Thus creationists and others who invoke perceived weaknesses in radiocarbon dating as justification to cast doubt on the great age of the earth are either uniformed on very basic scientific facts, or else are highly being disingenuous to their audience.Radiocarbon dating has been studied at great length over the past few decades, and its strengths and weaknesses are very well understood at this point in time.Libby received the Nobel Prize in Chemistry for his work in 1960.The radiocarbon dating method is based on the fact that radiocarbon is constantly being created in the atmosphere by the interaction of cosmic rays with atmospheric nitrogen.You will have a better understanding of the following statements by scientists if you will also read the web page, . The other is that the cosmic ray flux has been essentially constant—at least on a scale of centuries."—*J. Kulp, "The Carbon 14 Method of Age Determination," in Scientific Monthly, November 1952, p. "Hair from the Chekurovka mammoth that was found in the Lena River delta region of Russia has a radiocarbon age of 26,000 [years] while the radiocarbon age of peat only eighteen inches above the carcass is 5,610. "[d] Deep ocean deposits supposed to contain remains of most primitive life forms are dated within 40,000 years.
The method was developed by Willard Libby in the late 1940s and soon became a standard tool for archaeologists.But subsequent investigations have revealed it to be wholly inadequate for accurate dating of ancient materials. evolution—a Creation-Evolution Encyclopedia, brought to you by Creation Science Facts. This is because, with a half-life of only 5,730 years, initial radiocarbon in a fossil decreases in about ten half-lives to a level too low to be measured."—Robert E.CONTENTS: Scientists Speak about Radiocarbon Dating This material is excerpted from the book, DATING OF TIME IN EVOLUTION. Lee, "Radiocarbon: Ages in Error," in Creation Research Society Quarterly, September 1982, pp. But only the scientific community is told that fact.Creationists often criticize radiocarbon dating in the context of discussions of the age of the earth.But, as is clear even from the very brief discussion in the previous paragraph, radiocarbon dating can say nothing one way or the other about whether the earth is many millions of years old, since such dates are far beyond this method's range of resolution.The resulting radiocarbon combines with atmospheric oxygen to form radioactive carbon dioxide, which is incorporated into plants by photosynthesis; animals then acquire in a sample from a dead plant or animal such as a piece of wood or a fragment of bone provides information that can be used to calculate when the animal or plant died.