How Accurate is Carbon Dating? Labmate Online
However, the reliability of phytolith radiocarbon dating has recently Consequently, it is necessary to identify alternative materials that might enable reliable and effective dating. . Three phytoliths dates partly or completely overlapped with the . Song, Z., Wang, H., Strong, P. J. & Guo, F. Phytolith carbon. At least to the uninitiated, carbon dating is generally assumed to be a means that carbon dating, though a useful tool, is not % reliable. Radiometric dating does not merely give age for an assumed constant rate of decay, As such, the Bible is the only reliable means of knowing the age of the earth .. they are found, and the surrounding rocks are dated at million years. its origins as a star which first became a white dwarf prior to its swan song.
After all, this what the archeologist guessed in their published books. Some believe trees are known to be as old as 9, years. They use tree rings as the calibration standard.
A lot of people doubt this claim for various good reasons I wont go into here. We believe all the dates over 5, years are really compressible into the next 2, years back to creation.
So when you hear of a date of 30, years for a carbon date we believe it to be early after creation and only about 7, years old. If something carbon dates at 7, years we believe 5, is probably closer to reality just before the flood. Robert Whitelaw has done a very good job illustrating this theory using about 30, dates published in Radio Carbon over the last 40 years.
One of the impressive points Whitewall makes is the conspicuous absence of dates between 4, and 5, years ago illustrating a great catastrophe killing off plant and animal life world wide the flood of Noah! I hope this helps your understanding of carbon dating. If you have any more questions about it don't hesitate to write. I just listened to a series of lectures on archaeology put out by John Hopkins Univ. Anything beyond that is questionable. This fact is born out in how carbon dating results are used by scientists in the scientific literature.
Many scientists will use carbon dating test results to back up their position if the results agree with their preconceived theories. But if the carbon dating results actually conflict with their ideas, they aren't too concerned. It is for specimens which only date back a few thousand years.
Anything beyond that is problematic and highly doubtful. Learn More about Carbon Dating! Godthe Father, sent His only Son to satisfy that judgment for those who believe in Him. Measuring the racemization of the amino acid isoleucine, for example, can date objects as far back as the claimed-implausible several million years. That many hundreds of species could remain so unchanged, for even up to billions of years in the case of stromatolites, speaks against the millions and billions of years being real.
Is Carbon Dating Reliable? | dsl-service-dsl-providers.info
The jellyfish have actually changed, as have the coelacanths — they aren't the same species at all, as the author claims. They merely belong to the same order: Of the life forms given as examples, only the Wollemi pine is a species, and not such an old one as claimed.
The "many hundreds of species" are out of millions of species. Only a tiny proportion of fossil species have modern counterparts. The key point, however, is that the "living fossils" didn't change much because they were well-adapted to a stable environment.
This argument also presumes that the only changes are morphological — evolution also includes biochemical changes, behavioral changes, and others that are not preserved in the fossil record. Evolution does not give creatures an expiration date. The only thing that dictates whether a species will survive is its ability to survive and reproduce in its environment better than other species, not some arbitrary number of years.
Coelacanth imgWollemi pine img and various "index" fossils, which are present in supposedly ancient strata, missing in strata representing many millions of years since, but still living today. Such discontinuities speak against the interpretation of the rock formations as vast geological ages—how could Coelacanths have avoided being fossilized for 65 million years, for example? See The "Lazarus effect": What happened was that competition from other marine life seems to have driven the coelacanths into deeper water where they survived better than those who had outcompeted them in the shallows.
That's why they disappeared from the fossil record: An index fossil is a species used as an indicator by paleontologists as a working convenience. The incorrect creationist claim that coelacanths were an index fossil originates with Kent Hovindwho misdescribes what an index fossil is, and confuses coelacanths with graptolites.
Is Carbon Dating Accurate?
This does not explain why dinosaurs other than birds are only found in the lower strata, and never not just rarely found in upper strata. If the flood was as suitable for the creation of fossils as is described, there should be more fossils than we actually find; the described mechanism would fossilise a large proportion of everything that was living at the time.
We would also expect modern animals, such as cows, to be found in the fossil record. The author's interpretation of the data is inconsistent with his stated model. The reason coelacanths are rare after 65 million years ago is that there are no locations where they could've been fossilized and uplifted. The Mediterranean was now a much shallower sea, and the Indian Ocean segment had become shallow upon impaction with the Indian continent.
The species in this area died out, unable to adapt to the reduction in their habitat. After this, there would be no tectonic uplift in the region, meaning that the coelacanth fossils would be deep in the ocean floor.
The Indonesian coelacanth has not been fossilized because of similar conditions. In their location, trenches formed allowing for the transfer of coelacanths, which were then trapped in Indonesian waters.
The trenches have consistently been getting larger, and new land is not being uplifted, meaning that fossils cannot reach the surface. The ages of the world's oldest living organisms, trees imgare consistent with an age of the earth of thousands of years.
The oldest living individual trees are younger than 6, years — but dendrochronologywhich the linked article endorses, is not limited to studying a single tree. Because the thickness of rings differs depending on weather conditions during each season, tree ring patterns can be matched between living and dead trees, extending the record beyond the lifetime of a single tree.
In suitable places, the record has been extended this way to roughly 11, years before present. Regardless of the age of individual trees, Pando, a massive clonal colony of aspen in Utah verified by genetic markers to be a single monolithic organism — at a weight of 6, tons, by far the heaviest on Earth — has a lower bound on its age projections of 80, years and may be as old as a million years. Current scientific opinion is that the oldest living organisms are sea grasses, not trees, and the oldest known example has been given an age in the vicinity of 80, toyears.
See Origins 21 1: Also the Coconino sandstone in the Grand Canyon has many track-ways animalsbut is almost devoid of plants. The evidence is more consistent with catastrophic transport then burial during the massive global Flood of Noah's day.
This eliminates supposed evidence for millions of years. Plants are almost completely soft tissue and so most of their remains decay very quickly. Animals, on the other hand, have bones and teeth, and shells, etc. Owing to the transitory nature of tracks, no modern geologist insists that they were buried over eons. They all recognise that a special event which covered the tracks took place — which does not imply a global flood, but only a small-scale local event.
If tracks were buried in situ over eons, then the Earth would be covered in them. The Coconino sandstone shows extensive evidence that it was formed from wind-blown desert sand dunes, such as clear tracks of small insects and wind ripples. Sand deserts don't have a lot of plants. This wipes out hundreds of millions of years of time and is consistent with extremely rapid formation during the biblical Flood.
See Warped earth img written by a geophysicist. This refers to the creationist idea of soft-sediment deformation which bears no relation to the use of the term in geology. What is happening is ductile deformation. What seems like "solid rock" to us is actually "plastic" with geological timescales and conditions — under long term stress or strain, these crystalline structures can deform into convoluted shapes.
And, of course, many rocks are fractured as a result of folding. The creationist explanation fails to account for fold formation on large scales and for the inability of wet sediments to form extremely tight folds. If the wet sediment mechanism was responsible for fold formation, sediment would slump to the bottom, and so the fold would be thinnest at the peak crestwith the sides limbs increasing in thickness down to the trough. This is contrary to observations: Purple slates from North Wales often contain light green discolourations from ferrous reduction spheres which formed around iron nuclei; these are deformed into long thin ovals, which are evidence of folding after the rock has lithified.
It is unclear how the fact that hard quartz sand grains were not elongated is relevant in this case. We are talking about a huge, km long geological structure that was uplifted by 1. The changes in the dimensions of sand grains would be undetectable, especially since they would not have had perfectly uniform dimensions to begin with.
Is Carbon Dating Reliable?
There are also polystrate tree trunks in the Yellowstone fossilized forests img and Joggins, Nova Scotia img and in many other places. This is in fact well-understood. Trees in certain conditions become buried in a layer of soft sedimentary rock. As the wood decays, its cellular structure is replaced by minerals precipitated from percolating groundwater and it becomes petrified. These fossilizing minerals, however, are hard so that later, as the softer surrounding sedimentary rock wears away, it leaves a " petrified forest ".
Other sediments are then deposited around these fossilized trees and subsequently become layers of new rock over time. Fossil trees extending through layers dated tens or hundreds of thousands of years later than the dead trees.
It does not need millions of years. Furthermore, long time periods could be an impediment to coal formation because of the increased likelihood of the permineralization of the wood, which would hinder coalification. You can dig a hole in two minutes with a shovel, but that doesn't mean that all holes are two minutes old.
Even assuming that coalification can occur rapidly under certain circumstances volcanism mixing clays with organic matter in the correct proportion, then providing unvarying heat above the boiling point of water for many monthsit cannot then be assumed that all coal is formed by this particular method, which requires very specific conditions, including the coal having first been buried at considerable depth. All coal deposits would be associated with great quantities of volcanoclastic sediments — which they are not.
Dating of the coal strata usually shows that they are hundreds of millions of years old. Again, if oil can form quickly assuming the time for the raw materials to reach suitable conditionsit does not follow that all of it must form quickly, and moreover it does not follow that there is some lower age limit for the Earth. The linked article speaks of Len Cram, an opal expert who claims he can grow opals.
The main issue, of course, is that although opals can form quickly,  this in no way implies they formed recently — opals form at the same time as the sediments in which they are found, and the surrounding rocks are dated at million years. The formation and distortion of coal seams is easily explained by accepted slow geological processes.