Assumptions behind radiometric dating
Indeed, by doing almost 20 seconds of research on google (type in “variations in C14”, click on Google Scholar) the second link is this article from 1954: Carbon 13 in plants and the relationships between carbon 13 and carbon 14 variations in nature So, this issue has been known about for a long time. Then we compare the two and adjust the radiocarbon date to the known date. That’s less than 1% if you’re interested in that sort of thing. But this is already almost a thousand words and I’ve only done ONE! Long story short, scientists have always known that variations in C-14 concentration happen.
Do you honestly think that no one has done anything about it? By making thousands (if not millions) of these adjustments we get a very good idea of how old a piece of unknown material can be. The 2009 calibration set extends the ‘well calibrated range’ to 50,000 years using the varves in a Japanese lake. This is unlike the creationists which think it happened, but can’t be bothered to check.
Contents: The half-life of a radioactive isotope is defined as the time it takes half of a sample of the element to decay.
A mathematical formula can be used to calculate the half-life from the number of breakdowns per second in a sample of the isotope.
Radiometric dating methods are the strongest direct evidence that geologists have for the age of the Earth.
When I first became interested in the creation-evolution debate, in late 1994, I looked around for sources that clearly and simply explained what radiometric dating is and why young-Earth creationists are driven to discredit it.
In the past 150 years, scholars have uncovered a wealth of information regarding the cultural and literary world in which the Genesis narrative was drafted.
The theological implications of these findings have been debated on all sides, and such continues today.
Thus this essay, which is my attempt at producing such a source. The first is that atoms have always decayed at the same rate.And this isn’t really an assumption as the decay rates have been tested in the laboratory for a hundred years or so, we have an example of a natural nuclear reactor where we can measure the various products and determine the decay rates (and the fine structure constant), and we can observe the past by looking deep into the past of the universe. The sigh isn’t for the effort of writing, it’s for the effort of finding all the references. Answers in Genesis author Mike Riddle invited readers to skepticism in an article responding to this very question. Conclude that the only reasonable explanation for discordance among unpublished data—which represent a tiny fraction of results from the world’s geochronologists—is a past, unquantifiable change in the rate of nuclear decay in radioactive elements. Riddle’s intention is to convey, in popular terms, why he does not accept published ages, and I sympathize with his desire to find concordance between God’s word and creation.Therein, he demonstrated how easily one may cast doubt on conventional interpretations of model ages from radiometric dating techniques—at least for those unfamiliar with the process and typical results. Having an obligation to the truth, however, I feel it necessary to comment that his approach is misleading, particularly to those inexperienced in geochronology.