Number 14 in carbon 14 dating
(The electrons are so much lighter that they do not contribute significantly to the mass of an atom.) C), also referred to as radiocarbon, is claimed to be a reliable dating method for determining the age of fossils up to 50,000 to 60,000 years.If this claim is true, the biblical account of a young earth (about 6,000 years) is in question, since C dates of tens of thousands of years are common.1 When a scientist’s interpretation of data does not match the clear meaning of the text in the Bible, we should never reinterpret the Bible.Assumptions in the scientific community are extremely important.If the starting assumption is false, all the calculations based on that assumption might be correct but still give a wrong conclusion. Libby’s original work, he noted that the atmosphere did not appear to be in equilibrium. Libby since he believed the world was billions of years old and enough time had passed to achieve equilibrium. Libby’s calculations showed that if the earth started with no If the cosmic radiation has remained at its present intensity for 20,000 or 30,000 years, and if the carbon reservoir has not changed appreciably in this time, then there exists at the present time a complete balance between the rate of disintegration of radiocarbon atoms and the rate of assimilation of new radiocarbon atoms for all material in the life-cycle.2C in the atmosphere.The variation is certainly partially the result of a change in the cosmic ray production rate of radiocarbon.The cosmic-ray flux, and hence the production rate of C-14, is a function not only of the solar activity but also of the magnetic dipole moment of the Earth.4Though complex, this history of the earth’s magnetic field agrees with Barnes’ basic hypothesis, that the field has always freely decayed....There are two main applications for radiometric dating.
Before we get into the details of how radiometric dating methods are used, we need to review some preliminary concepts from chemistry.God knows just what He meant to say, and His understanding of science is infallible, whereas ours is fallible.