Radiocarbon dating disproved
Scientists use a technique called radiometric dating to estimate the ages of rocks, fossils, and the earth.Many people have been led to believe that radiometric dating methods have proved the earth to be billions of years old.
Kieth and Anderson show considerable evidence that the mussels acquired much of their carbon from the limestone of the waters they lived in and from some very old humus as well.We will see that carbon dating strongly supports a young earth.If radiocarbon lasts only a few hundred thousand years, why is it found in all the earth’s diamonds dated at billions of years old?When dating wood there is no such problem because wood gets its carbon straight from the air, complete with a full dose of C-14.The creationists who quote Kieth and Anderson never tell you this, however.If we extrapolate as far back as ten thousand years ago, we find the atmosphere would not have had any C-14 in it at all.
If they are right, this means all C-14 ages greater than two or three thousand years need to be lowered drastically and that the earth can be no older than ten thousand years. Answer: Yes, Cook is right that C-14 is forming today faster than it's decaying.
Carbon from these sources is very low in C-14 because these sources are so old and have not been mixed with fresh carbon from the air.
Thus, a freshly killed mussel has far less C-14 than a freshly killed something else, which is why the C-14 dating method makes freshwater mussels seem older than they really are.
In today’s culture we have all been taught that things like carbon dating are “facts,” but they are merely interpretations of facts.
If carbon dating is a fact, then coal layers cannot be millions of years old, and the secular “geological time scale” breaks down.
However, the amount of C-14 has not been rising steadily as Cook maintains; instead, it has fluctuated up and down over the past ten thousand years. From radiocarbon dates taken from bristlecone pines.