How does christianity explain carbon dating

Content
  • Rethinking Carbon-14 Dating: What Does It Really Tell Us about the Age of the Earth?
  • Answers to Creationist Attacks on Carbon-14 Dating
  • BIBLE HISTORY DAILY
  • Choose country
  • Does carbon dating prove the earth is millions of years old?
  • Carbon-14 Dating Does Not Disprove the Bible
  • Creation 101: Radiometric Dating and the Age of the Earth

By using our site, you acknowledge that you have read and understand our Cookie Policy , Privacy Policy , and our Terms of Service. Many creationists and Christians believe the earth is around years old. I am taking art history and some of the artifacts or pieces of art that were created by humans back then had been carbon dated back to 10, to 20, years ago or even longer. This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question. As others noted, icr.

Rethinking Carbon-14 Dating: What Does It Really Tell Us about the Age of the Earth?

There are several places you could research. A few are https: Do not just stop at looking into carbon dating as that really is only used for animal or beings type dating due to its decay rate but also look at the ones used for dating rocks like potassium argon for example. In short the issues with these dating methods are their false assumptions and clear data of live or recently died animals as well as rock from recent volcanic events like Mt St Helens showing very old dates impossible.

There are also tons of other evidences right before our eyes as to my the Bible is correct in its word. To begin to answer this question, you need to understand one thing – not all Christians believe in a young earth. Below I have provided some threads on Connect that should help you grapple with how to interpret Genesis 1 and why there are different views of the age of the earth among Bible believing Christians.

Personally, I have read the books produced by ICR that suggest that decay rates may not have been constant in the past and that we therefore cannot extrapolate beyond a few thousand years because catastrophic events like the flood may have altered decay rates or God may have altered them. Personally, however, I do not think this argument would convince a skeptic who has a naturalistic worldview and the Bible says nothing about decay rates being changed – so it seems like the whole argument is circular.

If the earth is young the decay rates must have changed – we believe the earth is young, so we posit that the decay rates were not constant. The issue of the age of the earth should not divide Christians, so I believe there is room for disagreement here. This is one of many links that will give some insights into carbon dating but this is possibly just the tip of the topic. Other have already made some good points regarding the ultimate question, the age of the earth.

SeanO thank you for that!! However God only knows, but if we get it wrong, do you think it is dangerous to believe the wrong way? You can hold to young earth or old earth and still believe that:. The age of the earth, to me, is either an opinion or conviction. It would only be dangerous to disagree if it was an absolute – something core to Christian belief.

Or would the old earth just be the earth and its formation itself and not that abraham and adam and eve were some how cave men or like that kind of thing. Hopefully that makes sense THankyou. It is true that those two beliefs are often linked together, but they do not have to be… The universe could be billions of years old while God still created humans from the dust.

Here is Hugh Ross talking about an old earth Christian perspective a little bit. He personally rejects evolution and yet accepts old earth. His view is one way of approaching this topic. Also, some Christians though I do not believe that God used evolution to create human like creature and then intervened in the case of Adam and Eve to do something extra special.

Adam and Eve were, according to this view, a kind of singularity where God stepped in and intervened in the process of evolution. Personally I do not find macro-evolution convincing as a scientific theory, even without the Bible. Christ be with you. This topic is near and dear to my heart for several reasons, not least of which is my circumstance of teaching science in a college classroom and the deep desire to be a good witness. I will be starting the Science elective in October, and am very much looking forward to it.

Above all, in my opinion, we must discuss these issues with great humility and a view toward what are critical, doctrinal issues, versus opinions on which salvation does not depend. SeanO has made wonderful comments in that regard. I deeply appreciate that and look forward to browsing some of the resources he has shared. As we are in the early weeks of the semester and life is hectic, it will be a while, but thanks for sharing those!

Can we trust carbon dating? Daily Evangelism. Jfynyson Jeremy Finison September 12, , 2: SeanO SeanO September 12, , May the Lord Jesus grant you wisdom as you study. Feel free to ask further questions. SeanO SeanO September 13, , 2: You can hold to young earth or old earth and still believe that: Does that make sense? Blessings, Renee.

One of the biggest scientific misconceptions that plagues the untrained minds of Christians and non-believers alike is Carbon dating. I can’t speak for creationists but as a christian and a man of science I can say that a lot of scientific work is inaccurate or inconclusive a lot of the.

How can I briefly explain to a person knowledgeable about Evolution why and how to believe in Creationism? When did the Ice age happen and how can it be justified biblically? What about carbon dating? How do you explain dinosaurs in creation?

Department of the History of Science Helen C. White Hall Madison, WI

The imposing Judahite fortress of Khirbet Qeiyafa has been securely dated by pottery and radiocarbon analysis to the early tenth century B. But archaeology says otherwise. Did they live in the archaeological period known as Iron Age I, which is archaeologically poorly documented, or in Iron Age IIa, for which more evidence is available.

BIBLE HISTORY DAILY

Sponsored link. Most individual creation scientists and creation science organizations are called “new-earth creationists. New-Earth creationism is mainly promoted by people who believe that the Bible authors were inspired by God to write text that is inerrant — free of error. New-earth creationists obviously cannot accept the accuracy of the C dating method. For example:. Creation scientists cannot accept these dates as accurate since they believe that the world was created sometime between and BCE.

Choose country

There are several places you could research. A few are https: Do not just stop at looking into carbon dating as that really is only used for animal or beings type dating due to its decay rate but also look at the ones used for dating rocks like potassium argon for example. In short the issues with these dating methods are their false assumptions and clear data of live or recently died animals as well as rock from recent volcanic events like Mt St Helens showing very old dates impossible. There are also tons of other evidences right before our eyes as to my the Bible is correct in its word. To begin to answer this question, you need to understand one thing – not all Christians believe in a young earth. Below I have provided some threads on Connect that should help you grapple with how to interpret Genesis 1 and why there are different views of the age of the earth among Bible believing Christians. Personally, I have read the books produced by ICR that suggest that decay rates may not have been constant in the past and that we therefore cannot extrapolate beyond a few thousand years because catastrophic events like the flood may have altered decay rates or God may have altered them. Personally, however, I do not think this argument would convince a skeptic who has a naturalistic worldview and the Bible says nothing about decay rates being changed – so it seems like the whole argument is circular. If the earth is young the decay rates must have changed – we believe the earth is young, so we posit that the decay rates were not constant.

Is carbon dating or radiocarbon dating always reliable and beyond question? Are all radioactive dating methods unreliable?

However, these excessively long ages are easily explained within the biblical worldview, and 14 C actually presents a serious problem for believers in an old earth. Nearly anyone can verify this for themselves using basic multiplication and division. Any carbon atom has six protons within its nucleus, but the different isotopes have different numbers of neutrons. Cosmic rays mainly high-energy protons trigger a process in the atmosphere that changes atmospheric nitrogen into 14 C.

Does carbon dating prove the earth is millions of years old?

Lisle Oct 27, Geology , Origins , Physics. We are told that scientists use a technique called radiometric dating to measure the age of rocks. We are also told that this method very reliably and consistently yields ages of millions to billions of years, thereby establishing beyond question that the earth is immensely old — a concept known as deep time. This apparently contradicts the biblical record in which we read that God created in six days, with Adam being made on the sixth day. From the listed genealogies, the creation of the universe happened about years ago. Has science therefore disproved the Bible? Is radiometric dating a reliable method for estimating the age of something? How does the method attempt to estimate age? People often have grave misconceptions about radiometric dating. First, they tend to think that scientists can measure age.

Carbon-14 Dating Does Not Disprove the Bible

Whenever the worldview of evolution is questioned, the topic of carbon dating always comes up. Here is how carbon dating works and the assumptions it is based upon. Radiation from the sun strikes the atmosphere of the earth all day long. This energy converts about 21 pounds of nitrogen into radioactive carbon This radioactive carbon 14 slowly decays back into normal, stable nitrogen.

Creation 101: Radiometric Dating and the Age of the Earth

It is not a matter of whether the science itself is faulty. The reality is that the science is rather elegant in its function. The challenge is that it operates under a set of assumptions. Any scientist with an open mind would tell you that if these assumptions were shifted towards a Biblical view, the carbon dating process would still work, though at a much shorter time scale. In other words, whether you assume that the planet is billions of years old or if you believe that the earth is thousands of years old, carbon dating still works in both situations. In several documented situations when carbon dating ran contrary to common scientific assumptions, the results were only an anomaly if the world were billions of years old. If the earth were thousands of years old, the results of these tests would have fit in perfectly.

Radiocarbon dating can easily establish that humans have been on the earth for over twenty thousand years, at least twice as long as creationists are willing to allow. Therefore it should come as no surprise that creationists at the Institute for Creation Research ICR have been trying desperately to discredit this method for years. They have their work cut out for them, however, because radiocarbon C dating is one of the most reliable of all the radiometric dating methods. This article will answer several of the most common creationist attacks on carbon dating, using the question-answer format that has proved so useful to lecturers and debaters. Cosmic rays in the upper atmosphere are constantly converting the isotope nitrogen N into carbon C or radiocarbon.

What is a Christian to make of radioactive dating? To those who have not encountered the topic before the paper can seem very convincing. The problem is that the Bible plainly says that the world was created by God in six days. That is clear to anyone who reads it for the first time. Furthermore, from the detailed chronologies given, we know that creation happened about 4, years before Christ. That was the orthodox view of the Christian church for 1, years. Even the pioneers of modern science such as Newton, Kepler, Steno, Hooke, Burnet and Whiston believed that the Bible recorded accurate history and they used it as a starting point for their scientific thinking.

You appear to support the evolutionists theory. However, other Christian scientists e. Ken Ham totally refute this theory and provide evidence of the creation, even challenging carbon dating, etc… I welcome your thoughts. I am well aware of Ken Ham and his arguments. I have read some of his work.

How Carbon Dating Works