Creation science rebuttals carbon dating
According to modern Flood geology there was a rapid increase in This is begging the question, since the only way to know if an object is too old to date by radiocarbon dating is to date it by another method within the same theoretical system. Origins even starts it, given that it is supposed to be a rebuttal to a creationist claim, yet the claim was originally published in a secular journal. Origins has not shown that it is (originally) a creationist claim, yet in its rebuttal criticises "creationists" for supposedly getting the claim wrong. Origins' disagreement is ideological rather than evidence-based. Uniformitarian geology and Flood geology are two totally different theoretical systems of geology, and so the limitations of Radiocarbon dating in one are not necessarily the same as the limitations of the other.Misuse in Uniformitarian geology may not be misuse in Flood geology and vice versa.Since creationists assume that there are no objects so old that they cannot be expected to contain any C, such as coal.
All of these factors raise doubts about tree-ring dating, but the use of radiocarbon dating in matching rings disqualifies tree-ring dating as an independent way of calibrating radiocarbon dating.The water leaking out the sides of the barrel represents the loss (mainly by radioactive decay) of the atmosphere's supply of carbon-14.Now, the fuller that barrel gets the more water is going to leak out the thoroughly perforated sides, just as more carbon-14 will decay if you have more of it around.Thus, he concluded, if our Earth were older than 30,000 years the incoming water should just equal the water leaking out.That is, the equilibrium point should have long since been reached given the present rate of carbon-14 production and the old age of the earth.
In their claims of errors, creationists do not consider misuse of the technique.