Why does the modern-day method of carbon dating along with the fossil record seem to contradict the bible?
An excellent answer can be read at: http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c007.html
The simple fact is – it doesn’t. So many inaccuracies with radiocarbon dating have been discovered that it is a wonder they still use it. I once heard of a trick played on scientists by some anti evolutionists. The scientists subsequently dated a piece of LIVE coral as 14,000 years old.
However to properly answer the question one would have to delve into scientific facts and research results and quote from published findings. All this work has been done already and is available on the internet at the site of the ‘Creation Science Encyclopedia’ It deals with proven scientific FACTS, referencing various publications etc. This is a no nonsense non emotional scientific examination of facts on a whole range of subjects proving that science CANNOT disprove the biblical record but in fact, supports it.
Those who cling to the theory of evolution do so simply because they do not believe in God and have to have some other explanation – however impossible the odds. One thing that non believing scientists find extremely difficult to answer is how can the theory of evolution be supported in light of the second law of thermodynamics, commonly known as the ‘law of entropy’ which states basically that ‘all systems tend towards chaos’. These are the laws upon which all scientific knowledge is based and this one says that things always get worse or break down – not get better or build up making the theory of evolution scientifically impossible.
“Carbon dating is the process of using decay rate of carbon to determine how old something that is made out of carbon is. Its fairly precise up unto about 5,000 years, but after that there is really no way to calibrate it, that means to verify it by some other independent method, so it works out ok to a point. Also, there’s no reason that things have always been exactly the same as far as decay rates are concerned. Mayor changes could have occurred when God cursed the ground or during the flood. I believe that all of the fossil fuels and things like that resulted from the flood.”
“Carbon dating says this stuff has been here for 40 million years give or take a few. The BIBLE says the world is only 6 Thousand years old. In order for there to be a world there has to BE A G-O-
“Fossils have dated back millions of years, before the date in time, in Genesis, when God first said “Let there be light” and “He created the Heavens and the Earth”. This is why they contradict each other. Which life forms came first ,the ones that God created or the ones fossils indicate? I like fossil collecting myself, but believe in the Bible completely also.”
“DATING OF TIME IN EVOLUTION- 1
The 19 dating methods used to establish ancient dates, are not accurate. Here are scientific facts. Evolutionary theory is a myth. This is science vs. evolution—a Creation-Evolution Encyclopedia, brought to you by Creation Science Facts.
CONTENT: Dating of Time in Evolution – 1
The Factor of Time – Evolutionists think it can do magical things
Radiodating – Assumptions and inaccuracies of carbon-14 dating
Rock Strata Dating – An introduction to its flaws (see Fossils and Strata for much more on this)
Page numbers without book references refer to the book, DATING OF TIME IN EVOLUTION, from which these facts are summarized. An asterisk ( * ) by a name indicates that person is not known to be a creationist. Of over 4,000 quotations in the set of books this Encyclopedia is based on (see Order Sheet), only 164 statements are by creationists.
THE FACTOR OF TIME
Evolutionary theories cannot do what is claimed for them, even when given long ages in which to do it. Yet, without long ages, evolutionists cannot make their theories plausible.
Long ages is not evolution. Whether or not scientific dating methods are accurate has nothing to do with whether evolutionary theories work. However, in this article, we will learn that the time dating methods, which appear to stretch out the past to great lengths, are amazingly unreliable. Magical time. Time is not a magical substance that can work great wonders. If a cow cannot change itself into a whale today, how could it do it in a thousand years? Yet, as we shall learn in this article, evolution teaches that, if given enough time, a cow (or some other mammal) will eventually swim out into the ocean and become a whale.—pp. 11-12.
More time, less likelihood. Actually, a reputable scientist has deduced that, the longer the amount of time that passes, the less likely it is that the desired evolutionary change could possibly occur!—p. 12.
Real time vs. theory time. As noted in the preceding major article in this Encyclopedia (Age of the Earth), actual human records reveal that past time has been very short.—pp. 12-13.
Flawed time date methods. Did you know that none of the evolutionary dating methods agree with one another! They all give different dates! There are so many false assumptions, errors of various types, and misinterpretations that researchers discard most of the dates and never report on them. Instead, only those dates are used which nicely support evolutionary theories. The laughable part is that the stated ages of the strata were hunched out in the nineteenth century, long before modern dating methods were discovered.—p. 13.
Long ages needed. Evolutionists need long ages in order to pretend that their theories are true. Yet all the non-historical dating methods are unreliable. In contrast, as shown in Age of the Earth, the evidence points toward the origin of our world being about 6,000 years old, with the universal Flood somewhere around 2348 B.C.—p. 13.
Major dating methods. There are three primary radioactive dating methods:
(1) uranium-thorium-lead dating, (2) rubidium-strontium dating, and (3) potassium-argon dating.
In each system, the “parent” element decays to a “daughter” element, and a certain amount of time is supposed to elapse throughout the decay process.—pp. 13-14.
Six initial assumptions. Each of these dating methods can only be accurate if each of the following assumptions always apply:
1 – Nothing can contaminate the parent or daughter products during the process. When something is in the ground for a long period of time, how can anyone be certain that this is true?
2 – Each system must initially contain none of the daughter products. But, of course, no one was back there then to know that.
3 – The decay rate must never change. Who was standing there all those years with a time clock in his hand?
4 – There can be no variation in decay rates. But one researcher has already demonstrated that it actually happens. 5 – If any change occurred earlier in certain atmospheric conditions, this could profoundly affect radioactivity. There are reasons to believe this has happened.
6 – Any change in the Van Allen radiation belt would greatly affect the rates, and that could also have occurred.—pp. 14-15.
Five radiometric dating inaccuracies. Here are several reasons why uranium and thorium dating methods cannot be relied on. Each of these five problems is very, very likely to have occurred over past time, thus devastating the value of the computed dates:
(1) Lead could originally have been mixed in with the parent substance. (2) Part of the uranium and its daughter products could previously have leaked out. (3) Inaccurate lead ratio computations may have been worked out in the lab. (4) During the decay process, neutron capture (from a radiogenic lead) may have contaminated the results. (5) Clock settings would initially be greatly varied, if the substances originally were (as evolutionists claim) derived from molten materials.—pp. 17-19.
Thorium-lead dating. The same flaws with uranium are applicable to thorium. In addition, contamination factors, common to both, may trigger different results in thorium than in uranium. A powerful evidence that these dates are useless is the fact that uranium and thorium dates always widely disagree with one another.—p. 19.
Lead 210 and helium dating. These are two other dating methods. Lead 210 can leak or be contaminated by entry of other leads. Helium, being a gas, leaks so radically that it is also useless for dating purposes.—p. 19.
Rubidium-strontium dating. This is a widely used dating method at the present time. But, in addition to all the other problems mentioned earlier,—the experts have been unable to decide on the half-life of rubidium! This is like saying we will use a certain wall clock to figure time with, while having no idea what each “hour” that passes on that clock equals: five minutes or two days. To add to the problem, strontium 87 is easily leached away, thus ruining the computation.—p. 19.
Potassium-argon dating. Since potassium is found in fossil-bearing strata, this is a favorite method. But the experts cannot agree on the half-life of potassium, and argon is a rare gas that quickly escapes from the rock into the atmosphere. In addition, potassium can easily be leaked. Finally, the notoriously defective methods used for uranium dating must be used to figure potassium-argon dates.
Yet, in spite of these mammoth defects, potassium is the most common method of dating fossil-bearing rocks. As with the other dating methods, its results are reported only in those instances in which they seem close enough to the nineteenth-century strata dating theory.—pp. 19, 21.
Problems with all radiodating methods. Here is a remarkable example of what we are talking about: All the dating methods were applied to the moon rocks. The result: dates varying from 2 million to 28 billion years! Yet, as we found in Age of the Earth, non-radiogenic dating methods show the moon to be
only a few thousand years old.—p. 22.
Emery’s research. *G.T. Emery discovered that long half-life radioactive elements (the kind discussed in this present article) do not have consistent half-lives! This would be like having a clock, with one “sixty minutes” actually eight minutes long, with another two days in duration.
In spite of these facts, evolutionists, in desperation, continue to hang their theories on cobwebs.—pp. 22-23.
Just one catastrophe. *F.B. Jeaneman noted that just one catastrophe, such as a worldwide flood, would throw all the dating clocks off. Immense contamination of all radioactive sources would occur; there would be major shifting of rock pressure and reversals in earth’s magnetic core.—p. 23.
Five ways to change the rates. All aside from contamination and other problems, everything hinges on unchanging decay rates. But *H.C. Dudley noted five ways they could change. Dudley actually changed the decay rates of 14 different radioisotopes by means of pressure, temperature, electric and magnetic fields, and stress in molecular layers. He also cited research by Westinghouse laboratories which changed the rates simply by placing inactive iron next to radioactive lead.—p. 23.
ROCK STRATA DATING
Strata and fossil dating. An in-depth analysis of fossil and strata dating will be presented in Fossils and Strata. But, right here, we will note the relationship of radioactive dating to fossils and strata—and find there is no relationship!
Fossil and sedimentary strata dating were imaginatively invented in the nineteenth century and are totally useless. Radioactive dating of fossils and strata are also useless. Consider this:
Only three usable test results. It is impossible to date fossils or strata by radioactive dating. In fact, only three test dates have ever been accepted! All the others vary so wildly that they have been thrown out. Tens of thousands of tests, costing millions of dollars in salaries and lab time, have been discarded because they have been found to be useless.
Random guesses, unproven possibilities, and confused data; that is the story of fossil and strata dating.—pp. 23-25.
Astounding discrepancies. Of the 1,400 radioisotopes known to exist, only 75 have half-lives longer than 700 years. In 1978, John Woodmorappe carried out exhaustive research to ascertain the dates given to materials in the 11 major strata levels. In each case, he found variations in the millions or billions of years! The dates just do not agree with one another.—p. 25.”
Thanks to Jeane
“Carbon dating contradicts the Bible because carbon dating is not
infallible. There are many situations which can throw off the dating system. Science does not take into account all the factors that can make dating something inaccurate. Science feels it is infallible, but only God doesn’t make mistakes.”