Evolutionists, how accurate is Radioisotopes C 12, 13, & 14?

Question

The RATE Group Findings

In 1997 an eight-year research project was started to investigate the age of the earth. The group was called the RATE group (Radioisotopes and the Age of The Earth). The team of scientists included:

Larry Vardiman, PhD Atmospheric Science

Russell Humphreys, PhD Physics, Eugene Chaffin, PhD Physics, John Baumgardner, PhD Geophysics, Donald DeYoung, PhD Physics

Steven Austin, PhD Geology, Andrew Snelling, PhD Geology Steven Boyd, PhD Hebraic and Cognate Studies

The objective was to gather data commonly ignored or censored by evolutionary standards of dating. The scientists reviewed the assumptions and procedures used in estimating the ages of rocks and fossils. The results of the carbon-14 dating demonstrated serious problems for long geologic ages. Samples were taken from ten different coal layers that, according to evolutionists, read the rest of this at http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/does-c14-disprove-the-bible

Answer 1

Don't waste your time with the evolutionists.  They are not only poor scientists but poor at practicing their religion.

That article is nonsense.  The earth is several billion years old.  Scientists do not challenge that notion only religions do.

As a Christian, I know that God wants us most to live a good life and do good deeds.  Trying to disprove real science accomplishes none of that and I can only describe the life of the article's author as a miserable waste of time.  If he wants to make a difference he should go help the poor.

Answer 2

This bunch of pseudoscientists with impressive-sounding degrees is associated with the Institute For Creation Research, formerly of San Diego but recently moved to Dallas. They have been trying to find radiocarbon (with its relatively short half-life) in coal samples since at least 1990. If they could do so, they would show that coal is not millions of years old. They keep announcing success but no one outside their little circle takes them seriously. In fact, they once let go one of their own guys because, after much hard work, he came to think the universe might be as much as 20,000 years old.

The lesson is that if you have an organization that claims to do science but knows in advance what the results must be, you had better be skeptical because what they are doing is not science.

Answer 3

Carbon-14 dating hardly ever used in geology. Its used to date archeological samples and extremely young fossils.

Here is a paper I co-wrote describing a remarkably young 12 million year of fault that I discovered in Ireland using Argon-Argon dating. I published it in a peer reviewed journal, if there was any mistake about the age, let me know.

A Miocene fault In south-east Ireland revealed by

40Ar–39Ar dating of hydrothermal cryptomelane

Answer 4

According to Dr. Kevin Henke

http://www.uky.edu/AS/Geology/faculty/he...

"Because radiometric dating methods utterly refute their antiquated Biblical interpretations, young-Earth creationists (YECs) are desperate to undermine the reliability of these methods. YECs realize that just quoting the Bible is not going to get geochronologists and other scientists to drop their research and stream to the church alters in repentance. Therefore, a small group of YECs with Ph.D.s have formed the RATE (Radioisotopes and the Age of The Earth; Vardiman et al, 2000) committee to comb the scientific literature and design laboratory "experiments" that will somehow verify what they have already concluded, namely that Genesis is 'The Truth' and geochronology is 'wrong.'"

"Everyone should be totally repulsed by the thought of a theologian or politician dictating to scientists whether their scientific data is accurate or not. However, YECs consider this type of authoritarian control to be 'good science' and somehow ethical. Clearly, the YEC approach to 'research' strongly resembles the dogmatic 'doctrinal correctness' of Stalin's Lysenkoism, where communist party officials told biologists what to think and what 'research' was acceptable..."

http://www.answersincreation.org/print/r...

Answer 5

Carbon dating is only useful for short term dating: up to about 60 000 years old: coal is much older than this. Scientists are aware of the limitations of carbon dating. See link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dati...

Other isotopes are used for longer time frames. Read through the link below to get an understanding of the relationship between isotope dating, the fossil record and that dirty word (evolution)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geologic_ti...