department of Energy Coal Sample Bank, one of the leading radiocarbon laboratories in the world tested the samples for traces creationism vs evolution carbon dating carbon.
The coal samples were analyzed using the modern accelerator mass spectrometry AMS method. If the coal were really many millions of years old as evolutionists suggestno traces of carbon should have been found. But, in fact, traces of carbon were found. The amounts of C in coal are found to average 0. Diamonds assumed to be hundreds of millions of years old were also tested—12 in all. Once again, traces of C were found in every sample see DeYoung, pp.
In June ofHugh Miller submitted two dinosaur bone fragments to the Department of Geosciences at the University in Tucson, Arizona for carbon analysis. One fragment creationism vs evolution carbon dating from an unidentified dinosaur. The other was from an Allosaurus excavated by James Hall near Grand Junction, Colorado in Miller submitted the samples without disclosing the identity of the bones.
Had the scientists known the samples actually were from dinosaurs, they would not have bothered dating them, since it is assumed dinosaurs lived millions of years ago—outside the limits of radiocarbon dating. Interestingly, the C analysis indicated that the bones were from 10, years old—a far cry from their alleged million-year-old age see Dahmer, et al. What is C doing in coal, diamonds, and dinosaur fossils, if these objects are really many millions of years old?
Evolutionists assert that the specimens in every case must have been contaminated by outside carbon. Using C dating on specimens already believed to be only hundreds or a few thousands of years old is considered acceptable. Scientists expect to find carbon in samples they perceive as young. But, if specimens believed to be millions of years old are tested e. Or so we are told. Do you see anything wrong with this picture?
The fact is, coal, diamonds, and dinosaur fossils containing traces of carbon is no surprise. One would expect to find such if the biblical accounts of Creation and the Flood are true. Cavalli-Sforza, LuigiGenes, Peoples, and Languages New York: Walsh and Christopher L. This creationism vs evolution carbon dating requires Flash Player 8. Download Flash Player 8. Inspiration of the Bible. Islam and Other World Religions. Search By Keyword Search By Bible Verse.
Age of the Earth. Design in the Universe. Design of the Human Body. God and Scientific Laws. Search By Bible Verse.