# Carbon dating of genesis

Radiometric dating breakthroughs by Carl Wieland A few years ago, some leading creationist geologists and physicists began a detailed research project into. After a while, there's only so much you can say about the claims of young earth creationist groups like Ken Ham's Answers in Genesis. Large amounts of carbon found in coal and diamonds support a young earth.

How is that possible?

### Does Carbon Dating Prove the Book of Genesis Wrong? | Everlasting Truths

If all of the carbon 14 atoms would have disappeared at a maximum ofyears, why would there still be carbon 14 atoms in coal? Obviously it is not million years old. Also diamonds, which they say formed millions and millions of years ago, still have carbon 14 in them. So how do you get carbon 14 in diamonds? Again it is obvious that they are not millions of years old.

The carbon dating assumptions need to be pointed out. It is also losing carbon 14 through decay. The question is how long would it take the atmosphere to reach a stage called equilibrium? They wanted to figure out how long it would take the atmosphere to reach a point where the construction rate and the destruction rate of carbon 14 was the same.

They determined that it would take about 30, years to reach this equilibrium state. They made two bad assumptions after they came up with this calculation.

They assumed that the earth was millions of years old and then assumed that they could ignore the equilibrium problem. It has been discovered that the earth has still not reached equilibrium. If radiocarbon is still forming faster than it is decaying, that means the earth is less than 30, years old.

## Carbon Dating Flaws – Doesn’t Carbon Dating Disprove the Bible?

It also means that you cannot carbon date anything! The reason is because you would have to know when the fossil was alive to know how much carbon 14 was in the atmosphere at that time. It simply does not work. If you find a fossil in the dirt, the amount of carbon 14 can be measured and the rate of decay can be determined.

However, that is all that can be determined. It is impossible to know how much carbon 14 was in it at death and it is impossible to know if carbon 14 has always decayed at the same rate. If the earth had a canopy of water above the atmosphere, or a canopy of ice, that would have blocked out a lot of the radiation from the sun.

### Creation Science Rebuttals, Answers in Genesis, Are Dating Techniques Accurate?

This would have prevented most of the carbon 14 from even forming. Animals that lived before the flood would have lived in a world with much less carbon 14 to begin with. There may have been none at all, but the amount would certainly be less than what we have today. If it does not entirely contradict them, we put it in a footnote.

That is exactly correct. Here are some things to consider about carbon dating. When something of known age is dated: When something of unknown age is dated: As you can tell, for about the first 1: Up to that 1: AiG gave a straightforward explanation regarding radiometric dating and half-life.

• Creation Science Rebuttals

Thanks AiG, for admitting that and for giving scientists a certain amount of credit and respect. You knew it was coming.

Somehow, someway, AiG was going to smuggle in at least one of their talking points. Oh of course not…if that was all there was to it, AiG would have to issue a retraction to everything it has ever said ever, and then shut the whole organization down.

There has to be a way to discredit the whole radiometric dating thing of by their own admission observational science. And how AiG introduces it is breathtaking: Historical science deals with things in the past, and therefore cannot be repeated and tested.

Do you see what AiG did there?

They just threw that assertion out there—and this is problematic for two reasons: Think of a large hour glass in which it is known exactly how many grains of sand fall from the top to the bottom each second. By counting the grains of sand remaining in the top the observer can tell how long ago the hourglass was turned over. The process sounds simple enough, especially in a very simplified explanation like this one.

Carbon dating, and all similar dating methods, have serious problems. Carbon dating has been repeatedly shown to produce inconsistent results. The same object tested multiple times has resulted in widely different dates. Also, tests of modern artifacts in which the date of the organisms death was known have produced results off tens of by thousands of years. The biggest problem will all decay based dating methods is the assumptions made. Carbon dating assumes the amount of Carbon present in the organism at death.

The amount of Carbon present at the death of a fossilized organism cannot be known for certain because no scientist was there to take an initial measurement.