But for strict evolutionists lots and lots of time is required ...

radiocarbon dating and creationism-47radiocarbon dating and creationism-17radiocarbon dating and creationism-64

Young-Earth creationists -- that is, creationists who believe that Earth is no more than 10,000 years old -- are fond of attacking radiometric dating methods as being full of inaccuracies and riddled with sources of error.

When I first became interested in the creation-evolution debate, in late 1994, I looked around for sources that clearly and simply explained what radiometric dating is and why young-Earth creationists are driven to discredit it.

Add to that the rather unscientific term "prove" and the question of the title can be seen, rightly, as something of a To give Scott some credit, though, his first task in the article is to dispel the "common myth" that carbon-14 dating has any bearing on measurements of the age of the Earth.

In fact, he spends the first four paragraphs giving a basic, but roughly correct, description of what C-14 is and what C-14 dating is based upon.

Steve Austin and his associates at the Institute for Creation 'Research' (ICR) collected a dacite sample from Mt. Helens, Washington State, USA, which probably erupted in 1986 AD. then ineffectively separated the sample into several mineral and glass 'fractions', submitted the dacite and its 'fractions' for potassium 40-argon 40 (K-Ar) dating, and subsequently used the bogus results to inappropriately attack the K-Ar method.

Considering that the half-life of potassium-40 (40K) is fairly long (1,250 million years, Mc Dougall and Harrison, 1999, p.

However, he limits his myth dispelling to correcting only the misconception that C-14 dating is used for age determinations of "millions of years", which of course it is not.

He also gives the correct reason for this, being that C-14 is a radioisotope with a half-life of ~5,600 years.

The rules are the same in all cases; the assumptions are different for each method.