Carbon relative and radioactive dating

It cannot be used to date volcanic rocks, for example.The rate of decay of N in 5,730 years (plus or minus 40 years).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.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.Clearly, such huge time periods cannot be fitted into the Bible without compromising what the Bible says about the goodness of God and the origin of sin, death and suffering—the reason Jesus came into the world (See Six Days? He said, This only makes sense with a time-line beginning with the creation week thousands of years ago.It makes no sense at all if man appeared at the end of billions of years.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.

Search for carbon relative and radioactive dating:

carbon relative and radioactive dating-22carbon relative and radioactive dating-47carbon relative and radioactive dating-5carbon relative and radioactive dating-21

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.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

One thought on “carbon relative and radioactive dating”

  1. He understood and made it clear that although some of the girls seemed a bit young, he had not sought them out; he simply did not care that they were underage. I don't engage in such behaviors, but if I did, I would have assumed — quite naively, obviously — that any women I met in such a chat room would have been adults, no matter how young they may have looked. Underage girls were cruising chat rooms looking for guys to link up with via Skype so they could engage in mutual masturbation? Allow me to suggest that is a much bigger problem than some young man failing to get proof-of-age for his Skype partners.