Credible carbon dating
Obviously this only works for things which once contained carbon—it can’t be used to date rocks and minerals, for example. We obviously need to know this to be able to work out at what point the ‘clock’ began to tick.
We’ve seen that it would have been the same as in the atmosphere at the time the specimen died. Do scientists assume that it was the same as it is now? It is well known that the industrial revolution, with its burning of huge masses of coal, etc.
by Dr Carl Wieland An attempt to explain this very important method of dating and the way in which, when fully understood, it supports a ‘short’ timescale.
In fact, the whole method is a giant ‘clock’ which seems to put a very young upper limit on the age of the atmosphere.
Part 2 explains how scientists run into problems when they make assumptions about what happened .
An hourglass is a helpful analogy to explain how geologists calculate the ages of rocks.
Based on these observations and the known rate of radioactive decay, they estimate the time it has taken for the daughter isotope to accumulate in the rock.
However, unlike the hourglass whose accuracy can be tested by turning it upside down and comparing it to trustworthy clocks, the reliability of the radioactive “clock” is subject to three unprovable assumptions.
C, we find that this ratio is the same if we sample a leaf from a tree, or a part of your body.Remember that this correction is based on In any case, even the incorrect ‘uniform’ model has given, in many cases, serious embarrassment to evolutionists by giving ages which are much younger than those he expects in terms of his model of earth history.