Kent hovind carbon dating
Look at biological breakdown everywhere, it proceeds at different rates.
The keys of which are locked in the "vault of degeneration knowledge" that evolutionists are unwilling to open for fear that we creationists might be correct." Jack Cuozzo 3/02 Antarctic seawater has a low level of C14.Let's say initially every radioactive element was "exploded" into existence from pre-existent elements.None of these early faster half-lives would be the same as they are today.( "Radioisotopes and the age of the earth" pg vii) To know if carbon dating is accurate, we would have to know how much carbon was in the atmosphere in the beginning, and also how long it has been increasing, or decreasing. It's like trying to figure out how long a candle has been burning, without knowing the rate at which it burns, or its original size.See my commentary on Genesis 3 verse 17 "..cursed is the ground for your sake" When this happened there was a burst of radioactity that made the rocks appear older than they were.Libbey knew that atmospheric carbon would reach equilibrium in 30,000 years.
Because he assumed that the earth was millions of years old, he believed it was already at equilibrium.
The results can be as much as 150 million years different from each other! They then pick the date they like best, based upon their preconceived notion of how old their theory says the fossil should be .
So they start with the assumption that dinosaurs lived millions of years ago, then manipulate the results until they agree with their conclusion. So why is it that if the date doesn't fit the theory, they change the facts?
So if scientists believe that a creature lived millions of years ago, then they would need to date it another way. They assume dinosaurs lived millions of years ago (instead of thousands of years ago like the bible says).
They ignore evidence that does not fit their preconceived notion.
What would happen if a dinosaur bone were carbon dated?