Many people have been led to believe that carbon dating (along with other radioactive dating methods) proves the earth to be much older than 6,000 years old. If the dates received from carbon dating are accurate, it would be a huge problem for those who believe in the Genesis account of creation. However, when one starts with the Bible and interprets the information received from carbon dating accordingly, one will soon learn that in no way does carbon dating disprove the young earth.

Actually, I believe the Bible reveals WHY our dates are millions of years old. I believe the book of Isiah shows us that the "earth" and the universe were around for a looong time, before God created the "Human Earth" as we know itr today. I'll save it for another thread though! This is just as a response to the "study" that prayer doesn't work.

Misconception # 1: Carbon dating can be used to date objects that are millions or even billions of years old

Carbon dating is one of the most popular radioactive dating methods used today. Ironically, despite its popularity, it is also one of the most misunderstood methods of dating. Many people mistakenly believe carbon dating can be used to date objects that are millions or even billions of years old. The fact is, carbon dating can only be used to date things up to approximately 50,000 years old. In fact, if an object contains (radioactive) carbon, this should be a clue that the object may not be any older than 50,000 years.


Misconception #2: Carbon dating can be used to date virtually anything

Another misconception people have about carbon dating is that it can be used to date virtually anything. Carbon dating can only be used to date objects that were once living or even apart of a living organism. Such things are a leaf, a bone, wood, flesh, etc. It cannot be used to directly date inorganic objects, such as rocks (other radioactive dating methods are used to date radioactive rocks).


Be cautious of accepting a carbon age

One should not accept any age from a dating method, including carbon dating, without knowing exactly how the dating method works and its limitations. Many people also don’t realize that carbon dating (along with other radioactive dating methods) is based upon unverifiable assumptions. While this doesn’t render the dating method useless, it does bring its overall accuracy into question.


How radioactive carbon is formed

Normal carbon atoms weigh 12 atomic mass units, while a radioactive form of carbon weighs 14 atomic mass units, which is called carbon-14 (C-14). C-14 is a rare form of carbon. It is estimated that only one out of every trillion carbon atoms is C-14.[1] C-14 is formed in the earth’s upper atmosphere as a consequence of cosmic radiation bombardment. These cosmic rays shatter the nuclei in gas atoms in the upper atmosphere releasing neutrons. The displaced neutrons bond with nitrogen-14 (N-14) converting it into C-14. Because C-14 is radioactive, it is unstable, and is constantly decaying back into N-14. But, as C-14 continuously decays, it is also continuously being replaced by new C-14 being formed.


How carbon-14 enters an organism

Most C-14 will combine with oxygen to produce radioactive carbon dioxide (C-14 O-2). Since plants breath carbon dioxide, they will intake some C-14 as well and make it part of their tissue. Animals, in turn, eat plants or other animals that eat plants, receiving the C-14. Even humans contain C-14 because, of course, we also eat either animals or plants (I don’t know what else there is to eat). Throughout an organism’s life, it is constantly balancing its C-14 decay with intake so that it will always contain C-14. Since C-14 is so well distributed in the atmosphere, it is assumed the same ratio that is in the atmosphere will also be in an organism.


How carbon dating is supposed to work

Once an organism dies, its C-14 decay is no longer being replaced by intake. Therefore, all the C-14 remaining in the organism will eventually decay and disappear. If one can measure the rate in which it decays, and the amount the organism started off with, then one might be able to figure out when the organism, such as a frog, croaked.

Most authorities agree that C-14 decays at such a rate that half of it will be gone in approximately 5,730 years. This means if a specimen contained, say, a pound of C-14 (to make things understandable), in 5,730 years, half of it will be gone, and in another 5,730 years, half of the remaining C-14 will disappear. After about 8 half-lives, the remaining amount of C-14 (if there is any remaining) is too small to be measured. For this reason, it is simply impossible for carbon dating to give dates as old as millions of years. Instead, it can only give up to approximately 50,000 years.


Assumptions

While this dating method sounds pretty good and simple enough to understand, there are some assumptions that aren’t often pointed out. Some of these assumptions are:

1. A constant decay rate.

2. Closed systems, void of any contamination and without loss of the parent element (C-14) or daughter element.

3. Known amounts of parent and daughter elements present from the beginning.


Assumption 1: Constant decay.

If the decay rate of C-14 were not always constant, then this would be devastating to the technique's credibility. Unfortunately, dating methods such as the carbon dating method have only been around for a short period of time. So far, no known environmental factors have been able to significantly cause the decay rates to vary. For this reason, I will have to bite the bullet and accept that it is reasonable to assume the decay rate is constant (even though I give this assumption, this doesn’t mean the decay rate is constant. Rather I am conceding due to no current evidence for the contrary). With this said, it would be worth while to check out this feedback session which does seem to suggest that there might have been an accelerated decay rate in the past, at least for the uranium-lead method. (Click)


Assumption 2: Closed systems.

“It is important to realize that an accurate radiometric date can be obtained only if the mineral remained a closed system during the entire period since its formation. A correct date is not possible unless there was neither the addition nor loss of parent or daughter isotopes.” [2]

This assumption is not one that I am willing to concede on. In order for carbon dating to work (and this applies to other dating methods as well), the parent and daughter concentrations must have not been altered throughout the specimen’s history. Common sense would seem to indicate that this is an unreasonable assumption, especially if carbon dating can be used to ‘date’ objects up to 50,000 years old. This would mean that for 50,000 years, the specimen that is being dated must have remained in a closed system for several thousand years. If that weren’t enough, the scientists dating the specimen must also be able to make the determination of whether or not the system has remained closed.


Assumption 3: Known amounts of daughter and parent element from the start.

This is another assumption that is often made, but rarely addressed. In order for the dates from C-14 to be accurate, the starting condition must be known. How do we know that the amount of C-14 in an organism that lived 5,000 years ago is the same amount that organisms have today?

Since it is assumed that an organism will have the same ratio of C-14 as found in the atmosphere, this is a point that must be taken into consideration also. According to Willard Libby (who invented the carbon dating method), if the influx of carbon-14 in the atmosphere were increasing at its current rate, then the atmosphere would reach equilibrium in about 20,000-30,000 years.*[3] Evolutionists usually overlook this point because they believe the earth is around 4.55 billion years old. However, there are some studies that suggest that the C-14/C-12 ratio in the atmosphere has been increasing since the 1950s. Samples of historically known age can be used to estimate the amount of C-14 in the atmosphere at that point in time. Unfortunately, this only works for objects within the age of recorded history.

Another point to consider is the earth’s weakening magnetic field.[4] In fact, the magnetic field of the earth loses about ½ of its strength every 1400 years.[5] This indicates that the field was much stronger in the not too distant past. Since the magnetic field is responsible for deflecting radiation,[6] less C-14 would have been formed during the time when the magnetic field was stronger. That means an organism that lived and died during a time when the magnetic field was stronger would have less C-14 to begin with. Such would make an organism look much older than it really is according to the carbon dating method. Evolutionists believe the reason the earth’s magnetic field appears to be weakening is because the field reverses itself. Even if this is true, it still doesn’t negate the fact that the magnetic field was stronger at some point, causing less C-14 to be formed in the atmosphere.


Have anomalous dates been known to occur?

Of course, no matter how well theories sound, the true test comes from actual experimentation. Answers In Genesis has reported of such a case where a piece of wood was found in the “Hawkesbury Sandstone” of Sydney, Australia. The Hawkesbury Sandstone has been assigned a geologic age of approx. 225-230 million years based on its position in the geologic column. It was doubtful if any detectable C-14 still remained in the wood, but a test was performed anyway to see if it contained C-14 (a sample of the wood was sent to Geochron Laboratories in Cambridge, Boston, USA). The wood came back with a C-14 age of 33, 720 ± 430 years! One might wonder if any contamination had occurred, but according to AIG, Geochron Laboratories conducted thorough tests to ensure that there was no contamination.[7]


Biblical factors

It has been said before that all evidence must be interpreted within a framework. Such a framework is the foundation in which we interpret our evidence upon. Starting with the Bible as our assumption, we must interpret the evidence based on a Biblical foundation. The Bible teaches the earth was covered in a watery cataclysm about 4,400 years ago. A global flood would have buried large pre-flood forests and animals. As a result of this, the flood buried large amounts of carbon. Animals that lived right after the flood may not have had as much carbon-14 available because of the global flood.

Also, many believe the Bible teaches that the earth was surrounded by a vapor canopy (otherwise known as the ‘canopy theory’). I’m not going to dogmatically say there was or wasn’t a vapor canopy. Well-known creationists seem to be split on this one. But, if there was a vapor canopy, then this extra layer of water would have helped filter out the sun’s radiation, and therefore, less C-14 would have be formed (if any).


Conclusion

Creationists have nothing to fear from carbon dating, as it does not disprove the young age of the earth. The carbon dating method is based largely on unverifiable assumptions that are made based upon one’s axioms. Most importantly, outside of known or recorded history, there is no way of verifying these old ages.


Related Quote:

"If a C-14 date supports our theories, we put it in the main text. If it does not entirely contradict them, we put it in a footnote. And if it is completely 'out of date," we just drop it."

T. Save-Soderbergh and I.U. Olsson (Institute of Egyptology and Institute of Uppsala, Sweden), C-14 dating and Egyptian chronology in radiocarbon variations and absolute chronology, Proceedings of the twelfth Nobel Symposium, New York, 1970, p.35.




So yeah, blah blah blah, opinion opinion opinion. Words games are a waste of time.

Science and statistics can be used to prove anything. 14% of all people know that! *wink wink*


References:

* Imagine you’re filling up a barrel full of water. You’re pouring the water into the barrel at a steady rate. The only problem is, the barrel has holes in the side. So, as you're pouring water into the barrel, it is also being leaked out of the barrel. Eventually you’ll reach a point where the water entering the barrel is leaking out just as fast. This is the stage we call ‘equilibrium’. Unless you decrease the amount of water leaking from the barrel, or increase the amount going in, the barrel will reach ‘equilibrium’. The same is true for the earth’s atmosphere. According to John Morris, the earth’s atmosphere will reach equilibrium in only 30,000 years. Because of this, most people who believe in long ages tend to assume the earth’s atmosphere is already in equilibrium.

1. Walt Brown, In the Beginning, 7th edition, Center for Scientific Creation, p. 244, 2001.
2. Edward J. Tarbuck & Frederick K. Lutgens, Earth 6th edition, Prentice Hall, p. 202, 1999.
3. Willard Libby, “Radiocarbon Dating”, Chicago Press, pp. 4-9, 1952.
4. John Roach, National Geographic News, “The Earth’s Magnetic Field is Failing”, Sep. 9, 2004, <http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/09/0909_040909_earthmagfield.html#main>.
5. Russell Humphreys, Impact No. 188, “The Mystery of the Earth’s Magnetic Field”, 1989,
<http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-188.htm>.
6. John Roach, National Geographic News, “The Earth’s Magnetic Field is Failing”, Sep. 9, 2004 http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/20...d.html#main>.
7. Andrew Snelling, Creation, Vol 21 Issue 3, “Dating dilemma: fossil wood in ‘ancient’ sandstone”, <http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v21/i3/fossilwood.asp>.

I guess I'm a bit more skeptical of the Evolution theory as a whole. I do believe it may occur(adaption). But that's as far as my belief goes, adaption.


Very odd that no one posted here yet. Where are the evolutionists?

Carbon dating is very reliable...If you insist it is not, there is Stronium, Uranium, and other metals to date. Very, very accurate....Atomic decay is one of the most reliable measurements of time.

I think it would be better to refute anything said in the original post. If you can't, then I have to be a bit skeptical, sorry. That's just my skeptic side coming out. If Carbon dating is really as stated above, I'm not so impressed by it.

its fairly reliable within those three assumptions in the OP. #2 is usually the biggest problem. #3 could be. #1, chaging decay rates, would be nigh impossible. it would involve a change in one of the two nuclear forces. bad stuff would happen if those changed.

I believe the Bible's account of creation. And for many many yeqars completely denouced all carbon dating, quite ignorantly I might add. AFter a year long thread between me and aquatus1, I matured a bit. I decided to do the research for myself.

While I am still skeptical of the accuracy of carbon dating, as well as other radiometric dating meathods, I admitted to myself that there may be some validity to the so called science.

But wait, don't Christians believe the earth is only 6000 years old?

Yes, many do. But these people are funtioning mainly on hearsay of TV and local preachers. But hey, if that's what it takes to make your faith come alive, then that's fine!

I, on the other hand, have a tendency to drive towards the heart of the matter. I entertained the thought that the earth, at least, the MATTER which makes up the earth, could be millions of years old.

With this in mind, I turned back to the Old Testament to try and derive answers. And I believe I came up with one.

No, there are those out there who believe in the gap theory. A theory which states there is a possible million/billion year gap between Genesis 1:1, and Genesis 1:2. This, to me, seems like a compromise.

Now, I do not believe Macro evolution. However, adaptaion within a KIND has been widely documented. The beak size change in galopogos birds which is determined by rainfall for instance. Not to mention the fact that every single hamster breed in North America was bread from ONE original pair.

What I do not believe, is what I call, "Goo-to-you" evolution. WHile species have a almost magical abilitiy to adapt and change, the theory of primordial soup (I'm using a simple term because I don't want this post to be 10 pages long) turning one day into a fully formed human, can be proven impossible using chemestry and biology.

But I digress.

I believe the answer I found came from the book of Isiah, in which he describes a vision he had of a very stage sight. A sight, which I believe was God revealing to him the earth, BEFORE the Genesis creation. If any so desire, I will post an entire essay on this theory.

But basically, I am lead to believe that our frame work for our material world was lain out much before Man was created, and the Earth as we know it was created.

Here are a few things to support this theory.

In Genesis 1:2, it states that, "The earth was without form, and void". Why would God create a dead earth? Unless the matter was there before hand, in a null state, and when He decided to create what we now know as Earth, he happened to use this sphere of matter, in this particualr section of the universe.

It also says, "God's spirit hovered over the waters of the deep". Notice Genesis does not account for God creating water at the time of Creation". It seems to say the water was already there. God seperated the land from the water.

Now, in Isiah's cision, he decribes s firey world where "mountains moved too and fro". Perhaps our earth began as a void world, without life, filled with erruptions and earthquakes. And I theorize that the earth's core was perhaps, at this time, water. (explaining the "waters of the DEEP.)

I believe when God seperated the land from the waters, he turned the earth inside out. This allowed for the life giving material, water, to become the surface. But why wouldn't God just leave the earth how it is, and make us all super heat resistant, silicon based life forms? I believe the answer has to do with symbolism, which I won't get into in great detail yet, but will say that in many many cultures, water symbolizes "spirit".

But why would there be planets and matter and universe if there was no man? I believe that what WE percieve as our universe is the lowest level of a multi spherical, multi level dimension.

Now, if I believe the Bible to be a correct account of creation's history, the answers must lie within. And I believe they do:

Before mankind, before Angels, there was just God. God spoke, and formed his first creation: The Word. "In the beginning was the Word. ANd the word was WITH God, and the word WAS God". Jesus Christ, God's son, is known as The Word. I believe God's first creation was a direct representaion of Himself. A Son. A being of equal power to himself, and therefore part of himself. The Bible also says that, "Without the word, nothing that has been made would be made". This seems to suggest God's first instance of creation.

The way I see it, it makes sense that God's first creation would be flawless, omnipotent, and directly relaing to Himself.

God's second creation was the Angels. Perhaps, at the time of the Angels creation, he also created a world for them to exist in. It says quite plainly in scriptures that the angels worshipped God, and set up sanctuaries for this purpose. Angels, being etheric beings in direct contact with God, functioned outside of time, and were emensely powerful compared to humans. But were completely seperate from God, because THEY worshipped HIM. God does not worship himself, and therefore God's son, who was also part of God, need not worhip himself.

Angels had freewill. Freewill is required to God to be genuinely worshipped or glorified.

The highest angel was lucifer. He was known as the "Light bearer". Also, he was the chief of music. This suggests the ground work for matter and energy was laid at the time of the Angel's creation.

Lucifer, being the most powerful angel, commited the first act against God. This was the desire for internal glorification. In layman's terms, Pride, or selfishness. And if we look at OUR world, this is the very cause of ALL EVIL. The desire for personal power is what causes all problems, IF it is used selfishly. That is, without full consideration of every other life ont he planet.

He wanted to be more powerful than God, and was crafty enough to decieve 1/3 of the Angels. There was war, and the fallen angels were cast out of "The upper circles of heaven", which is where God resides. The angels, I believe, were scattered all over the universe.

Having full spiritual knowledge, they only had ONE chance to make their choice. The fallen have no forgiveness, because they knew full well what they chose.

God decided to create something different. SOmething that, over time, could learn to make a final choice FOR Him, and once in eternity, be uncorruptable, unlike the ANgels.

God created Mankind, and well as our Earth.


These theories explain why our universe is almost completely inaccesable to us. Because the UNIVERSE was not created for us. The EARTH was created for us. The universe was created for the angels.

I also believe that what many think to be aliens, are actually the fallen angels, or perhaps non-fallen angels, who still have their original abilities to travel through the universe.

WHy would these angels interact with humankind? They always have. Every civilization talks about "gods" coming down to earth. Same with the Bible.

Also, it says in the Bible, "He has given his angels charge over us".

The fallen, wanting to corrupt our souls as an act of war and defience against God. The non-fallen, charged with helping us.


So I come to the end to my theory: That the matter in the universe may very well be millions of "years" old. But the earth it's self, and all life on it, is only thousands of years old.

This explains why many scientists believe the earth to be millions and billions of years old, denounces Macro evolution, explains micro evolution, or adaptation, explains why the universe it rediculously big, why so called aliens are capable of faster than light travel, and why these so called aliens have any interest in humanity.

Hi there Insight! Long time no see?
But wait...Whoa! What's gotten into you? You seem totally brainwashed.

I will not even go debunking your post in a thousand scientifically possible ways but just one question: Why did "god" wait for millions of years before actually creating man and earth some 6000 years ago(as you believe it); man: his most important creation( as suggested by bible)?

Frankly, I am at a total loss for words after seeing that post from YOU.

I wanna know why there god had to rest, can't be a super-powerful-all-knowing-all-creating god if it gets worn out. plus, the god can't make water, but can make everything else?
also, the bible says the world was formless and yet he hovered over water? water is a form, so does that mean the bible lied?

annnyway, frogfish was right in the other types of carbon dating methods. Carbon dating is a very reliable method.

of course, other methods of radiometric dating are not carbon dating. they are uranium dating or whatever. sorry, bit of a pet peeve of mine.

But wait...Whoa! What's gotten into you? You seem totally brainwashed.

Wait a second there, I am not saying I have decided that the earth is millions or billions of years old. I was providing a theory.

I will not even go debunking your post in a thousand scientifically possible ways but just one question: Why did "god" wait for millions of years before actually creating man and earth some 6000 years ago

God didn't wait millions of years. Before that advent of man, the concept of time didn't exist. Essentially, that space of time could have been a millisecond, or a billion years, depending on how MAN percievced it after he was created.

What I was trying to do with that post is explain that the Bible is Truth if carbon dating is correct, and that the Bible is Truth if carbon dating is not correct. I was attempting to bridge the gap for non-believers and believers alike.

Frankly, I have a hard time believing any evolutionist propoganda on tha age of the earth. Which is precisely why I started by posting aruments against the validity of carbon dating. I didn't want people to get the wrong idea, but I guess because my words were so many, I failed.

Let me state once more: The purpose of this post was to explain that it does not matter how "old" the earth is. It matters WHY the earth is.

Again, I was merely proposing a theory which would ease the transition for evolutionists into believing the Bible's account for creation.

I don't believe anyone has the capacity to date out universe.





ANYWAYS, it's good to see you too. And no, I haven't been brainwashed.

Intresting thread you have here Insight

I believe the earth is billions of years old...as to WHY God waited so long??? Who knows? Perhaps he was experimenting???

I believe in evolution...I believe that it was God that created the bacteria from which we all evolved...this is just my belief btw I cannot claim it to be fact as it is just like religious faith..just a belief and nothing more.




no doubt I will get bashed for this lol but hey its my opinon and belief

I wanna know why there god had to rest

, can't be a super-powerful-all-knowing-all-creating god if it gets worn out. plus,

Again, you think the Bible was originally written in English, don't you. Let's clear this up: IT WAS NOT. It was written in hebrew. Now to explain this question of yours.

The verse in question, Genisis 2:2, in the English, says God "rested". This is a poor translation, which is were 99% of all Biblical misconception comes from.

The original Hebrew word which has been translated as "rest" in English is "Shabath". It means, "To desist, to cease, to leave off, to come to an end".

So God did not "rest" in the English sense of the term. He did ""Shabath", or cease, his creation. Interestingly enough, the same word "Shabath" is also used to describe what we know as the "Sabbath". So, to remember the sabbath day and keep it holy literally means, "Remember the day when God had finished his creation".


the god can't make water, but can make everything else?

There is nothing in the Bible which says God cannot create water. I think you misread my post. Re-read it.

also, the bible says the world was formless and yet he hovered over water? water is a form, so does that mean the bible lied?

Let me explain to you, yet again.

Genesis 1:1 "In the beginnig, God created the heavens and the earth".

There. That accounts for the earth having water on it.

Genisis 1:2 : And the earth was formless, and void; and darkness [was] upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

The English word "Formless", in the Hebrew texts, is the word "Tohuw". Tohuw means, "Desolate, deserted, or empty"

SO what the verses are saying is that God created the Heavens and the earth first. Then, he went to the desolate planet earth, which had no life on it, and created life on it.

Really, Hebrew doesn't translate to English very well at all.

annnyway, frogfish was right in the other types of carbon dating methods. Carbon dating is a very reliable method.

Really? Have you ever tried carbon dating something before?

I guess you just have faith in scientiffic journals, that they wouldn't be wrong.

I believe the earth is billions of years old...as to WHY God waited so long??? Who knows? Perhaps he was experimenting???

The concept and measurement of time did not exist before there was a human mind to be encumbered by it. God says he is both beginning and end. That he is eternal. This means that the "time" we are locked into does not restrain God in any way. After all, Before the movement of matter through space, and a being to measure it, time didn't exist.

So while one may say, "God waited Billions of years", one could equally reason, "God did not wait more than a second." However, after we were created, we reasoned that this period of existance must have some sort of "time value" assigned to it, and sought to do so.

But really, "before time" is just that.


I believe in evolution...I believe that it was God that created the bacteria from which we all evolved.

Which God? The Christian God, or a different one?

..this is just my belief btw I cannot claim it to be fact as it is just like religious faith..just a belief and nothing more.
no doubt I will get bashed for this lol but hey its my opinon and belief

I see nothing wrong with two people of different beliefs discussing their beliefs in a sound and reasonable manner. If I respect your right to choose what to believe, we can compare our faith without argument, wouldn't you agree?

Carbon Dating...Explained

Carbon-14 dating is a way of determining the age of certain archeological artifacts of a biological origin up to about 50,000 years old. It is used in dating things such as bone, cloth, wood and plant fibers that were created in the relatively recent past by human activities



Cosmic rays enter the earth's atmosphere in large numbers every day. For example, every person is hit by about half a million cosmic rays every hour. It is not uncommon for a cosmic ray to collide with an atom in the atmosphere, creating a secondary cosmic ray in the form of an energetic neutron, and for these energetic neutrons to collide with nitrogen atoms. When the neutron collides, a nitrogen-14 (seven protons, seven neutrons) atom turns into a carbon-14 atom (six protons, eight neutrons) and a hydrogen atom (one proton, zero neutrons). Carbon-14 is radioactive, with a half-life of about 5,700 years.




The carbon-14 atoms that cosmic rays create combine with oxygen to form carbon dioxide, which plants absorb naturally and incorporate into plant fibers by photosynthesis. Animals and people eat plants and take in carbon-14 as well. The ratio of normal carbon (carbon-12) to carbon-14 in the air and in all living things at any given time is nearly constant. Maybe one in a trillion carbon atoms are carbon-14. The carbon-14 atoms are always decaying, but they are being replaced by new carbon-14 atoms at a constant rate. At this moment, your body has a certain percentage of carbon-14 atoms in it, and all living plants and animals have the same percentage

Dating a Fossil

As soon as a living organism dies, it stops taking in new carbon. The ratio of carbon-12 to carbon-14 at the moment of death is the same as every other living thing, but the carbon-14 decays and is not replaced. The carbon-14 decays with its half-life of 5,700 years, while the amount of carbon-12 remains constant in the sample. By looking at the ratio of carbon-12 to carbon-14 in the sample and comparing it to the ratio in a living organism, it is possible to determine the age of a formerly living thing fairly precisely.
A formula to calculate how old a sample is by carbon-14 dating is:


t = [ ln (Nf/No) / (-0.693) ] x t1/2

where ln is the natural logarithm, Nf/No is the percent of carbon-14 in the sample compared to the amount in living tissue, and t1/2 is the half-life of carbon-14 (5,700 years).

So, if you had a fossil that had 10 percent carbon-14 compared to a living sample, then that fossil would be:




Because the half-life of carbon-14 is 5,700 years, it is only reliable for dating objects up to about 60,000 years old. However, the principle of carbon-14 dating applies to other isotopes as well. Potassium-40 is another radioactive element naturally found in your body and has a half-life of 1.3 billion years. Other useful radioisotopes for radioactive dating include Uranium -235 (half-life = 704 million years), Uranium -238 (half-life = 4.5 billion years), Thorium-232 (half-life = 14 billion years) and Rubidium-87 (half-life = 49 billion years).

The use of various radioisotopes allows the dating of biological and geological samples with a high degree of accuracy. However, radioisotope dating may not work so well in the future. Anything that dies after the 1940s, when Nuclear bombs, nuclear reactors and open-air nuclear tests started changing things, will be harder to date precisely.

So I guess you would need to be really smart and into science to come up with something like that further more to even understand it....I believe that those who don't believe in the likes of evolution, don't understand it..and thats not a bad thing either...if you believe in what the bible says so be it

Absolutely agree...I like to see others compare ones faith...I may not follow a faith but I still respect it

As for what God do I believe in..the one and only God in heaven...the father of our lord Jesus Chrsit..although I tend to question whether Jesus was here on earth or not but thats a totally different topic altogether and I am not a christian..I just believe in God and Jesus(again sort of) ...its hard to explain