Conflict dating

Rated 3.92/5 based on 836 customer reviews

However, I felt this wood probably would give a radiocarbon ‘date’, because I was convinced that this sandstone was the result of residual post-Flood catastrophism, just a few thousand years ago.

Such dating wouldn’t show the wood’s true age, since creationists have long shown that the huge imbalance of carbon in the world due to the global Flood catastrophe would give artificially old radiocarbon dates, especially those from the early post-Flood era.

conflict dating-29

conflict dating-50

conflict dating-63

Some time after I took my samples, I discovered the same sandstone, appropriately described as coming from Mägenwil, exhibited in the ‘Geologisch-Mineralogische Austellung der ETH’ in Zürich—naturally, also labelled ‘20 million years old’.So anything which really millions of years old would have no detectable radiocarbon left, and would register as giving an ‘infinite radiocarbon age’.Carbon dating, as it is often called, is thus never used to date ‘old’ fossils (which usually have no organic carbon left anyway).Thus, all the researcher was able to say about samples with low levels of radiocarbon was that their age was greater than or equal to 20,000 radiocarbon years (or whatever the sensitivity limit of his apparatus was).Some may have mistaken this to mean that the sample had been dated to 20,000 radiocarbon years." Thus it seems a likely possibility that the sample could have been too old to accurately date wuth whatever methods the lab used 30 years ago.

Leave a Reply