Take back America

Take back America
Take back America

None dare call it treason

None dare call it treason

Monday, February 8, 2010

The Carbon Dating Lie

Carbon dating accuracy: what are the flaws of carbon dating? Written by Anita Moon

The theory of carbon dating is interesting, but there are inherent problems with the presumptions upon which it is based.
Used to estimate the age of ancient artifacts and human and animal remains, radiocarbon dating is regarded by many as one of the miracles of modern science. Some, however, have serious doubts about the credibility of this technique.
Radiocarbon dating works by comparing the amount of normal carbon that is found in a sample with the amount of radioactive carbon. Both carbon and radioactive carbon are found in every living organism. While carbon is quite prevalent in these organisms, radioactive carbon is present only in tiny amounts. Some contend that the relative ratios of carbon and radioactive carbon that are found on the earth have remained constant over time and that, using known rates of decay; we can estimate age on the basis of changes in this ratio in a particular artifact or remains.
Radioactive carbon is absorbed by living organisms throughout their entire life. When the organism dies that absorption stops and the radioactive carbon begins to break down. Because this break down occurs at a known rate it is theoretically possible to compare the amount of regular carbon and the amount of radioactive carbon and estimate just how long an organism has been dead.
Although the theory of radiocarbon dating is interesting, there are several inherent problems with the process. The first of these problems is the fact that the original ratio of carbon and radioactive carbon is unknown. The second problem is that the possibility of contamination of the sample over time is quite high. The older the sample the higher the probability of contamination, in fact! What this means is that using carbon dating to date very old samples is really quite impractical given our current level of knowledge and technological capabilities.
While carbon dating continues to be considered by many as a viable way of obtaining authoritative dates for a wide range of artifacts and remains, there is much room for error in the process. Even the use of accelerator mass spectrometry to analyze the relative levels of carbon and radioactive carbon has resulted in flawed determinations. It is not uncommon for different laboratories to determine quite different ages for the same artifact! While some of this deviation could possibly be explained by contamination or erred methodology in the labs themselves, it is apparent that the problems with carbon dating are much more complex than that.
Very simply put, too many things are unknown to allow the carbon dating process to be as accurate as many proclaim it to be. Factors as diverse as changes in the earth’s magnetic field and changes in the amount of carbon available to organisms in times past could translate into perceivable differences in the carbon ratios in artifacts and remains from ancient times. Even changes in the atmosphere itself could impact this carbon ratio. We know that changes such as these have occurred over time. They are still occurring today in fact.
The fact that carbon and radioactive carbon are independently formed means that their ratios to one another could have changed substantially from ancient times to today. To base our knowledge on the age of the earth and its various constituents on information gleaned from a technique that depends on carbon and radioactive carbon ratios is very simply unrealistic.
There has never been any reliable system of dating the age of the Earth. Any object they date may be 4,000 years old on the first test, then 2.8 million years old on the second test. Then the testers picks the age to fit their religion. Oh yes, Evolution is a religion because you have to have faith to believe because it can't be proven and the results given are lies. Lies are the basis of Evolution. The only proven dates of things discovered are around 4 to 6 thousand years old. How about that, it matches what the Bible says.

6 comments:

Anonymous said...

Absolutely correct, except you've left out a very large factor. Scientists refuse to recognise the great flood. What would have happened to the carbon/radioactive carbon ratios in organisms and objects whilst the Earth was completely submerged in water?

James said...

Dear Anonymous, very good insight. I'm impressed.

Anonymous said...

I'm a christian, but this site is an absolute embarrassment. Surely you can use some of the logic that God gave you. It's about time people thoroughly read into more than just one side of an argument. James, have you heard of tree ring and coral/limestone calibration. They use dendochronology and other sources to account for the variations of carbon-14 in the atmosphere. Carbon dating is considered to be quite a good dating technique for artefacts between 100 and 50,000 years. Scientists spend most of their time looking at possible errors and uncertainties that may be present in their results.

Antero Colon said...

An anonymous christian? What a liar. 'Use of the logic that God gave you'? You are disgraceful.

Radiocarbon dating IS a complete sham. The idea that you can measure carbon against radio active carbon and not know when any of it was created is ridiculous. This is obviously a Satanic manipulation of 'science' in order to make ridiculous claims to those with itching ears.

Truly, it inconveniences many to know the truth...so they would rather believe in lies.

SpaCeLy_BLuNT_RaPz said...

Very True Sir, I Agree

empireuniverse said...

Amen! Visit: aliensrevealed.blogspot.com