Radiocarbon dating and creationism
It can be used to prove the existence of items older than the supposed age of the Earth.Creationist scientists have questioned its accuracy although none of their research has yet been subject to satisfactory peer review. The arguments made by creationists against radiometric dating methods are from simple physics and chemistry and directed against unprovable assumption made by those that use radiomatric dating methods to claim the age of objects.Note - the addition of an external link to a baptist missionary propaganda page to the top of the external links section seems strikingly odd - like pov spam to me. B: The German version of the article has a separate section about all the reasons why the laboratory age may be wrong, contamination, reservoir, old wood, etc.I suggest it might be a good idea to group all these here too.--.193 (talk) , 22 March 2011 (UTC) In the Bible, the Hebrew word used for "day" is "yohm", which often means different lengths of time, such as the length of time it takes for a season, which takes a few months - much longer than a 24 hour day.It can be used to describe the period of time it takes for an event to occur, and thus if these "days" took millions or billions of years it would still be accurate to the meaning. q=carbon dating controversy&sourceid=navclient-ff&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1B3GGGL_en GB209GB209 - 576,000 articles according to Google, all mentioning that there exists controversy.These "ambiguous regions" in the calibration curve mean problems of date matching are even more pronounced than those associated with the longer term so-called plateaux.Think about it - a single radiocarbon date in a known "wiggle" would have three possible corresponding true dates - the "mapping" is not a "function". Any such single radiocarbon date is the centre of a bell-shaped counting distribution curve.
A calibration curve must sometimes be combined with contextual analysis, because there is not always a direct relationship between age and carbon-14 content. I am not sure if ref 13 is supposed to support the whole paragraph or just the last sentence, but it does neither.
However, as the article currently stands in size, I do not think a seperate article on the scientific aspects only is warranted. --Rebroad , 5 February 2007 (UTC) Please take a look at the discussion below.
Radiocarbon dating IS a scientific topic, therefore the article should focus on the science and leave the pseudoscience stuff elswhere.
Maybe it's nothing, but I find it highly suspicious that they decided to settle the same week Faith Leaks started leaking their sex abuse docs.
I do not understand why the information regarding the fact that there are groups that dispute the accuracy of carbon dating continues to be removed from this article. Many thanks, --Rebroad , 5 February 2007 (UTC) Removed: Carbon dating is extremely controversial amongst fundamental religious believers such as creationists.