Mind you, a Creationist-derived site, but this is how the stuff works, and it was the first site Google popped up on my search.
Willard Libby invented the carbon dating technique in the early 1950’s. He calculated the amount of carbon-14 in the atmosphere today (about .0000765%), and assumed there would be the same amount found in living plants or animals since the plants breathe CO2 and animals eat plants.
Carbon 14 is the radio-active version of carbon. Radiation from the sun strikes the atmosphere of the earth all day long. This energy produces radioactive carbon 14. This radioactive carbon 14 slowly decays into normal, stable carbon 12. Extensive laboratory testing has shown that about half of the C-14 molecules will decay in 5730 years. After another 5730 years half of the remaining C-14 will decay leaving only ¼ of the original C-14. It goes from ½ to ¼ to 1/8, etc. In theory it would never totally disappear, but after about 5 half lives the difference is not measurable with any degree of accuracy. This is why most people say carbon dating is only good for objects less than 30,000 years old.
The argument for the young-earthers over C-14 shouldn't be about how old C-14 dates, but how much C-14 can the Earth hold?
Since sunlight causes the formation of C-14 in the atmosphere, and normal radioactive decay takes it out, there must be a point where the formation rate and the decay rate equalizes. This is called the point of equilibrium. Let me illustrate. If you were trying to fill a barrel with water but there were holes drilled up the side of the barrel, as you filled the barrel it would begin leaking out the holes. At some point you would be putting it in and it would be leaking out at the same rate. You will not be able to fill the barrel past this point of equilibrium. In the same way the C-14 is being formed and decaying out simultaneously. A freshly created earth would require about 30,000 years for the amount of C-14 in the atmosphere to reach this point of equilibrium because it would leak out as it is being filled. Tests indicate that the earth has still not reached equilibrium. This would mean the earth is not yet 30,000 years old! This also means that plants and animals that lived in the past had less C-14 in them than do plants and animals today. Just this one fact totally upsets data obtained by C-14 dating.
Originally posted by GBP/JPY
reply to post by cerebralassassins
yep, in 1967, Dallas Love field concrete ramp was tested to be 10,000 years old
Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by Unity_99
There have been many many cycles of humans, some space age,...
Show me one piece of ancient civilization that looks modern.
Originally posted by XeroOne
Perhaps the screw isn't embedded in anything. The 'rock' itself could have been a man-made object that became fossilised, and the screw was part of it.
Seriously flawed dating techniques is the most likely explanation, though. How many people have ever questioned the supposed infallibility of carbon dating?edit on 11-8-2012 by XeroOne because: (no reason given)
That is a good one, if you were to leave this planet alone without any humans on it for 10 thousand years, it would make us look like primates, nothing would be left. maybe someone will find a baseball bat and write text books about the greatest discovery of the first "ancient" weapon found.
This planet will eat a city in a 100 years, 500 years you will only see green hills. How can someone bring you evidence, when its all been destroyed (by humans and nature), or it has been hidden away ( like the pyramids in china)
Bring me proof that shows absolutley un deniable evidence that our ancestors from a million years ago we apes?
Bring me 100% proof of what an actual dinosaur looks like and behaves like?