Creationist arguments against radiocarbon dating

Radiocarbon is not used to date the age of rocks or to determine the age of the earth.Other radiometric dating methods such as potassium-argon or rubidium-strontium are used for such purposes by those who believe that the earth is billions of years old.Nevertheless, a belligerent crusade is kept alive in the public forum by the "scientific" creationists.I use quotations here because real scientists look at the data first and then determine if their hypotheses will fit in.Radiometric dating remains a reliable scientific method.

The scientific debate, of course, was settled long ago in favor of an old earth.

Radiocarbon is not suitable for this purpose because it is only applicable: a) on a time scale of thousands of years and b) to remains of once-living organisms (with minor exceptions, from which rocks are excluded).

MYTH #2 Radiocarbon dating has established the date of some organic materials (e.g., some peat deposits) to be well in excess of 50,000 years, thus rendering a recent creation (6 to 10 thousand years ago) impossible.

This does not mean that recalibration is bad, indeed it is necessary, but it should make one more soberly assess any reported dates as being tentative.

The problem is that most people reporting on these issues fail to report the initial number along with the calibrated date. The Jericho controversy is soundly rooted in C-14 calibration.

837

Leave a Reply