No nonsense dating book
One of these assumptions is that nuclear decay rates have always been constant.
Although C decays fairly quickly, heavier isotopes (such as uranium-238) decay much more slowly.
In principle, this decay rate may be used to “date” the time since an organism’s death.
But the calculated dates will only be accurate if the assumptions behind the method are correct.
Creation scientists have estimated (based upon the amounts of organic matter thought to be contained within the sedimentary layers) that the carbon in the pre-Flood biosphere may have been 300 to 700 times greater than what is present in today’s world.
C/C ratio was 500 times smaller than today’s value, this would be equivalent to 100 p MC/500 = 0.2 p MC.
About nine half-lives would have to elapse for a starting value of 100 p MC to decrease to 0.2 p MC.And a radiocarbon result that contradicts old-earth dogma is not a good enough reason by itself to invoke contamination!Assumptions…Assumptions Instead of arbitrarily blaming these anomalous results on contamination, a far better (and more scientific) approach would be to question the correctness of the assumptions behind radioisotope dating methods.Evolutionists have long used the carbon-14, or radiocarbon, dating technique as a “hammer” to bludgeon Bible-believing Christians.A straightforward reading of the Bible describes a 6,000-year-old universe, and because some carbon-14 (C) age estimates are multiple tens of thousands of years, many think that the radiocarbon method has soundly refuted the Bible’s historical accuracy.