Despite this she continually uses the c14 dates to create 'absolute' chronologies.She says this is ok so long as you take into account the correction factors from dendrochronology.In fact, 14C is forming FASTER than the observed decay rate.This skews the 'real' answer to a much younger age.If something carbon dates at 7,000 years we believe 5,000 is probably closer to reality (just before the flood).Robert Whitelaw has done a very good job illustrating this theory using about 30,000 dates published in Radio Carbon over the last 40 years.
Error Banner.fade_out.modal_overlay.modal_overlay .modal_wrapper.modal_overlay [email protected](max-width:630px)@media(max-width:630px).modal_overlay .modal_fixed_close.modal_overlay .modal_fixed_close:before.modal_overlay .modal_fixed_close:before.modal_overlay .modal_fixed_close:before.modal_overlay .modal_fixed_close:hover:before.
This age is obtained from radiometric dating and is assumed by evolutionists to provide a sufficiently long time-frame for Darwinian evolution.
And OE Christians (theistic evolutionists) see no problem with this dating whilst still accepting biblical creation, see Radiometric Dating - A Christian Perspective.
We believe all the dates over 5,000 years are really compressible into the next 2,000 years back to creation.
So when you hear of a date of 30,000 years for a carbon date we believe it to be early after creation and only about 7,000 years old.
And this big sequence is then used to 'correct' C14 dates. (3.) Even if the rate of decay is constant, without a knowledge of the exact ratio of C12 to C14 in the initial sample, the dating technique is still subject to question.