Carbon dating rate group
There must have been speeded-up decay, perhaps in a huge burst associated with Creation Week and/or a separate burst at the time of the Flood.There is now powerful independent confirmatory evidence that at least one episode of drastically accelerated decay has indeed been the case, building on the work of Dr Robert Gentry on helium retention in zircons.We will deal with carbon dating first and then with the other dating methods.Carbon has unique properties that are essential for life on Earth.2003 looks like going down as a bad year for megachronophiles (lovers of long ages), but a good year for lovers of the Word of God.In addition to the book expected in 2005 reporting the final results of the RATE project, the project expects to publish a book for laymen summarizing the project shortly thereafter. He has written several popular books on creation science and has been on the RATE since its inception.Rather, there was likely to be a single, unifying answer that concerned the nuclear decay processes themselves.Since, from the eyewitness testimony of God’s Word, the billions of years that such vast amounts of radioactive processes would normally suggest had not taken place, it was clear that the assumption of a constant slow decay process was wrong.
with Jurassic fossils, inside Triassic sandstone, burnt by Tertiary basalt) and these were published (by then staff geologist Dr Andrew Snelling) in . In another very important paper presented at this year’s ICC, scientists from the RATE group summarized the pertinent facts and presented further experimental data.This latter suggestion about primordial C-14 appears to have been somewhat spectacularly supported when Dr Baumgardner sent a diamond for C-14 dating.It was the first time this had been attempted, and the answer came back positive—i.e.The diamond’s carbon-dated ‘age’ of C-14 labs have no real answer to this problem, namely that all the ‘vast-age’ specimens they measure still have C-14.Labelling this detectable C-14 with such words as ‘contamination’ and ‘background’ is completely unhelpful in explaining its source, as the RATE group’s careful analyses and discussions have shown.