Carbon dating is an accurate way to determine the age of the earth

In this round, I will point out why radiocarbon-14 dating is an inaccurate method of dating. Radiocarbon dating was developed on the basis of two assumptions (not established facts). In the first place, Libby (the developer of the method) assumed that the carbon 14 content is consistent in the carbon dioxide which is absorbed by the organism while it is living. In the second place, Libby believed that cosmic rays which produce carbon 14 have remained constant in our atmosphere. Dr. David Hurst Thomas of the American Museum of Natural History addressed the problems of these assumptions when he wrote: Radiocarbon dating relies on a number of key assumptions, perhaps the most important being that the radiocarbon level -- that is, the ratio between carbon 12 and carbon 14 -- has remained constant in the earth's atmosphere. Libby assumed this when developing the method, but we now know that this assumption is not valid. That is, levels of atmospheric carbon 14 have shifted somewhat over the past millennia.[3] Shortly after Libby developed his carbon 14 dating method, Egyptologists, who applied his method to well-established historical material, said that "his dates did not square with the historically derived dynastic chronology."[4] Dr. Stuart Piggott, a British archaeologist, excavating near Durington Walls in England, received a radiocarbon date for his site. The radiocarbon test on a piece of charcoal suggested that Piggott's site was 1000 years older than it actually was. Conclusive data from the site proved that the radiocarbon test was grossly in error. Piggott said of radiocarbon dating that it was "archaeologically unacceptable."[5] In June of 1985 the Twelfth International Radiocarbon Conference met in Trondheim, Norway to discuss the flaws in radiocarbon dating. From this conference a correction curve was developed for carbon 14 dates based upon the fairly exact dating method of dendrochronology (tree ring dating). Unfortunately, there are a limited number of tree types that are suitable for providing an accurate correction curve for carbon 14 dates. The ideal tree is the Bristle Cone Pine which is only found in the buildings of ancient North American Indian sites. The oldest of the Bristle Cone Pines found are only 4600 years old. Using living samples and ancient trunks, scientists were able to develop a correction curve for radiocarbon dates going back 8200 years.[6] In other words, radiocarbon dates can only be corrected as far back as 6200 B.C. Any samples that date further back than 6200 B.C. cannot be corrected, and therefore their age cannot be accurately determined. One might wonder why corrected carbon 14 dates only go back as far as 6200 B.C. One might also question the reason there are no Bristle Cone Pines older than 4600 years. The reason may simply be that the flood occurred approximately 4600 years ago. Why can carbon 14 dates only be corrected as far back as 8200 years ago? Is it because the earth did not exist much more than 8200 years ago? Paleontologists are reluctantly beginning to realize the limitations of radiocarbon dating. David Hurst Thomas grudgingly proclaims that radiocarbon dating is accurate when it reveals a date for an object which is within a range of just over 75,000 years ago.[7] Unfortunately, he is still in denial of the facts. However, he at least recognizes that radiocarbon dating cannot be used to prove that ancient "primitive man" goes back 4 million, or even 100,000 years ago. So concluding, how is it possible for Pro to say Radiocarbon dating is accurate when it relies on dendrology just to determine a rough estimate of the past 8 millenea? The bottom line is that it is universally agreed to be IMPOSSIBLE to determine the age of the earth. The resolution is negated. [1]Thomas, Archaeology, p. 295. [2]Ibid., p.296. [3]John C. Whitcomb and Henry M. Morris, The Genesis Flood: The Biblical Record and Its Scientific Implications (Grand [4]Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1961), p. 43. [5]Thomas, Archaeology, p. 296. [6]Ibid., p. 292. Brett A. Rutherford.