Answers in genesis radiocarbon dating No payment xxx chat
The study here says the canyon is less than 700 kya and could possibly be 100 kya.
So at this point I thought repeated radiocarbon tests we're showing a younger and younger Grand Canyon, but then I found this U-Th 2008 study: now the age of the Grand Canyon is 55 mya, huh?
Then I came across a study down in 2002: This study reveals that the Grand Canyon is not 5.5 mya but, 600-700 kya.
I also found a this 2007 40Ar-39Ar radiometric dating study:
Ai G author Mike Riddle addresses this very question in an article entitled Doesn't Carbon-14 Dating Disprove the Bible?
The article begins with a simplified explanation of the radiocarbon method.
, and things never really improve much through its nine paragraphs.
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.ICR creationists claim that this discredits C-14 dating. Answer: It does discredit the C-14 dating of freshwater mussels, but that's about all.Kieth and Anderson show considerable evidence that the mussels acquired much of their carbon from the limestone of the waters they lived in and from some very old humus as well.While a number of Answers in Genesis (Ai G) articles related to radiometric dating have focused on discordant ages obtained from igneous suites (such as K/Ar dates obtained from volcanic flows, see last post), I have found that the most intriguing claims deal with the radiocarbon, or 14-C, dating method.The reason is that Ai G authors do not simply try and persuade their readers to discount this method as wholly unreliable (even when the ages obtained exceed 10,000 years) but actually present the results as positive evidence for a young Earth.