Datingfuture com


30-Jan-2020 07:43

Note that the ‘natural level’ in the graph above is assumed.In fact the atmospheric carbon system may never have been in equilibrium.Thus researchers must calibrate the clock to account for these fluctuations, and that can be a challenge.’ Besides these regular changes, which secular scientists try to take into account, there was a unique event in earth’s history that also greatly upset the carbon balance, but which the scientific establishment refuses to take into account when calibrating the carbon-dating method. There was massive worldwide volcanism during the Flood, with massive volumes of dust, COC in the atmosphere would thus have become greatly diluted during the Flood, and would have remained low for many centuries, as the level gradually built up again towards equilibrium.Animals and plants in the immediate post-Flood centuries would have absorbed and ingested less C may have been increasing, albeit very gradually.

But scholars are now coming to the realisation that the traditionally accepted Egyptian chronology was greatly in error, and needs shortening by hundreds of years.

I found the entry for the BGS-43 wood sample you referred to in the table at Brock University. The entry includes the comment ‘The “Calculated Age” is ~ 3000 yrs into the future.

Repeated sample and got the same results.’ Testing of atmospheric nuclear bombs in the 1950s and 60s dramatically increased levels of radiocarbon (carbon-14, C) in the atmosphere—see the graph below.

For examples, see Dating Dilemma: Fossil wood in ‘ancient’ sandstone, Geological conflict, and Diamonds: a creationist’s best friend.

For those with the inclination, abundant evidence is available with which they can verify to themselves the unreliability of radiometric dating methods, including the carbon method.For examples, see the section ‘Other factors affecting carbon dating’ from Chapter 4 ‘What about carbon dating?