Such nonsense is answered by Dr

Carbon dating creationist argument

If anything, the tree-ring sequence suffers far more from missing rings than from double rings. The bristlecone pines in the White Mountains of California show the same thing. Because of the chemical similarity of carbon and carbon, it is unlikely that such plants could deviate much from the ratio of C to C found in the atmosphere. Not every mollusk shell presents such problems, and the dating of other material might yield a cross-check. If the sample shows evidence of being hopelessly contaminated it is pitched.

Judging from the above, it is easy to see that creationists are indulging in wild fishing expeditions. Morris claimed that free neutrons might change the decay rates. That is, the limestone carbon skews the normal ratio between C and C found in living things. However, as we have seen, it has survived their most ardent attacks. The C decay rate is not constant.

Because of background radiation, that's about as far as one can normally go with this counting method. Of course, some species of tree tend to produce two or more growth rings per year. We also have laboratory studies which support the constancy of all the decay rates used in radiometric dating. Even so, the missing rings are a far more serious problem than any double rings.

This type of decay is electron capture e. Therefore, as already noted, Dr. In another creationist, Robert L. However, these factors don't affect the radiocarbon dates by more than about percent, judging from the above studies. We don't need Egyptian mummies or what have you at that point.

It is very difficult or impossible to prove that a given sample has not been contaminated. Thus, we have a rough check between varves in glacial lakes and radiocarbon dating. However, unless the sponge itself disintegrates, the carbon which holds its fibers together must stay put.

Several factors, including the year sunspot cycle, affects its rate of decay. So, if we measure the rate of beta decay in an organic sample, we can calculate how old the sample is. Statistics assure us of that. Various living samples give very different ratios.

Thus we have

Therefore, atmospheric variation in C production is not a serious problem for the carbon method. One suspects that the scientific world would not be using the carbon method if it were so obviously flawed. Now, the fuller that barrel gets the more water is going to leak out the thoroughly perforated sides, just as more carbon will decay if you have more of it around.

This statement merely reveals Slusher's ignorance of nuclear physics. The curve is roughly degrees out of phase with the C curve. That figure follows directly from the mathematics and, as the atmospheric portion of carbon given above is an approximation, is close enough to Dr. Some samples, such as a section of a tree trunk, may well contain material of considerably different ages. If they are right, this means all C ages greater than two or three thousand years need to be lowered drastically and that the earth can be no older than ten thousand years.

That much is predicted by quantum mechanics, which is possibly the greatest of our modern, scientific revolutions. However, there are laboratory techniques, often ingenious, for dealing with such problems. An uncorrected carbon date of years for an object would actually mean that the object was years old. Finally, carbon dating has been shown untrustworthy with some present day aquatic specimens that were concluded to be thousands of years old. Being that this was one of the biggest volcanic eruptions in recorded history, it almost certainly caused worldwide cooling which would, in turn, affect tree growth.

It is very difficult