Carbon 14

A Useful Mistake
Macro Evolutionists are very fond of throwing around large numbers. When they find a fossil, they often run tests on it to try to find it’s age. One of the most popular tests among macro evolutionists is carbon 14 dating, (along with Potassium Argon, and Uranium Lead). Carbon 14 is an unstable element. This means that, once created, it will start to break down into what is called its “daughter element”. Since carbon 14 is found basically everywhere, and is decaying at a known rate, scientists assume they can determine the age of a fossil by guessing how much carbon 14 the animal contained when fossilized, and measuring the amount it contains now. At first, this seems like a viable way to measure age, but let’s look further into the implications and see what we find…

Half Life
As I said above, carbon 14 is decaying at a know rate. This rate is called a “half life”. A half life is the amount of time it takes for half of any amount of an element to break down into its daughter element. The half life of carbon 14 happens to be around 5,730 years. So, if you locked 12 ounces of carbon 14 in a air-tight case, and came back in 5,730 years, only about 6 ounces would remain. Just to clarify, the case must be airtight, or else more carbon 14 could seep in and contaminate the experiment. Back to the point, if you came back in another 5,730 years, only 3 ounces would remain. In this way, the amount would continue to be cut in half until virtually none was left. Now imagine you left the case full of carbon 14 alone for a few million years. so little carbon 14 would be left by then that it would be impossible to measure accurately. Wait a second! Haven’t scientists been using carbon 14 to tell us the ages of supposed “million year old” fossils? Yes they have. Are you beginning to see the problem? In fact, if an object is presumed to be over 50,000 years, most C14 labs won’t bother with it. Why? Because the reading would be meaningless. Only objects less than 3,000 years old can be dated with reasonable accuracy

Assumptions
The information you just read would probably make a few macro evolutionists pretty red in the cheeks. They have been tossing around “millions of years” for so long that they no longer even think twice about the scientific authority that they are abusing. Worse yet, carbon 14 dating of any kind must start with some pretty questionable fundamental assumptions.

1. The saturation of carbon 14 in our atmosphere has always been the same. We know this isn’t true because C14 has been forming faster than it has been decaying.

2. Carbon 14 is formed in the same amount all over the world. Since C14 is formed in the earth’s upper atmosphere as the result of cosmic radiation (and since the sun hits some parts of the earth harder than others), this is possible, but not likely.

3. the amount of carbon 14 found in specimens is the same worldwide. Organisms get their C14 from sources like the air they breathe, the water they swim in, and the food they eat. With this many factors, it is not possible for all creatures to have exactly the same amount of C14.

4. Ancient specimens have not been contaminated by new C14. As I said earlier, if a case full of C14 is not airtight, new C14 will contaminate it. The rocks surrounding fossils provide an airtight barrier so that no new C14 is gained, but contaminations are possible during testing.

5. Normal radioactive decay is the only way C14 is lost. We know that heat causes specimens to lose C14 faster than normal, so fossils in volcanic rock often date to be millions of years older than they are. Since lots of fossils are found in volcanic rock, and there are other things that interfere with C14 decay, this assumption is all but false.

With so many assumptions in C14 dating, there is really no room for error. When I realized how many things could go wrong with C14 dating, I thought it was a wonder they even used it at all!

Results
The problems with C14 dating have had serious consequences. Living mollusks have tested to be 2,300 years old. Mortar from an 800 year old castle tested to be 7,370 years old. Fresh seal skins dated to be 1,300 years old. So why use C14? I think macro evolutionists are fond of the way C14 tends to make things appear older. The mistakes of C14 dating have turned out to be useful to scientists who want the public to believe in millions of years. It turns out that evolutionists don’t know all the dates they would like us to believe they do. It’s all just a show.