Problems using carbon 14 dating
Help us reduce the maintenance cost of our online services.Because your computer is running an older version of internet browser, it no longer meets the features of modern websites.This assumption is backed by numerous scientific studies and is relatively sound.
Carbon-14 comes from nitrogen and is independent of the carbon-12 reservoir.
If even a small percentage of the limestone deposits were still in the form of living marine organisms at the time of the Flood, then the small amount of carbon-14 would have mixed with a much larger carbon-12 reservoir, thus resulting in a drastically reduced ratio.
Evolutionists assume that the rate of cosmic bombardment of the atmosphere has always remained constant and that the rate of decay has remained constant.
Scientists place great faith in this dating method, and yet more than 50% of radiocarbon dates from geological and archaeological samples of northeastern North America have been deemed unacceptable after investigation.
We could put forward the following counter arguments to the constancy of these assumptions: a) The constancy of cosmic ray bombardment might be questioned.
The current high rate of entry might be a consequence of a disturbed post-Flood environment that altered the .
It's assumed that the clock was set to zero when the study material was formed.
This requires that only the parent isotope be initially present or that the amount of daughter isotope present at the beginning is known so that it can be subtracted.
It is assumed that we are dealing with a closed system—no loss of either parent or daughter elements has occurred since the study material formed.
No scientist can guarantee that any sample can be considered a closed system unless it was isolated from its environment when it was formed.
Many examples from literature show that the zero-reset assumption is not always valid.