Radiocarbon dating and creationism internet dating with instant messaging
In the end, though, it seems to me there is little debate about the rate of decay in the historical era.Most of the debate centers around Creation Week and the Flood, so I do not think my statement was made in error, at least in the context of what is being discussed.
A single experiment can prove me wrong." Please consult our Radiometric Dating Q&A section for answers to many of the questions you are asking. Carter incorrectly states "The rate of decay is also not in question.".I understand calibration might have something to do with this, but then in the article it says in italicized words that the uncalibrated date “Must Always Be Mentioned”. CMI’s Dr Rob Carter responds: Anthony, As a fan of biblical archaeology, I was asked to address your question.But when I read articles about the results, they never mention the uncalibrated data, which could actually be correct. I am not an expert in every subject that impinges on the discussion, but I will do my best.I will give you the benefit of the doubt and say that carbon dating is not accurate at dates longer than a few thousand years, but there are so many other observable things which point to billions of years of time rather than a few thousand.As Einstein said "A man should look for what is, and not for what he thinks should be." Every time you try to debunk a dating method by using a reference to the flood, I get the impression that you are looking for what you think should be, rather than what is.