Radiometric Dating and Creation Science

Creationist arguments against radiometric dating problems

This statement merely reveals Slusher's ignorance of nuclear physics. Free neutrons might change one element into another, but the decay rates all remain true to their elements.

Cosmic rays in

Answers to Creationist Attacks on Carbon Dating

The C decay rate is not constant. The barrel represents the earth's atmosphere in which the carbon accumulates. Hovind has relied on bad data. The random character of radioactive decay is a special case of the indeterminacy of quantum theory, as was pointed out in by George Gamow, Ronald Gurney and Edward Condon.

Kieth and Anderson show considerable evidence that the mussels acquired much of their carbon from the limestone of the waters they lived in and from some very old humus as well. Most of the tree-ring sequence is based on the bristlecone pine. So, if we measure the rate of beta decay in an organic sample, we can calculate how old the sample is. Not only does he consider this proof that the earth can be no older than ten thousand years but he also points out that a greater magnetic strength in the past would reduce C dates. Hovind has confused two completely different concepts.

Stonehenge fits the heavens as they were almost four thousand years ago, not as they are today, thereby cross-verifying the C dates. Another attempt by Morris invokes neutrinos. But other species produce scarcely any extra rings. Dating various portions of a sample is another kind of check that may be performed. Because this type of decay involves a particle outside the nucleus, the decay rate may be affected by variations in the electron density near the nucleus of the atom.

Because of the chemical similarity of carbon and carbon, it is unlikely that such plants could deviate much from the ratio of C to C found in the atmosphere. These bands are thousands of kilometers long, they vary in width, they lie parallel, and the bands on either side of any given ridge form mirror images of each other. There is a fourth type of decay that can be affected by physical and chemical conditions, though only very slightly.

Free neutrons might change oneKieth and AndersonThis statement merely reveals Slusher's ignorance

Partial contamination, say of a block of wood, may affect its different parts to different degrees. The argument may be compared to filling a barrel which has numerous small holes in its sides. The notable exception involves certain mollusks, which get much of their carbon from dissolved limestone.

However, as we have seen, it has survived their most ardent attacks. Cosmic rays in the upper atmosphere are constantly converting the isotope nitrogen N into carbon C or radiocarbon.

From radiocarbon dates taken from bristlecone pines. Laboratories, of course, do have techniques for identifying and correcting contamination. Strahler presents a graph of the earth's dipole moment going back years.

However as we have

Seven hundred years or so is about as far as the carbon method strays from tree-ring dating on the average. Some samples, such as a section of a tree trunk, may well contain material of considerably different ages. Various living samples give very different ratios.

An uncorrected carbon date of years for an object would actually mean that the object was years old. We don't need Egyptian mummies or what have you at that point. Now, the fuller that barrel gets the more water is going to leak out the thoroughly perforated sides, just as more carbon will decay if you have more of it around.

Nor was that just an effect of local weather conditions. They are one of the safest bets in all of science. The bristlecone pines in the White Mountains of California show the same thing. Creationists such as Cook claim that cosmic radiation is now forming C in the atmosphere about one and one-third times faster than it is decaying. It has not been decaying exponentially as Barnes maintains.