What do young earth creationists say about radiocarbon dating?

Also, what about fossils, and stars (light years away from earth)?

Does anyone know how they would actually answer? Just curious.

Views: 416

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Clearly, god is such a devious character that he emplaced photons en route to Earth so that it appears that there are stars and galaxies spread all across the Universe.  Obviously, this is to test the faith of scientists to weed out non-believers.  Well, at least that is the implications if we are to believe the nonsense from the young Earth creationists.

When I was a kid and questioned how fossils came to be.. I was told Satan did it. It didn't make sense to me then and even less so now.  

For a funny take on this:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_9Wx6-c8VSo

Based off conversations I've had .. They only seem to pay attention to the carbon (C14) dating and how inaccurate it is to date things beyond 60,000 years. They totally disregard the other types of radioactive dating.

It's also true that the C14 method needs calibrating.  Which has been done.  But they can use C14's need for calibration to try to argue that the method is inherently bogus.

Mineral dating (most famously U-238->Lead 206, but there are MANY others) doesn't have any of these problems and can date into the billions of years quite easily.  Which is why the less clever creationists ignore it, and the more clever ones have to come up with additional bullshit arguments against it.

Radiometric dating is inherently flawed, and god created the light from the stars reaching earth when he created the world.  

There is a quantum creation model that suggests the universe was created in a very small space, and then stretched rapidly to it's current size.  That stretching caused a time dilation and through some rather creative inverting led to an old looking cosmos, but a young earth. Somehow the early days on earth actually equated to billions of years by modern standards while the later days of the (expanding) cosmos covered billions of years by modern standards.  I can't remember the exact name of the theory or the author, but if you run across it then check it out - although it still leads to the oomphalos fallacy of last Thursdayism.

That seems like an interesting attack for the creationist. However, I don't know how it would hold up against astrophysics, etc.

Well, you gotta give 'em koodos for epistemological plasticity. :D

It holds up fine if you're willing to ignore facts & logic. Otherwise? Not so much at all.

They say it's flawed and mistaken.  They say fossils are a result of the Flood and that stars only appear further away because Goddidit.

The flood caused it, for them the flood caused everything that they don't understand. They say radiometric dating is not accurate, you can say anything is inaccurate, doesn't make it so.

RSS

Blog Posts

coexist

Posted by aubrey knows nothing * on October 23, 2014 at 9:25pm 1 Comment

A Life-Changing Confrontation

Posted by Belle Rose on October 23, 2014 at 2:55am 7 Comments

Services we love!

We are in love with our Amazon

Book Store!

Gadget Nerd? Check out Giz Gad!

Advertise with ThinkAtheist.com

In need a of a professional web site? Check out the good folks at Clear Space Media

© 2014   Created by umar.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service