Atomic bomb radiocarbon dating
(the magazine which published details of the original C14 experiment) has now published a demonstration that the radiocarbon technique is not only unsound but also outdated. This process relies on circular reasoning because it assumes that the “carbon clock” can be moved backwards in time in a straight line, and the Flood greatly disrupted carbon ratios in the earth, as well as the atmosphere that produces the ratios of radioactive and stable carbon.
The Geological Observatory of Columbia University in New York has proved that the C14 results given in past years are in error by as much as 3,500 years in dating fossils, artefacts and events of the past 40,000 years, and the further back we go in time, the greater the error. Fairbanks of the observatory staff points out that since the C14 dating depends on the ever-variable quantity of C14 in the atmosphere produced by cosmic rays, any alteration of that production either by nature, or by the solar system, or by man-made interference (such as thermo-nuclear bombs) must cause a collapse of the whole hypothesis. (editors), Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth: Results of a Young-Earth Creationist Research Initiative, 2005, pp. (El Cajon, CA: Institute for Creation Research and Chino Valley, AZ: Creation Research Society). Carbon dating today assumes that the system has been in equilibrium for many thousands of years. Yamaguchi, “Interpretation of cross-correlation between tree-ring series.” , 46 (1986): 47–54: Yamaguchi recognized that ring pattern matches are not unique. Chaffin (editors), (August 2015), 112 (31): 9542–9545.
Carbon-14 (C at levels detectable by modern instruments.[i] Carbon dating of historical objects of known age is sometimes accurate back to about 1,000 BC, as verified by historical records.[ii] Carbon-14 dating begins with sound, repeatable science when researchers record isotope ratios.
So the method itself is not the issue—it’s the that are made when the raw isotope ratio gets converted to calendar years that carbon dating becomes unreliable and inaccurate, especially on very old artifacts.
Of the mass spectrometry technique used at Oxford, Dr. It is likely that the world following the Flood would have been much wetter with fewer contrasting seasons until after the Ice Age, which could explain the apparent date of the tree based on counting its rings.
Baxter reports: ‘It came out very badly in the survey, even when dating samples as little as 200 years old.’ Only 7 out of 38 laboratories produced satisfactory results, and the margin of error with artefacts of known age was two or three times greater than the technique’s practitioners claim. When scientists build calibration models for radiocarbon dating that extend back many thousands of years, they attempt to build tree ring chronologies by “.
Evolutionary researchers do not use it to age-date rocks.
Just a partial list of these factors includes: Factor 1: Forest fires.