Is Carbon -14 evidence for a young earth?

The liars over at AIG are doing what they do best, lying.

There is no unexpected ¹⁴C in coal, diamonds or other ancient sources. What there is is noise. If one tests for ¹⁴C in a source of no carbon whatsoever one doesn't get a reading that says "No ¹⁴C whatsoever, but a noise reading indicating an age very near the limit of carbon dating: about 50,000 years. That is why radiocarbon dating has that particular limit. If one were to take many reading one can sort out the signal from the noise and get an acceptably accurate reading even near the limit. But not on a single, near the limit, value. (In the middle ranges radioisotope dating is easy bean.)

Now, the reason, well know to the liars over in AIG, that papers have been written on the ¹⁴C readings in diamonds, coal, limestone and sundry ancient carbon is because scientists want to know what the limits of their machines are. How do they do that? They test them on known quantities of ¹⁴C, namely zero. Then they report the results as honest scientists do.

This of course is butter to the scumbags at AIG, who are well aware that non-zero readings are exactly what is to be expected. They want to bring the ignorant to the love of Jesus, and they don't care how.


P.S. Notice I said nothing about contamination*. That's another AIG straw man. More than 50,000 people were killed in car accidents or while alligator wrestling last year. That's true, but misleading. That there is an occasional erroneous result traced back to contamination has never been offered as a primary cause of the error. For AIG to report that it is not primary is only known to them because they were told this by honest scientists. It was the scientists that "demolished" the idea of contamination being the a primary cause of overdating by never claiming that it was in the first place. It's the noise.

The paragraph refers to contamination in samples collected and tested by qualified persons using stringent methodologies. There have been many samples offered up by charlatans calming the material was collected in a coal mine while showing all the signs of being charcoal from a forest fire. These can be discounted out of hand.

Edit: It is not in the least bit astonishing the intellectual dishonesty you've express, so common among the holier-than-thou set.

.

no
because there are other isotopes with much longer half lives
for example the half life of U-238 is about 4.447 billion years, and can be used to date some really ancient rocks including some of the oldest formed on the earth's crust as well as meteorites from outer space

the people from answers in genesis know how to misuse science to promote an agenda
In reality, actual scientists never use C-14 to date anything more than about 60,000 years or so. After that there is not enough usable C14 left for accurate datingThere are numerous other isotopes that can be used

I think youre getting confused over the meaning of the term half-life. Maybe you need to read up on isotopes again.

Carbon-14 is routinely created anew, in the atmosphere, by the interaction of cosmic radiation and Nitrogen. The decay product of the N-14 thus created is carbon-14.

So, you see, even back in Hadean times, or the Cambrian, or the Carboniferous, (GASP - or even NOW!!!!) new Carbon 14 was, and is, always being formed.

My God is a real practical joker.

And an Evolutionist.

He/She/It saw to it that new Carbon-14 would always be made to make the Creationists look silly.