Problems with radiocarbon dating methods
The theory of evolution has become so ubiquitous in the scientific world today that it even distorts the way geological formations are dated.
However, these dating methods have significant problems that can lead to serious errors of interpretation.
Part 1 (in the previous issue) explained how scientists observe unstable atoms changing into stable atoms in the present.
However, at death the balance is upset, because replenishment by life processes such as feeding, breathing and photosynthesis ceases.“The accelerator mass spectrometer allows scientists to analyze the bones of the ancient Maya without severely damaging them.The new technique can date carbon samples weighing only a few milligrams; a specimen the size of a match head will do” (“Oldest Known Maya: Not Quite So Old,” , November 1990).These ‘ages’ are, of course, preposterous [since we know the rock formed recently]. Such examples serve to illustrate the fallibility of the dating methods on which many modern scientists rely so heavily.
The fundamental dating assumption (‘no radiogenic argon was present when the rock formed’) is questioned by these data. Helens dacite argue that significant ‘excess argon’ was present when the lava solidified in 1986 … Helens dacite causes the more fundamental question to be asked—how accurate are K-Ar ‘ages’ from the many other phenocryst-containing lava flows worldwide?
14C, with a half-life of 5730 years, decays back to 14N …