Sardonica writes:
But the fact still remains that even though the information given is not fully clear yet, there still remains the question of whether our dating methods are accurate.
You'll need some basis upon which to question the dating methods. Considering only carbon dating, accuracy can be affected by:
- Variations in decay rates.
- Variations in the production rate of 14C, which in turn causes variations in the amount of 14C in the environment.
- Variations in the rate at which carbon is removed from the environment.
- Exchanges of carbon in samples with carbon from the environment.
While this is a short list, it is general and covers a lot of ground. The examples you offer later on in your post are covered by a couple items in this list.
This is from your AnswersInGenesis quote:
The strength of the earth’s magnetic field affects the amount of cosmic rays entering the atmosphere. A stronger magnetic field deflects more cosmic rays away from the earth. Overall, the energy of the earth’s magnetic field has been decreasing,5 so more 14C is being produced now than in the past. This will make old things look older than they really are.
While the earth's magnetic field
*does* vary and cause variations in concentrations of atmospheric
14C, we know the variation is small because atmospheric
14C concentrations have been calculated back at least 11,000 years. See
http://www.rlaha.ox.ac.uk/O/calibration.php.
Also, the Genesis flood would have greatly upset the carbon balance. The flood buried a huge amount of carbon, which became coal, oil, etc., lowering the total 12C in the biosphere...
Were this actually the case it would be obvious from the calibration data. The calibration data reveals no sudden dramatic change in
14C levels.
Also, as far as coal and oil being the product of buried vegetation from 5000 years ago, this is impossible. Coal and oil have a
14C concentration of 0%. Vegetable matter only 5000 years old could not have a complete absence of
14C.
Don't be scared away by Jonathan Sarfati, I think this quote at least proposes a significant question of reliability.
In order for your quote to raise genuine questions, it would have to accurately address radiocarbon issues. The quote doesn't mention the calibration data. It leads people to believe that we really have no idea what
14C concentrations were in the past and that it's possible they could have been anything. It doesn't mention that oil and coal has no
14C, it just lets people think that the level could be consistent with being only 5000 years old. It's even misleading about magnetic field strength. While the magnetic field is weaker now than a couple centuries ago, the data doesn't allow us to accurately determine the magnetic field strength before that.
It seems that while carbon dating does tell us that Hell Creek Formation is around 65,000,000 years old, does it just appear to be so because of the effects from the flood and other causes?
This has already been mentioned, but
14C dating does not work when the material is older than about 50,000 years. Older than that, other radiometric techniques must be employed.
What you need to explain is how a global flood could leave behind no geologic evidence that it ever happened while neatly sorting radiometric material into layers by increasing age with increasing depth.
We see fewer and fewer people offer the traditional Creationist arguments like these anymore, so while this is off-topic for this thread, it would be interesting to explore your views on Intelligent Design, which is not consistent with a very young earth.
--Percy
™ Version 4.2