C-14 is atmospheric, and carried by any living organism, including microbes or residue left by handling the sample. Once unearthed a sample is immedialty succeptible to contamination. Any sample more that about 100,000 years old will not have any mearsurable C14 left in it, and you will instead be measuring the C14 that has contaminated the sample since it was exposed. For these reasons C14 dating is potentially unreliable. This is well known and documented.
When you tell people about Hugh Millers experiment, do you also tell them this?
...For these reasons C14 dating is potentially unreliable. This is well known and documented. ..”
all radio-dating is fallible and prone to contamination (ALL). that is why it is unreliable.
It is a Fact, no two samples will give the result...unless , yes you test them 100 times and PICK the results.
It is dishonest!!!
and that is how it is done.
and the article illustrates the bias when testing samples.
The Assumptions of Carbon Dating
Although this technique looks good at first, carbon-14 dating rests on at least two simple assumptions. These are, obviously, the assumption that the amount of carbon 14 in the atmosphere has always been constant and that its rate of decay has always been constant. Neither of these assumptions is provable or reasonable.
The answer changes based on the assumptions. Similarly, scientists do not know that the carbon-14 decay rate has been constant. They do not know that the amount of carbon 14 in the atmosphere is constant. Present testing shows the amount of C-14 in the atmosphere has been increasing since it was first measured in the 1950s. This may be tied in to the declining strength of the magnetic field.
In addition to the above assumptions, dating methods are all subject to the geologic column date to verify their accuracy. If a date obtained by radiometric dating does not match the assumed age from the geologic column, the radiometric date will be rejected. The so-called geologic column was developed in the early 1800s over a century before there were any radio- metric dating methods. “Apart from very ‘modern’ examples, which are really archaeology, I can think of no cases of radioactive decay being used to date fossils.”1 Laboratories will not carbon date dinosaur bones (even frozen ones which could easily be carbon dated) because dinosaurs are supposed to have lived 70 million years ago according to the fictitious geologic column. An object’s supposed place on the geologic column determines the method used to date it. There are about 7 or 8 radioactive elements that are used today to try to date objects. Each one has a different half-life and a different range of ages it is supposed to be used for. No dating method cited by evolutionists is unbiased.2
The Wild Dates of Carbon Dating
A few examples of wild dates by radiometric dating:
•Shells from living snails were carbon dated as being 27,000 years old.
•Living mollusk shells were dated up to 2,300 years old.
•A freshly killed seal was carbon dated as having died 1,300 years ago.
•“One part of the Vollosovitch mammoth carbon dated at 29,500 years and another part at 44,000.”
•“Structure, metamorphism, sedimentary reworking, and other complications have to be considered. Radiometric dating would not have been feasible if the geologic column had not been erected first.”
•Material from layers where dinosaurs are found carbon dated at 34,000 years old.
.Ager, Derek V., “Fossil Frustrations,” New Scientist, vol. 100 (November 10, 1983)
.Antarctic Journal vol. 6, Sept-Oct. 1971, p. 211
.Troy L. Pewe, “Quaternary Strigraphic Nomencature in Uniglaciated Central Alaska,” Geologic Survey Professional Paper 862 (U.S. Gov. Printing Office, 1975) p. 30
.J. E. O’Rourke, “Pragmatism vs. Material- ism in Stratigraphy,” American Journal of Science, vol. 276 (January,1976), p. 54
Dr. Kent Hovind,Creation Today