creationist argument against carbon dating

tools By: Goltitaur

Answers to Creationist Attacks on Carbon Dating | National Center for Science Education

Stonehenge, as dated by carbon, was built over a period from BC to BC -- long before the Druids came to England. The decay curve is mathematically determined by the fact that every atom of carbon in a sample has the same chance of decaying during each second of time. Trying to keep my views as open as possible, I noticed that the majority of the "creationists" adequately backed up their comments with logical arguments. Carbon dating thus presents a deadly challenge to young-earth creationists. Yes, the atmospheric content of carbon can vary somewhat. We don't need Egyptian mummies or what have you at that point. Give a Gift Membership.

WOMAN MAN

We make our world significant by the courage of our questions and by the depth of our answers. Creationist Argument: Carbon Dating is unreliable? Personally, I do not believe in god. However, like many "atheists" I am always up for listening to the different arguments and interpretations that come with the matter. Recently I was watching a youtube video where a creationist stated that "carbon dating is unreliable". I found this argument interesting as it was one that I had never heard before. I decided to go for the first site I found on google, a biased, "bible powered" blog. Below the article is a long, tedious argument between atheists and creationists. Trying to keep my views as open as possible, I noticed that the majority of the "creationists" adequately backed up their comments with logical arguments. Now I doubt creationism in all of its entirety, but I have not heard a logical argument against the claims made against carbon dating. So in essence, my question is: what is an argument that stresses the validity of carbon dating? Carbon dating at least is very, very solid. So it doesn't matter what the initial concentration of carbon was because you're measuring a ratio, which will vary only in terms of how C14 decays, as C12 and C14 are chemically identical and any disruption will not remove one or the other preferentially. C14 decays at a well known, measurable rate, so for formerly living things, back a certain number of half-lives beyond a point the errors of the measurement become too large relative to the small amounts of remaining C14 , carbon-dating is extremely precise.

WOMAN MAN

We make our world significant by the courage of our questions and by the depth of our answers. Creationist Argument: Carbon Dating is unreliable? Personally, I do not believe in god. However, like many "atheists" I am always up for listening to the different arguments and interpretations creationist argument against carbon dating come with the matter.

Recently I was watching a youtube video where a creationist stated that "carbon dating is unreliable". I found this argument interesting as it was one that I had never heard before. I decided to go for link first site I found on google, a biased, "bible powered" blog.

Below the article is a long, tedious argument between atheists and creationists. Trying to keep my views as here as possible, I noticed that the majority of the "creationists" adequately backed up their comments with logical arguments. Now I doubt creationism in all of its entirety, but I have not heard a logical argument against the claims made against carbon dating.

So in essence, my question is: what is an argument that stresses the validity of carbon creationist argument against carbon dating Carbon dating xgainst least is very, very solid. So it doesn't matter what the initial concentration of carbon was because you're measuring a ratio, which will vary only in terms of how C14 decays, as C12 and C14 are chemically identical and any disruption will not remove one or the dsting preferentially.

C14 decays at a well known, measurable rate, so for formerly living things, back a certain number of half-lives beyond a point the errors of the measurement argumenh too large see more to the small amounts of remaining C14carbon-dating is extremely precise. This is just the same smug creationist "You weren't there! It's not "logical"—it's solipsistic. Origins has good material on the real science instead of the crazy straw men the creationists throw up.

This isn't necessarily a direct answer to the question so I understand if it argumsnt downvoted or removed. However creationnist, ask the creationist what their preferred technique of dating fossils is. Adgument don't have one. The creationist technique is to simply discredit any finding or result that threatens their beliefs, all while refusing to provide any convincing or scientifically valid evidence for their own theories.

Not only is carbon dating a fundamentally good dating technique, what's extremely important here is that it is consistent with other methods of dating. Carbon dating, geology, comsmology, bioinformatics, etc etc can all be used to date a variety of things, and even though these techniques are from incredibly different backgrounds, they creatiionist if ever contradict each other, and when applicable, give relatively similar results.

That's very powerful stuff. The first is what the young earthers mean, which comes from their lack of understanding of the science behind it. The second is the inherent inprecision when taking any kind of measurement. The numbers we get out of any scientific measurement are unreliable in that sense.

This adting the reason scientific measurements "output" several numbers: first the value of the creatiomist, and second, a couple of numbers characterizing how 'certain' we are up sites new york hook the taken measurement. If you want to measure one brick with it, you can't do it since the error margin of your instrument are larger than the typical size of the object you creatipnist to measure.

It's more that carbon dating is only reliable back to about 60, years. As I noted above, after a certain number of half-lives, the amount of C14 will be so small that it can't be measured with sufficient precision and accuracy to give useful data. For items that are older than 60K years, there are other radionucleotides that can be measured to determine a date.

We have datting whole host of dating methods for radiometric dating, they all agree with each other, and they all agree carbom different forms of dating. Use of this site constitutes acceptance of our User Agreement and Privacy Policy. All rights reserved. Want to join? Log in or sign argumrnt in seconds. Ask a science question. Get an ad-free experience with special benefits, and directly support Reddit.

Are you a science expert? Looking for flair? Sign up to be a panelist! Welcome to Reddit, the front page of the internet. Argumment a Redditor and join one of thousands of communities. Want to add to the discussion?

Post a comment! Create an creationist argument against carbon dating. The results are usually close at least to a century of when the document is dated. Carbon dating isn't used for aganist things though, because it's then inaccurate. Posting here so I can find updates easier. Earth and Planetary Sciences. Social Sciences.

WOMAN MAN