radio carbon dating is based on nuclear physics. do creationist not believe there was an atomic bomb? ?

gilliamichael and onewhosubmits:

Rej C is 100% correct. OF COURSE radiocarbon dating is based on nuclear physics. Carbon-14 has the decay rate that it has because of the stability of its nucleus and the probobaility per unit time that the nucleus will undergo beta decay, which is all based on.... guess what... NUCLEAR PHYSICS. If radiocarbon dating is wrong because of "assumed decay rates from the past" that were actually different than today's rate, then nuclear physics is also wrong, and hence we never should have been able to develop atomic weapons. There is nothing at all wrong with his reasoning.

The flaw in reasoning belongs to creationists who claim that scientists are "making assumptions". You can call them "assumptions" if you really want to, but the fact that we CAN reliably date artifacts using radiocarbon dating and the fact that we DID make nuclear weapons demonstrates that all those "assumptions" were correct. If they were not, we wouldn't even be having this discussion because the radiocarbon method would have been abondoned decades ago.

Do you folks see what I'm getting at? "Assumptions" that are shown by empirical data to be correct are more accurately referred to as "facts"!!! Calling them "assumptions" does not change the fact that their validity has been verified.

Dinosaurs did exist. They were created on the fifth day. Some of the small dinosaurs could have been on the Ark. But the big ones were too dangerous to live with mankind. Each creative day was at least 6,000 years long by the way. Radio Carbon dating is like using a clock with one hand. This method assumes that carbon distribution remains the same throughout the years. It does not. Never has. Many different events have altered the amount of radio carbon released on certain occasions. Especially the flood.

IF you were correct that radio carbon dating was based on nuclear physics then you might have a point. However, the truth is that ONLY the determination of the amount of radioactive carbon is based on physics. The determination of the date of the sample is based on multiple assumptions that have nothing at all to do with physics. Therefore your premise is faulty and your conclusions can only be faulty as well.

Hope that helps.

Wow, no offence but you think you know a lot more on this subject then you do.

Carbon dating has been PROVEN wrong on a number of occasions. Yes, it is accurate up to a point, but not back nearly far enough to prove the millions of years scenario let alone billions of years. The problem is that it assumes that certain things in the environment have happened at a steady pace throughout all of time. This is a blatant ASSUMPTION with no proof.

Here is a very good article that shows why carbon dating can play no significant role in the evolution/creationism debate due to its unreliability:

http://creationontheweb.com/images/pdfs/cabook/cha...

Wow, you must have had to think a long time to come up with that rationale. And they call us Christians crazy.

It really doesn't matter what it is based on, it doesn't work. They take samples out of the same Mammoth and get millions of years difference in reading between a leg and a ear. How can you trust such a "science".

we don't use carbon dating to prove the age if the earth, we use uranium-lead dating and other elements that decay slower.

Carbon dating is only useful in samples up to 60,000 years old and is usualy used on plant specimens.

Creationists like to cherry pick what sciences they will put their faith into, and deny what sciences do not fit into their world view.

so denying Darwin is denying the atomic bomb.........

Wow you are stupid,

I am the son of a Nuclear Scientist, and Dean's list University student in Science. My father's team determined how to enrich uranium, when the technology wasn't even made yet....

Radio-carbon dating, is based on taking the logarithm of the decay rate and extrapolating it back, who knows if the rate stays constant or not? It is an estimate, our best guess.

Learn the difference between Micro and Macroevolution.

And if you insist, then remember your the one who believes your ancestors were ancient apes.

The two have nothing in common. Your premise is flawed severely.

Many of us creationists know the limitations of carbon dating.

Radioactive dating could be considered chemistry too, but anyway pls go become a christian. Your argument skills are poor and should be with your own kind.