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.
PSCF 45 December R adiocarbon C dating has several implications for Christianity, particularly in terms of the interpretation of the first part of Genesis.
Since its advent in the midth century, it has been one of the central topics in the creation-evolution controversy. As of the mids, radioactive dating had not attracted serious attention from the majority of evangelicals. Since the invention of the C method and the appearance of evangelical professionals in this field, however, American evangelicals have divided themselves into two groups. One group has been made up of fundamentalist evangelicals, who accepted the global effect of Noah's flood and a young earth and rejected radioactive dates.
The other, non-literalist group of evangelicals accepted some kinds of evolutionary uniformitarian hypotheses and radioactive dating. The Seventh-day Adventists and the American Scientific Affiliation were central forums in the controversy regarding radioactive dating during the first decade after the invention of the C dating method. Then the controversy spread out into wider evangelical circles.
This paper traces the reactions of Seventh-day Adventists and American evangelical Christians toward C dating. Among several radioactive dating methods, the radiocarbon C dating method which was invented by Willard Frank Libby of the University of Chicago in the late s occupies a special position in archaeology and ancient history, as well as geology, because it can give the absolute age of those carbonaceous archaeological findings that were not older than the half-life of C This method also drew special attention from Christian scholars because of its effect on biblical interpretation.
C dating received special attention from evangelical Christians who emphasized the authority and reliability of the Bible, because it could date the age of organic remains of ancient plants, animals and men in terms of the biblical chronology. In particular, the C dating method is important in the study of the Old Testament, since it professes to supply absolute dates for events within the past forty thousand years, which covers the apparent periods of Old Testament history.
Since the revival of scientific creationism in the early s, one of the most important events has been the on going debate over the validity of C dating. The apparent contradiction between C dates and the literal interpretation of Genesis has split the evangelical Christians of the United States into two factions: Although the Adventists regard themselves as evangelicals, some hesitate to include them in a list of evangelical Christians because of their strong commitment to the writings of Ellen G.
White, the Adventist prophetess. But during the twentieth century the Adventists played a very important role in the formulation of the so-called "scientific creationism" in the United States, influencing evangelical Christian responses to the idea of a young earth.
Therefore, in order to understand the relationship between Christians and C dating, we must include the SDA in our discussions. Seventh-day Adventists' opinions on C dating and the age of the earth have varied somewhat over time.
In his book The New Geology and in other publications, George McCready Price, an Adventist geologist, framed the so-called "flood geology" theory, which greatly influenced fundamentalist evangelicals as well as the Adventist scholars. One of the first Adventist critics of C dates was Robert W. Woods, a college physics teacher, who criticized not the technical process of C activity measurement but the assumptions by which the dating results were interpreted.
Thus he said that the method was good as far back as shortly after the flood, which seemed to be the practical limit of historical dating. To Woods, if the assumptions of C dating were accepted, the C method was capable of measuring some 20, years into the past.
However, this is the case only if certain conditions are met. First, the rate of the formation and decay of C has always been the same. Woods admitted that no method had been found to accelerate or retard the radioactive decay of an atom.
However, the assumption that the rate of formation for C has been the same for long ages past was, to Woods, not certain. Such an assumption presumes that: Another figure was Lester E. Harris, an Adventist biologist. While not a major figure in the creationist debate, he did demonstrate the possibility of contamination in C dating samples.
One of the most interesting and controversial defenses of a young earth was raised by Robert V. Gentry, an Adventist geophysics professor at Columbia Union College, who published several scientific articles in authoritative journals on the pleochroic halo and its implications. Gentry argued that these halos indicated that some of the Precambrian rocks were created suddenly and recently.
He used radiohalo evidence to prove the youth of the earth, Noah's flood, and the uncertainty of C dating. Ironically, many Adventist scholars gave little credence to Gentry's findings, some even opposing them.
In the late s, orthodox Adventists relaxed their attitude toward the C method. Even Price, a major critic of C dating, admitted the validity of C dates for the post-diluvian period, 8 assuming that the C method might be reasonably accurate up to the flood.
Yet he continued to believe that the environment of the pre-flood era was totally different from the present one and argued that the present conditions of cosmic radiation from outer space did not prevail before the flood. Although he sometimes accepted the antiquity of the earth by subscribing to the gap theory, 9 on the whole he never went against his teacher, E. White, throughout his long life. Since the late s, Price's disciples in both evangelical and Adventist circles actively sought to establish organizations committed to strict creationism.
While they faithfully followed Price's flood geology, some of them modified his arguments concerning the age of the earth and life on earth. Although even in the s the majority of orthodox Adventists still accepted Woods' critique of C dating, 10 some scholars appeared who were much bolder than their predecessors in accepting the C method.
The apparent consistency of results achieved by many different, often independent dating methods was recognized as a serious problem by some Adventist scholars. It is worth noting that most of them were trained as professional geologists or geochemists. Beginning in the late s, some scholars in the Geoscience Research Institute GRI , an affiliate of Andrews University and Loma Linda University, objected to a rigid young earth interpretation and accepted C dating. Edgar Hare, a chemist. In it also added Richard M.
Ritland, a comparative anatomist. In spite of age differences the three men at first worked together in reasonable harmony.
But the harmony was broken the next year, because, while Marsh believed in the young earth and the global flood, Hare and Ritland insisted the old earth and the local effect of Noah's flood. Marsh could not understand why both men supported radioactive dating methods that placed "Creation Week hundreds of millions of years ago" in apparent direct contradiction to the Bible and Ellen G.
In , in an unpublished paper entitled "Problems and Methods in Earth History," Ritland pointed out that multiple catastrophes, not just Noah's Flood, had structured the surface of the earth. From his studies on amino-acid dating in marine shells, which were based on changes in proteins, Hare claimed that life had been on earth for much longer than a few thousands years.
Hare originally developed the amino-acid dating method to undermine the credibility of C dating, but to his surprise the results he achieved were consistent with C dates. I am beginning to wonder if our whole approach to this problem is in error.
Carbon-14 Dating Does Not Disprove the Bible
We have been taught for years that almost everything in the geologic record is the result of the flood. I've seen enough in the field to realize that quite substantial portions of the geologic record are not the direct result of the flood.
We also have been led to believe by men like Marsh and Burdick that the evidence for the extreme age of the earth is extremely tenuous and really not worthy of any credence at all.
I have tried to make a rather careful study of this evidence over the past several years, and I feel the evidence is not ambiguous but that it is just as clear as is the evidence that the earth is round. But the struggle of Hare and Ritland for "liberalizing" the GRI came to an end when they left the institute. Edgar Hare originally developed [this] amino-acid dating method to undermine the credibility of C dating, but to his surprise the results he achieved were consistent with C dates.
Brown ardently believed that life on earth was not older than 10, years and "originated within six consecutive rotations of the planet," and that the earth "experienced a universal destruction as portrayed in Genesis White," he regarded C dates as incorrect. Interestingly, though, he accepted other radioactive dates showing the antiquity of the earth. Later, Brown's attitude toward C dating became more flexible. Beginning in the late s, he proposed a new interpretation of C dates rather than a total rejection of them.
According to his recent papers, C dates could agree with historical dates if some of the environmental factors of the antediluvian world were taken into account: He admitted that if the premise and method of C dating were sound, C dates were acceptable up to about 2, B. He openly advocated an old earth but argued for recently created life, and concentrated on a compromise between biblical chronology and C dating, trying to extend the biblical time-scale and correct C dating.
Pearl, who tried to reduce both the age of the Bristlecone pine and C dates to adjust them to the biblical chronology. Although both Pearl and Brown gave comprehensive arguments, neither gave enough scientific evidence to support their arguments, nor could they explain the dates obtained by other dating methods. White had kept silent on, as Price did. He was still within the orthodox SDA's line.
Brown's position is well discussed by M. Under the direction of Brown and his successor, Roth, the GRI devoted itself to holding fast to flood geology and criticizing C dating.
Those who did not accept the great flood would find no footing in the GRI and should leave the institute. Today, with only a few exceptions, the SDA holds fast to flood geology and literal interpretations of Genesis days.
Today, with only a few exceptions, Seventh-day Adventists hold fast to flood geology and literal interpretations of Genesis days. The strongest professional defense of the C method by an Adventist scholar was offered by R. Ervin Taylor, director of a radiocarbon dating laboratory at the University of California at Riverside.
He emphasized that the C dates were supported and confirmed by many other methods such as obsidian hydration, thermoluminescience, archaeomagnetic data, the potassium-argon method, fission track dating, dendrochronology, varve dating, fluorine diffusion and archaeological sequences.
Even Ross Barnes admitted that literal interpretations of Genesis are incompatible with scientific dates. Couperus said that Christian faith "should not be affected by views on the age of our planet, be it young or old.
The American Scientific Affiliation. The ASA was formed in to serve as a principal forum of evangelical Christianity to "promote and encourage the study of the relationship between the facts of science and the Holy Scriptures.
Since the publication of its first results in , the C dating method raised controversy in the ASA. The ASA membership had a mixed reaction to radioactive dating until the early s, when advocates of radiometry began to dominate. As shown in the discussion of a paper by Monsma, the responses of key members to geologic ages and the flood varied until Monsma himself accepted the flood and seemed "to deplore the acceptance by Christians of the ideas of geologic ages.
Alton Everest, Peter W. Stoner, a professor of mathematics and astronomy at Pasadena City College and a supporter of the day-age theory , Russell L. Laurence Kulp were quite dubious about a recent creation and a cataclysmic deluge.
But this period of confusion did not last long. Right after the announcement of the C dating method by Libby, J. He returned to Columbia University to establish his own C laboratory, and pioneered the various applications of C dating to geology. He eventually became one of the nation's top authorities in C dating. Kulp played an important role in converting ASA members to C dating. According to Genesis 1: The earth was under the water, So the earth was already here before God created anything on the earth.
So now the question is, What happen that caused water to cover the whole earth, We know this water is not from the flood of Noah, Noah had not come into being yet. For Adam and Eve had not been created yet. So what happened that caused the water to cover the whole earth? You can not try and tell me, that God created the earth and put water to cover the whole earth and then caused the water to dry up that the dry land to appear, God could haved that right at the first, created the dry land on the earth and place the water where it is now.
So why and what happened for water to cover the whole earth. We know according to 2 Peter 3: For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: How do we know that this is not the flood of Noahs, first take the word perished according to this word, Perished, means that nothing was left over, but everything perished, unlike the flood of Noahs, there were 8 souls save and animals saved, so not everything perished.
That is what Perished means that nothing is left over. So the question is, why and what happened that God caused the world that then was being overflowed with water to perished?
You are interpreting those verses as one even, but it refers to two, the first being the creation, the second refers to an event after the creation and the earth standing out of the water creation as recorded in the Bible. The verse also says that the world perished by water. The sinful world perished. If you had accurately read the verse you would have had the correct interpretation. Just face it, religion is out dated, if religion was created today by someone with all the knowledge that we now have from science then that person would be locked up in the loony bin.
When Adam was created he was a man ,if any one could go back to the day after he was created and looked upon him how old would we say he was,in his twenties maybe,but how old would he be. ONE DAY We could say that it took one hundred thousand years for some thing to crawl out of the mud and evolve into Adam but he was made the day before. If we could be there the day after god put the stars in the sky,we could say it took millions of years for their light to reach us but it took at the most a day.
Every thing god created has appearance of age. We must trust in the Bible. And the human heart starting beating how, science? Notify me of follow-up comments by email. Notify me of new posts by email. One of the biggest scientific misconceptions that plagues the untrained minds of Christians and non-believers alike is Carbon dating.
Many non-believers point to it as evidence that the Bible is untrue. Many Christians shift their worldview to accommodate it scientifically while still reconciling the Biblical telling of Creation. Both are actually incorrect. Scientific Assumptions There are two major assumptions that are impossible to prove or disprove.
Biblical Assumptions The magnetic field is decaying. This article is part of the Compassion and Fear Series Share this: Contact Us You are here for a reason.
How does christianity explain carbon dating
Evolution explains all of it, with ease and without any contradiction with any finding from any if the 20 branches of science that contribute to it. It is THE most comprehensively and cohesively evidenced area of science in history.
There are several radioactive isotopes whose half-lives are well-known and which give quite accurate, overlapping ages ranging from a few decades to several billion years.
They find this shorter time span convenient for their assertions, totally ignoring the much broader measurements that can be used when appropriate but which give results that completely falsify their YE assertions. For example coal deposits and perhaps dino remains in the same strata carbon date thus capping at 70k years. For one of only a handful of times in my life I was utterly gobsmacked into silence.
You can find Ceration websites too but if you are an evolutionist have found you just poo-poo their site right out of the gate so try these official sites; isotope dating is seriously flawed, for sure:. More Bad News for Radiometric Dating. Paper spotlights key flaw in widely used radioisotope dating technique.
I do not try to explain carbon dating because I am not enough of an expert and only have a marginal understanding of it. How do Christians and other creationist religions explain 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 time.
If there was one machine or method that gave you the exact results then a lab would not have 5 different microscopes, mass spec, or ir spec. The issue at hand is that no one is right and no one is wrong and both sides twist and spin conjecture. Both sides will interpret the data and results differently. The answers given by your teacher were actually pretty good.
For instance, your question specifically points out carbon dating. First, you need to learn about isotopes and make your own decision but that aside So, every years the concentration is cut in half. So, this makes it difficult for specimens that are, for example, over 70, years old to be accurately dated. The fossils you read about that are millions of years old are mainly gauged based on sediment layers among other techniques in an attempt to increase accuracy. Yet, even recently there are some questions about the timeframe of the Hadean period.
So, with all the carbon dating and techniques at their disposal scientist had still inaccurately dated this one for years. Science can get it wrong so your teachers are right. Have faith and pray and don't get caught up in headline science. We will find out when we die.Creation v. Evolution: How Carbon Dating Works
Other than that, I just don't take the Bible to literal. I research interpretations and if something is generally agreed upon that it is literal then I take it as so.