Dinosaurs and carbon dating

To derive ages from such measurements, unprovable assumptions have to be made such as: There is plenty of evidence that the radioisotope dating systems are not the infallible techniques many think, and that they are not measuring millions of years. For example, deeper rocks often tend to give older “ages.” Creationists agree that the deeper rocks are generally older, but not by millions of years.

Geologist John Woodmorappe, in his devastating critique of radioactive dating,[8] points out that there are other large-scale trends in the rocks that have nothing to do with radioactive decay.

When a “date” differs from that expected, researchers readily invent excuses for rejecting the result.

The common application of such posterior reasoning shows that radiometric dating has serious problems.

Also, the Genesis flood would have greatly upset the carbon balance.

In summary, the carbon-14 method, when corrected for the effects of the flood, can give useful results, but needs to be applied carefully.The strength of the Earth's magnetic field affects the amount of cosmic rays entering the atmosphere.A stronger magnetic field deflects more cosmic rays away from the Earth.This is the “half-life.” So, in two half-lives, or 11,460 years, only one-quarter of that in living organisms at present, then it has a theoretical age of 11,460 years.Anything over about 50,000 years old, should theoretically have no detectable C.

Search for dinosaurs and carbon dating:

dinosaurs and carbon dating-83dinosaurs and carbon dating-2dinosaurs and carbon dating-81dinosaurs and carbon dating-12

These techniques are applied to igneous rocks, and are normally seen as giving the time since solidification.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

One thought on “dinosaurs and carbon dating”