What do creationists think about carbon dating?

Carbon dating is believed to be accurate for determining dates to about 16,000 years in history, but not farther.

The idea depends entirely on the fact that radioactive decay occurs at a predictable, fixed rate. It's almost certainly pretty accurate. There is a margin of error, however, as there is with any statistical analysis (which is what carbon dating ultimately is.)

We can't know for certain just how accurate it is until we have a sample that we can validate over a period of about 16,000 years.

Creationism gets a bad rap for the notion that the earth is 6,000 years old. Someone used scripture to determine this age using the ages of people mentioned in scripture, but this age is not stated in scripture. Nowhere in the Bible does it say that the earth is 6,000 years old.

I think that matters little to those who like to ridicule creationists. They latch on to this age like it's a claim of the Bible, and then use the claim (that the Bible never makes) to challenge the Bible's accuracy.

It's a dishonest attempt to discredit the Bible and its believers.

I don't have a problem with carbon dating as long as they refrain from sex before marriage. Seriously I don't see anywhere in the bible where the age of the earth is declared. And I will add this that scientists have changed their belief about the age of the earth quite a few times with the most recent to be generally agreed upon as 4.5 billion. But if you do some research you will find that there have been quite a few numbers thrown out in the past 30 years and when they alter the date by a few hundred million or more no one seems like the huge number difference is significant. We are simply reminded science is self correcting. But when I hear these kind of variations I still have to wonder how accurate of a science is this really. In the 4th century one of the leaders of the church Vasilius offered this advice to orthodox believers. Do not base your faith in Jesus Christ on scientific evidence neither try and disprove them because the scientists permanently disprove themselves.

Carbon dating has been proven unreliable, I don't remember what but an object was tested that was known to be from 1,000 BC and C-14 dating said it was from 1200 AD. Carbon dating also fails to take into account that the earth may have had more or less oxygen CO2 Nitrogen and other gases in the atmosphere at different points in history.

the explanation being is they have faith technology whilst that's of the same opinion with the Bible relationship bones is going against the Bible in help of evolution so as that they decline it. a difficulty-loose project between decrease able religious persons we would desire to declare is to disclaim something that is going against what they save on with and then compliment technology whilst that's of the same opinion. Carbon relationship is in simple terms unreliable if the fabric has been contaminated. IE if a man or woman sneezed on a bone it code be carbon dated to as we communicate instead of hundreds of thousands of years in the past of course this diploma of an infection could in no way take place yet its the factor of it being unreliable whether it in all fairness precise lots of the cases.

People who ask about carbon-14 (14C) dating usually want to know about the radiometric[1] dating methods that are claimed to give millions and billions of years—carbon dating can only give thousands of years. People wonder how millions of years could be squeezed into the biblical account of history.

Clearly, such huge time periods cannot be fitted into the Bible without compromising what the Bible says about the goodness of God and the origin of sin, death and suffering—the reason Jesus came into the world (See Six Days? Honestly!).

Christians, by definition, take the statements of Jesus Christ seriously. He said,

“But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female” (Mark 10:6).

This only makes sense with a time-line beginning with the creation week thousands of years ago. It makes no sense at all if man appeared at the end of billions of years.

We will deal with carbon dating first and then with the other dating methods.

Unfortunately for carbon dating to be inaccurate the decay rate of Carbon 14 would have to be variable. If the decay rate of carbon were variable--the atmosphere of 6000 years ago would have been too radioactive to sustain life on the planet. Fail anyway you look at it.

I think they're against dating anything not human. Humans are mostly water and kind of trim on the carbon so...(I had to. I hope this joke doesn't make your humor sensors bleed in protest. ) .

They say carbon dating is inaccurate because there is somekind of ""Ray Comfort"" website that literally says without evidence that it is inaccurate, too bad they haven't covered luminescence dating or radio isotope dating, we will have to wait for the right wing press to pretend to have debunked them as well.

Notice Matthew does not provide any back-up to his claim, merely shooting his metaphorical mouth off.

Carbon dating aight, but other forms of radiodating are more important.

They like to claim that carbon dating lies.

And then ignore other forms of dating, like molecular clocks. Molecular clocks are really only good for life-form relevant dating, but they still support carbon dating.