How accurate is it? According to most scientists, it is very accurate. Unless one is using it to date dinosaur bones, then it is completely not accurate and cannot be used..... What say ya'll, is Carbon 14 dating reliable?

https://www.ancient-origins.net/news-evo...ed-33500-020159

I don't know. I didn't do the research to figure out the rate at which carbon 14 decomposes or figure out what it's half life is.

The concept is pretty simple though if you trust the half life numbers.

I figure someone flubbed the test in the article you posted. That seems like the most logical explanation.

It was found Terribly inaccurate and flawed , over 10 years ago last I heard/read. According to the Smithsonian magazine and National Geographic.

References please.

Carbon dating works very well when used within it's limitations. Radiocarbon dating only works on organic material dating no older than about 50,000 years old.
Therefore it is not used to date fossilized dinosaur bones; 1) fossilized bones are minerals such as silica that has replaced organic material, and, 2) dinosaurs became extinct about 65 million years ago.

I've also heard it's quite flawed

It is flawed. They send 4 or 5 samples out get 4 or 5 results chose the date that confirms their idea.
And that is fact
And no I will not give a reference
It's more in lighting when you find it yourself

The issue I have with it is that most things I have ever witness decompose is that the rate of decomposition speeds up as it decays. So they claim carbon takes x number of years to decay but no one has ever witnessed the actual rate of decay over time.

What Waggler said.

Almost every human culture has myths about dragons or dragon like reptiles. A logical explanation is that at least some living dinosaurs still existed at the same time humans did.

Almost every human culture also has myths about small, human like creatures. We now know that there were multiple homo species and even some pre-homo species at the same time there were modern homosapiens. White people are actually a hybrid homo species of homosapiens and homo neanderthalensis. The myths of small, human like creatures almost assuredly came from ancestral memories of the other species of man.

Keith

I believe the science community is afraid of anything that doesn't confirm their beliefs

I'm not talking religion either. Just look in to discoveries of ancient civilizations that were more advanced than the mainstream science says mankind was

Same as old reports of discoveries in The Americas, that the smithsonian took in to possession and then they say "we don't have it or can't locate it"

Do a study of trans Atlantic and trans pacific travel that some evidence points to from thousands of years ago not the hundreds that we are taught to believe

It's a joke if you really do the research but so is evolution of one species to another. Listen to talk show science and creation for a few episodes sometime lots of factual proof against carbon dating

How can anything be milions of years when the earth is only 8-10,000 years old

And the earth is flat too.
Almost forgot to mention that the sun revolves around the earth.

Your right... Two more things scientists had wrong for awhile

And how did they determine this date?

Weren't there Wooly Mammoth about 10,000 years ago?

In all seriousness, the debate among Christians on the young versus old earth has been going on for some time. However, many Christians attempt to do science backwards. They start at the assumption that the earth is young and then try to make fairly simple science (radiocarbon dating, counting tree rings, etc) fit into their young earth hypothesis. That not how science is approached.

I've listened to and read the books of young earth guys like Ken Ham and Morris, and I've been to their seminars. They mock scientists, they even mock Christian scientists who don't buy into their young earth ideas. When you go to a lecture put on by someone like Ham you'll realize that his main business is selling books and curriculum to home-schoolers and private Christian schools (I have nothing against home-schoolers or private schools).

If Ham and others like him where to alter their stance one bit it would discredit their books.

For you guys who doubt that the earth is old, I'm attaching a couple of videos that you should really take the time to watch if you are serious about the subject. The first is just a couple of minutes long and is a good introduction into the subject. The second video by John Lennox is rather long but very well worth the time to watch, as is just about anything else by Lennox.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TqMwqwb8Vn0

http://www.johnlennox.org/jresources/seven-days-that-divide-the-world/

Waggler, so do you think scientists assumed a time line for age of earth and universe? How much time would be needed for evolution to fit? I think they did exactly what you claim Christians have done.

How many of you guys who doubt radiocarbon dating have ever counted tree rings in a tree stump to determine the age of a tree? I'll bet all of you have. Do you doubt that each tree ring represents one year of growth? I'll bet not.

Counting tree rings (Dendrochronology) is one of the methods used to calibrate radiocarbon dating. Radiocarbon dating is no more of a voodoo science than is counting tree rings.

I didn't realize what I was walking into when I posted.

One of those my book beats your book arguments I see...

Carbon dating imo is a bunch of hooey. It's a theory that some choose to believe, I don't buy it.