Radiocarbon dating disproved
These constitute very strong evidence that the earth germany best free dating site only thousands, not billions, of years old.This all changed in the s when US chemist Willard Libby discovered that carbon, a radioactive isotope, could be used to date organic compounds. This gives the clam shell an artificially old radiocarbon age. So it all starts by the sunlight striking the atmosphere.Now any dating technique that comes along, like carbon dating, has to match the geologic column: So how do you get carbon 14 in diamonds?When experts compare the tree-ring dates with the C dates, they find that radiocarbon ages before BC are really too young—not too old as Cook maintains.In some cases, the latter ratio appears to be a much more accurate gauge of age than the customary radiocarbon dating disproved of carbon dating, the scientists said.The RATE group analyzed twelve diamond samples for possible carbon content.The barrel represents the earth's atmosphere in which the carbon-14 accumulates.The water leaking out the sides of the barrel represents the loss (mainly by radioactive decay) of the atmosphere's supply of carbon-14.
Before plate tectonics and continental drift became established in the mid-sixties, the known evidence for magnetic reversals was rather scanty, and geophysicists often tried to invent ingenious mechanisms with which to account for this evidence rather than believe in magnetic reversals.It does discredit the C dating of freshwater mussels, but that's about all.This means that radiocarbon ages of objects from that time period will be too young, just as we saw from the bristlecone pine evidence.This nullifies the carbon-14 method as well as demonstrating that the earth is less than 10,000 years old. One suspects that the scientific world would not be using the carbon-14 method if it were so obviously flawed.Could it be that the whole scientific community has missed this point, or is it another case of creationist daydreaming?