Radiocarbon Dating Can't Prove an Old Earth

Institute for Creation Research ^ | April 2017 | Vernon R. Cupps, Ph.D.

[fishtank]

Radiocarbon Dating Can't Prove an Old Earth

by Vernon R. Cupps, Ph.D. *

Evidence for Creation

Recently, I conversed with an educated man who maintained Earth must be millions of years old because radiocarbon dating proved it. Although this argument is common, it’s simply inaccurate. Even evolutionary scientists acknowledge that radiocarbon dating cannot prove ages of millions or billions of years. Why?

Radiocarbon (14C) is an unstable form of carbon that spontaneously decays into nitrogen over time.1 The best instrument for detecting radiocarbon is an accelerator mass spectrometer (AMS),2 which can typically detect one radiocarbon atom per quadrillion (1015) carbon atoms.3 Most AMS devices cannot detect radiocarbon in something older than 57,000 years because the amount of 14C will have decayed to unmeasurable levels. Therefore, no rock formations, minerals, or organic material older than 57,000 years should contain detectable 14C. Radioisotope dating with 14C decreases in reliability with increasing age and cannot be reliably used without historical or archaeological artifacts to corroborate the dates obtained.4

[fishtank]

ICR article image

[dirtboy]

Strawman. Carbon-14 dating is only good for thousands of years, since it has a half-life of 5,730 years, and that is a given. It is typically used only to date recent archaelogical sites (recent being in the 10s of thousands of years). Uranium-lead and Potassium-Argon are good for dating back billions of years.

[Mr. Douglas]

I thought, if I remember from science class back in the early 70’s, that radiocarbon was only good for fairly recent stuff. i.e. tens or hundreds of thousands of years in the past. And they use different methods for the really old stuff.

[Kozak]

Oh brother. Not exactly news. Lots of other ways to date based on radioisotopes.

[PapaBear3625]

Any date which goes more than about 4004 BC would serve to invalidate a literal reading of the Genesis timeline.

[Mr. Douglas]

I should have read your post before my last post.

But I don’t think this is a straw man. I think they are making the point that a lot of people that argue vehemently for an old earth don’t really know what they are talking about.

Arrogant ignorance.

I’ve noticed that when you talk to someone that is actually doing the hard research in fields related to biological or geological evolution, they are nowhere near as “sure” of all the timelines as those that took a few classes in college. ;-)

[Mr. Douglas]

Any date which goes more than about 4004 BC would serve to invalidate a literal reading of the Genesis timeline.

---

At least regarding the definition of a “day” regarding the first six “days”. Yes.

[NorthMountain]

Any date which goes more than about 4004 BC would serve to invalidate a literal reading of the Genesis timeline.

That's the central point, here. Either Creation is 6000(ish) years old, or it is much older. If the discussion centers on how many billion years old, or how many hundred million years ago this or that dinosaur lived then the discussion has already bypassed "Creation is 6000 years old". That the people "actually doing the hard research in fields related to biological or geological evolution" aren't so sure of the timeline doesn't negate the magnitude of the timeline.

[TexasGator]

“I’ve noticed that when you talk to someone that is actually doing the hard research in fields related to biological or geological evolution, they are nowhere near as “sure” of all the timelines as those that took a few classes in college. ;-)”

But the are ‘sure’ the earth is older than a few thousand years.

[sargon]

Carbon-14 dating can only be used to date things less than, say, 10,000 years old.

Other methods, such as Potassium-Argon dating, are used to date objects which are very old (>10,000 years to billions of years).

Therefore, it's not sufficient to merely prove that Carbon-14 dating is insufficient for older things. It would be necessary to also demonstrate that other dating methods are also unreliable for these older items.

So Id like to see what the ICR has to critically say about, say, Potassium-Argon dating...

[katana]

That is true. Hundreds of layers of sediment filled with increasingly complex forgotten seabed organisms, uplifted, folded, and twisted up into mountains on the other hand ...

[Red Badger]

I’m so old, Carbon Dating is my Dating App.................

[Vermont Lt]

Can’t we just agree that stuff is old, really old, ancient, and really, really, old?

[miliantnutcase]

This is what drives me away from typical creationists. Just because there are scientific ways to prove the Earth is at LEAST older than 6000 years- it somehow disproves the Bible and makes us heretics?

[PapaBear3625]

There's also the issue of Noah's Flood, around 2348 BC, which (in theory) wiped out all mankind except for Noah's family.

The existence of civilizations whose records go back that far (like China) and which do not mention any total destruction of the populace and replacement by the descendants of Noah, would also tend to invalidate literal Genesis.

[Tao Yin]

Any date which goes more than about 4004 BC would serve to invalidate a literal reading of the Genesis timeline.

This statement is just plain silly. First, when sin entered the world, it not only changed Adam and Eve, but all of creation. Why do you assume that science operates the same today as it did before sin corrupted the world? Second, why are you limiting God? Just because science says that something was created millions of years ago, why can't that just be how God created it?

Alternatively, trying to use science to prove God or a literal interpretation of the Bible is just as silly as well. If my faith is increased by a scientific discovery, what happens to my faith when that discovery is overturned?

[dirtboy]

The point is, some people are going to put forward the wrong method, but the underlying results of the actual tests used are based in fundamental science regarding radioactive decay. And geology already factors in error margins that get larger as the target gets older. It is not unusual to see error margins in excess of 50 million years once you get into the Precambrian.

[wbarmy]

Your answer may be found at

http://www.icr.org/article/how-can-chinese-dynasties-extend-back-many-thousan/

[MeganC]

Circular reasoning is not science.

Carbon dating was never intended to ‘prove’ the age of the earth so triumphantly saying it can’t prove something it was never intended to prove is a logical fallacy.

>>Did you know that Microsoft Excel files only date back to 1985? Did you know that means Microsoft Excel can’t prove the existence of an old earth?<<

According to your reasoning what I just posted there is a sound argument to support creationism. It is not.

Neither is the meaningless drivel about carbon dating.

[marktwain]

Just because science says that something was created millions of years ago, why can’t that just be how God created it?

---

I thought of that as well. But Christian friends explained that if God built in false information about the age of the earth into creation, he was essentially lying to future humans. This negates the Christian core belief of a just God that keeps his promises and does not lie.