Scientific proof against carbon dating
This assumption is backed by numerous scientific studies and is relatively sound.However, conditions may have been different in the past and could have influenced the rate of decay or formation of radioactive elements.While there is no proof that the rates were different in the past than they are today, there is also no proof that they were the same.Thus radioactive dating relies purely on assumptions.Third, creationists ignore the evidence and deny that [X] exists altogether or assert that belief in a Young Earth is based on faith, not science. These ages weren't just made up — or, worse, accepted to "give evolution enough time".Each was concluded from a range of experiments and observations made across multiple disciplines of science, including astronomy, geology, biology, palaeontology, chemistry, geomorphology and physics.In addition to numerous factual errors and failures to understand the theories which it is intended to criticize, the document suffers from faulty logic.A list of arguments broken down by fallacy is presented at the end of this page.
Could it be that the whole scientific community has missed this point, or is it another case of creationist daydreaming?
In the few cases where reputable peer-reviewed scientific papers are cited, their content is severely misrepresented or incorrectly interpreted.
Ultimately, the article seeks to persuade by force of numbers, rather than force of argument.
Help us reduce the maintenance cost of our online services.
Because your computer is running an older version of internet browser, it no longer meets the features of modern websites.
Search for scientific proof against carbon dating:
The following material has been taken from a sheet entitled Several Faulty Assumptions Are Used in all Radiometric Dating Methods.