Carbon dating supports evolution?

If you would like to debate go to my youtube channel http://www.youtube.com/thejesusfreak919

or email me: claydubberly@yahoo.com



Not at all. Most laymen are under the mistaken impression that carbon dating is used to show that the earth is millions or billions of years old. This is not the case at all. Carbon dating always gives ages much less than this, even on things that are allegedly millions or billions of years old. The reason is that the C-14 isotope is short-lived. Here's how it works:

Most carbon is a stable variety called C-12, but a small fraction of carbon is C-14, which is unstable. Unstable means that C-14 is constantly decaying -- it is continually and spontaneously changing into nitrogen. This happens slowly, one atom at a time. The rate is such that in 5,736 years, half of the C-14 will have decayed into nitrogen. After another 5.736 years, half of the remaining amount will have decayed, leaving only one-fourth of the original, and so on. So by making certain assumptions and then measuring the amount of C-14 in an ancient sample, scientists are able to make an estimate of the age. Since C-14 decays fairly rapidly (at least compared to the secular alleged age of the earth), it would decay to an undetectable amount after 100,000 years. In fact, if the entire mass of the earth were C-14, after one million years not even one atom would be left! So it may come as a shock to you to learn that C-14 has been found in allegedly very ancient substances, such as coal and diamonds -- coal supposedly formed millions of years ago, in the evolutionary worldview. And the diamonds in which C-14 has been found are supposed to be over a billion years old in the secular view! The presence of detectable C-14 indicates that the true age of these things is only a few thousand years. Carbon dating certainly challenges the billions-of-years view.Carbon dating supports evolution?
I'll respond to your question to the extend of addressing your question here, and only here as to the science in your argument. I see no debatable resolution in the evolution vs creation squabble but bad science needs to be corrected when scientific understanding is misrepresented.



%26quot;Carbon dating%26quot; neither supports nor defends evolution theory. It disproves a %26quot;young earth%26quot; however.



Your discussion was good right up to the point you assert that no C14 could exist after 1,000,000 years . C14 is constantly being made at the top of the atmosphere. But for arguments sake, if you assume Earth to be a closed system, some C14 sill remains after n+ sigmas. Statistically even after 99.99999...nth% decays over almost 800,000 half lives, there remains the probability that some C14 atoms survive . No one can %26quot;prove%26quot; that some original C14 from the protosolar system or the star previous to our sun does not now exist somewhere in the solar system. In C14 dating we are not counting every C14 atom-- only the number of disintegrations during the count interval. It is more plausible that there is another source for C14 formation than just at the top of the atmosphere. In fact it is an ongoing process in meteoroids traveling in space. More on this process later.



%26quot;Half life%26quot; is a measured, consistent, average rate of disintegrations based on statistics. Nothing about %26quot;half-life%26quot; mandates a particular atom to disintegrate at a particular moment or by a particular date. The C14 isotope is biased to disintegrate, yes, but it too goes through an unknown %26quot;probability%26quot; event awaiting the conditions which trigger a decay. If %26quot;lucky%26quot; it may never disintegrate. %26quot;Half life%26quot; rates break down under extremely small samples--it is a statistical construct. This is one of the reasons C14 dating is not reliable past 60,000 years although new techniques may push that to 100-120 thousand in some circumstances. However, when measured within a statistical framework of many %26quot;samples%26quot;, C14 it is a reliable tool for the range it has been validated for. That is dating once living particles that absorbed C14 while living.



You mention C14 in %26quot;coal and diamonds%26quot;, what is your source that C14 is found in coal and diamonds and what is the concentration of C14? What is your proof that the C14 is not an artifact of an alternate genesis other than the sun or from contamination?



Fortunately we don't need biogenic processes to account for C14 in in coal or diamonds. Isn't it disingenuous to throw up a strawman that deliberately fashioned to leave out parts of the truth so he seems more vulnerable? Isn't there something in the bible about thou shalt not bear false witness?



I happen to know already so to save you from having to research it. Terrestrial diamonds do not uptake C14 through a biogenic process ,so they are outside the dating argument already. They do have trace C14 so it has to come from an alternate process such as neutron absorption by a C13 atom.



One uranium decay can supply two C13s with a neutron each. Coal and oil shales are relatively enriched in uranium. C14 in these cases, are detected by mass spectroscopy not by counting decays. So, amounts much smaller than are usable for radiometric dating can be detected. Stating there is C14 in coal is a red herring given that you failed to also introduce the other processes which can produce C14. Actually it is well known that fossil fuels contain something under 1% of the amount of C14 found even in a 40,000yr old sample.



I will give you some kudos even if your argument has some flaws. You are at least not trying to rehash the typical, run-of-the-mill, defective strawman to knock down and claim %26quot;victory%26quot; over science--but it is still a intentionally crippled strawman, none-the-less.



So I have to disagree with your conclusion. Carbon dating doesn't challenge a 4.55卤 billion year old earth! The challenge here is to not let psuedo-scientific rationale pollute scientific knowledge through introducing faulty logic and arguments which address all the facts.



As to your link, I am sure you are sincere and that you are well spoken. However, your assertion the the Bible is %26quot;Gods Word alone and given by God as the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth%26quot;(my words)--that too has pretty much been debunked by bible scholars. But there is a section in Yahoo Answers for debating the merits and this is not it.Carbon dating supports evolution?
You make a common mistake by those without training in using the scientific method. One observation is not enough to overturn an idea that has supporting evidence from a multitude of experiments from diverse areas of research. Incredible claims require incredible evidence and this observation of C14 in diamonds doesn't even rate as evidence, it is systematic error in experimental design.



Scientists do not do experiments and stop when they get the answer they want; they also have to test to rule out all other possible models that could explain their results. This is a case of not doing the experiment properly.



http://www.asa3.org/ASA/education/originCarbon dating supports evolution?
%26gt; %26quot;Carbon dating supports evolution?%26quot;



Carbon dating is useful in archaeology, but not in paleontology.



Firstly, fossils no longer contain any carbon - it has been replaced by mineralis in the fossilisation process.



And secondly, fossils are all far too old for C14 dating to be used - since it can only accurately date objects to %26lt;60,000 years old.



Other radioisotopes, such as potassium/argon and uranium/lead are used to date older rocks and fossils.



The presence of C14 in diamond, etc. may be unusual - but we know that rocks grow increasingly radioactive the deeper you go - and diamond mines are very deep indeed. Diamonds are only formed deep in the crust - and it is perfectly possible that interaction with other radioisotopes form C14 down there (it is, after all, bombardment of CO2 in the upprt atmosphere which forms C14 under normal circumstances). I'm no geologist - but such mechanisms do not seem unreasonable to me.



PS - the way half-lives work does not mean that there would be no more C14, even if the entire earth were made of it, over 3.8 billion years. In fact, we should *always* expect there to still be some C14: the amount recedes towards zero in a logarithmic progression, but it will never reach it.Carbon dating supports evolution?
I find some of the answers interesting. I find it interesting too that living tissue has been dated as being 40,00 years old - the oldest living creature on earth? I think not!