Carbon Dating Fails

      Carbon Dating, like all radiometric dating, depends on measuring an unstable isotope (in this case, Carbon 14) against what it decays into over time (regular Carbon). Like all radiometric dating, this method of trying to calculate the age of something based on the decay rate of a particular isotope is overflowing with shaky assumptions and unknowable variables. (See my previous write up for more on these problematic assumptions, “Is Radiometric (Carbon) Dating Reliable?”.).

      Carbon dating can’t date things older than 50,000 to 100,000 years old because after that, there should be no detectable amounts of carbon 14 left in the sample. So palaeontologists don’t bother carbon dating anything they believe to be older than 50,000 years old, which includes most fossils such as dinosaur fossils, since dinosaurs are believed to have all died out millions of years ago (a lot more than 100 thousand years).

      Because scientists have already determined that fossils are very old based on the layer of strata that they’re found in, they either don’t bother carbon dating fossils or they don’t trust the results when those results don’t match what they already believe to be the “likely age”. You could run a million carbon dating tests on a million different fossil samples and find carbon 14 in all of them, however scientists would consider it all “contaminated” and “unreliable”. Why? Because they already “know” (believe) that the fossils are millions of years old, not thousands, so even though the existence of carbon 14 in the samples being tested suggest they’re thousands of years old (not millions), scientists will ignore the tests because they’ve already decided it can’t be trusted beyond 50,000 years. Convenient, eh?

      Imagine you’re a palaeontologist and you’ve just discovered a well preserved fossil in a deep layer of strata. You automatically assume that the fossil is many millions of years old, because of its position in the geological column (which you learned in school), and so instead of bothering to carbon date the fossil, you instead look at what layer of strata you found the fossil in. When asked how old the fossil is, you confidently announce the age of the surrounding rocks as being the age of the fossil. But you haven’t actually carbon dated the fossil itself OR the sedimentary rock the fossil was found in! You’ve simply looked at your handy chart of the Geological Column and it’s matching Evolution of Life counterpart chart and pinned down a rough date based on what has already been established by other scientists. The fossil is of a certain type found in a certain rock layer, so that means it must be about THIS old (based on the charts). If someone were to take your fossil samples and send them for carbon dating and got a result that was completely different than what you already believe to be the real age, you’d simply laugh and say, “The fossil was contaminated and can’t be trusted.”

      The truth is that carbon dating has returned tons of “bad results” so often that scientists don’t believe it is at all reliable for dating fossils unless they’re no older than about 10,000 years (50,000 years maximum). The fact that many supposedly millions of years old fossils and samples have had measurable amounts of Carbon 14 in them, when they shouldn’t have any, is explained away as contamination. Yet we’re supposed to trust that contamination is very rare with regards to other forms of radiometric dating…

      Actually, when you really get down to it, these methods of dating rocks and fossils are simply being used to pin down what evolutionists already believe to be the estimated date of their samples and fossils. If the dates don’t match what they believe, then the sample is contaminated and the date given by the test is wrong. If it does match, then everyone agrees, and that’s how old the sample is, and everyone’s happy.

      But what happens if radiometric dating is completely unreliable as a way to date rocks and fossils? The system is, after all, based on many major assumptions that must be perfectly constant and exact for the whole thing to have any chance of being truly accurate… The truth is, if you toss radiometric dating out the window, then you’re once again left with ONLY the assumptions and guess estimates of geologists and palaeontologists that base their entire system of age dating on the belief that the world is ancient and that all life evolved from a single-celled organism (which evolved from non-living molecules). In other words, when scientists tell you the age of a fossil or sample of rock that they weren’t there to see get buried or made, they’re mostly making it all up, or following the created charts of scientists before them who also made it all up. And this is all because of their preconceived belief system, believing in an ancient earth and that all life evolved to what it is now over hundreds of millions of years of time. No real historical or proven dates were ever used.