Carbon dating in the news
MYTH #2 Radiocarbon dating has established the date of some organic materials (e.g., some peat deposits) to be well in excess of 50,000 years, thus rendering a recent creation (6 to 10 thousand years ago) impossible.
There are two characteristics of the instrumental measurement of radiocarbon which, if the lay observer is unaware, could easily lead to such an idea.World carbon dioxide emissions are one way of measuring a country's economic growth too.And the latest figures - published by the respected Energy Information Administration - show CO2 emissions from energy consumption - the vast majority of Carbon Dioxide produced.In the following article, some of the most common misunderstandings regarding radiocarbon dating are addressed, and corrective, up-to-date scientific creationist thought is provided where appropriate. Radiocarbon is used to date the age of rocks, which enables scientists to date the age of the earth.Radiocarbon is not used to date the age of rocks or to determine the age of the earth.It is not correct to state or imply from this evidence that the radiocarbon dating technique is thus shown to be generally invalid.
The problem with freshwater clams arises because these organisms derive the carbon atoms which they use to build their shells from the water in their environment.
It shows a world where established economies have large - but declining - carbon emissions. This newly-released data is from 2009 - the latest available.
On pure emissions alone, the key points are: • China emits more CO2 than the US and Canada put together - up by 171% since the year 2000• The US has had declining CO2 for two years running, the last time the US had declining CO2 for 3 years running was in the 1980s• The UK is down one place to tenth on the list, 8% on the year.
The field of radiocarbon dating has become a technical one far removed from the naive simplicity which characterized its initial introduction by Libby in the late 1940's.
It is, therefore, not surprising that many misconceptions about what radiocarbon can or cannot do and what it has or has not shown are prevalent among creationists and evolutionists - lay people as well as scientists not directly involved in this field.
These two measures of time will only be the same if all of the assumptions which go into the conventional radiocarbon dating technique are valid.