Evolutionists’ Carbon Dating Has Flaws They Hope to Correct


An interesting article came out today:

Researchers discover secret of more precise carbon dating

By Stacey Pounsberry | October 20, 2012…

The process of radiocarbon dating relies on the known rate at which radioactive isotopes decay and measuring the remaining amount of radiocarbon within a sample. This ratio provides scientists with a precise estimate of how old a certain artifact might be. Complications in these calculations arrive from how the initial radiocarbon in the environment varies from year to year and from one part of the global carbon cycle to another.

Therefore, carbon dating often has a wide range, which could stretch anywhere from a couple hundred to a few thousand years…Professor Ramsey. “In most cases the radiocarbon levels deduced from marine and other records have not been too far wrong. However, having a truly terrestrial record gives us better resolution and confidence in radiocarbon dating.”  http://www.belljarnews.com/2012/10/20/researchers-discover-secret-of-more-precise-carbon-dating/

That last statement causes me to chuckle.  In MOST (but not all) cases, carbon dating is BELIEVED by certain professors to not have been TOO FAR WRONG.  Well, since there are problems with most dating methods, even those MOST CASES can still be quite wrong.  This is almost comical.

Furthermore, what the article implies, but tries to reason around, is that faulty claims of carbon dating have often been used by evolutionists as “proof” that their version of life on the planet, etc. are correct.  Yet, scientists have long known that carbon dating is flawed and based upon assumptions that are not always truly scientific.

As a scientist, I have long known that proponents of evolution treat the subject more like a religious view than a scientific theory, as it is often based more on false hopes than real facts. This is somewhat also what the Ben Stein movie Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed revealed (see Ben Stein’s Expelled).

Evolution has sometimes led to the intentional ignorance of appropriate scientific methods.  It became a religion for many in the 19th century, and remains one for many today.  But it is nice that at least some will publicly acknowledge that there are flaws in its carbon dating methods.

To learn more about how life formed and why the evolutionary explanation is not scientifically valid, please review the following articles:

Is God’s Existence Logical? Some say it is not logical to believe in God. Is that true?
Is Evolution Probable or Impossible or Is God’s Existence Logical? Part II This short article clearly answers what ‘pseudo-scientists’ refuse to acknowledge.

Get news like the above sent to you on a daily basis

Your email will not be shared. You may unsubscribe at anytime.