Reasons why carbon dating is inaccurate
Reasons why carbon dating is inaccurate - dating clubs los angeles
The mathematical premise undergirding the use of these elements in radiometric dating contains the similar confounding factors that we find in carbon-14 dating method.Most scientists today believe that life has existed on the earth for billions of years.
This restriction extends to animals that consume seafood in their diet.the global Flood of 2,348 BC) as global catastrophes reset all the radiometric/atomic “clocks” by invalidating the evolutionist’s main dating assumption that there have never been any global catastrophes.The assumptions are similar to the assumptions used in carbon dating.Any radiometric dates that show a supposedly “old” rock to be young are rejected “Few people realize that the index fossil dating system, despite its poor assumptions and many problems, is actually the primary dating tool for geologic time. In other words, radiometric dating methods are actually fit into the geological column, which was set up by [index] fossil dating over 100 years ago.”(Michael Oard, meteorologist and creationist scientist, 1984) All radiometric dating methods use this basic principle to extrapolate the age of artifacts being tested.These long time periods are computed by measuring the ratio of daughter to parent substance in a rock, and inferring an age based on this ratio.the geological column and approximate ages of all the fossil-bearing strata were all worked out long before anyone ever heard or thought about radioactive dating …
There are so many sources of possible error or misinterpretation in radiometric dating that most such dates are discarded and never used at all, notably whenever they disagree with the previously agreed-on [index fossil] dates.” (Dr Henry Morris, creationist scientist and hydraulicist, Ph D in hydrology, geology and mathematics, Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science and the American Society of Civil Engineers, former Professor of Hydraulic Engineering at Virginia Polytechnic Institute, 1974) Michael Oard, Ph. is a meteorologist and creationist scientist who writes, And when it comes to dating any individual rock today, the resulting “date” is forced to conform to predetermined evolutionist “dates” based on these imaginary 19th century index-fossil “dates”.
The various confounding factors that can adversely affect the accuracy of carbon-14 dating methods are evident in many of the other radioisotope dating methods.
Although the half-life of some of them are more consistent with the evolutionary worldview of millions to billions of years, the assumptions used in radiometric dating put the results of all radiometric dating methods in doubt. Although the half-life of carbon-14 makes it unreliable for dating fossils over about 50,000 years old, there are other isotopes scientists use to date older artifacts.
That’s right, you guessed it, the paleontologist tells the geologist how old the rock is based upon its connection to those very same “index fossils.” The process of using index fossils is describes by the late Creationist author and Ph. The supposed age of “index fossils” is based on how long these 19th century evolutionists believed one kind of animal would take (somehow) to “evolve” into a different kind of animal.
For example, if they believed it would take 200 million years for an ammonite (somehow) to turn gradually into say a dog, then all rocks containing fossil ammonites (the “index fossil”) would be given an “age” 200 million years older than rocks containing fossils of dogs: “…
Carbon-14 cannot be used to date biological artifacts of organisms that did not get their carbon dioxide from the air.