Carbon-14 dating sets a limit to the age of the earth

The author of this article is Dr. Jonathan Sarfati, and by his title, we know that he loves chess. Haha! Jonathan received his B.Sc. (hons) in Chemistry and his Ph.D. (Physical Chemistry) from Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand. He has co-authored papers in mainstream scientific journals including one on high-temperature superconductors published in Nature when he was 22 years old.

Carbon

What do hard sparkling diamonds and dull soft pencil ‘lead’ have in common? They are both forms (allotropes) of carbon. Most carbon atoms are 12 times heavier than hydrogen (¹²C), about one in 100 is 13 times heavier (¹³C), and one in a trillion (10¹²) is 14 times heavier (¹⁴C). Of these different types (isotopes) of carbon, ¹⁴C is called radiocarbon, because it is radioactive—it breaks down over time.

Radiocarbon dating

Some try to measure age by how much ¹⁴C has decayed. Many people think that radiocarbon dating proves billions of years.¹ But evolutionists know it can’t, because ¹⁴C decays too fast. Its half-life (t_½) is only 5,730 years—that is, every 5,730 years, half of it decays away. After two half lives, a quarter is left; after three half lives, only an eighth; after 10 half lives, less than a thousandth is left.² In fact, a lump of ¹⁴C as massive as the earth would have all decayed in less than a million years.³

So if samples were really over a million years old, there would be no radiocarbon left. But this is not what we find, even with very sensitive ¹⁴C detectors.⁴

Diamonds

Diamond is one of the hardest substances known, so its interior should be very resistant to contamination. Diamond requires very high pressure to form—pressure found naturally on earth only deep below the surface. Thus they probably formed at a depth of 100–200 km. Geologists believe that the ones we find must have been transported supersonically⁵ to the surface, in extremely violent eruptions through volcanic pipes. Some are found in these pipes, such as kimberlites, while other diamonds were liberated by water erosion and deposited elsewhere (called alluvial diamonds). According to evolutionists, the diamonds formed about 1–3 billion years ago.⁵

Dating diamonds

Geophysicist Dr John Baumgardner, part of the RATE research group,⁶ investigated ¹⁴C in a number of diamonds.⁷ There should be no ¹⁴C at all if they really were over a billion years old, yet the radiocarbon lab reported that there was over 10 times the detection limit. Thus they had a radiocarbon ‘age’ far less than a million years! Dr Baumgardner repeated this with six more alluvial diamonds from Namibia, and these had even more radiocarbon.

The presence of radiocarbon in these diamonds where there should be none is thus sparkling evidence for a ‘young’ world, as the Bible records.

I've just read/watched lots about carbon dating.  There is carbon found in diamonds (as mentioned in the article), in coal, in dinosaur bones, etc. Lots of scientists are aware of this evidence against an old earth and therefore against evolution, but will not (out of fear or loyalty) against the established religion of evolution.  By the way, isn't there something in the constitution about the state establishing a religion? Hmm...

I also hear that diamonds are a girl's best friend.

FM Dr. Jonathan Sarfati.

Oh yes, I discovered he was a superb chess player... very cool!

I won't put Evolution as a "religion" to be exact. More like a belief in it. I'd rather put Atheism as a religion.

I can definitely see that there's much blind faith in it.

It indeed take tremendous faith to believe in atheism.

Technically no, but I see your point

If everyone belongs to religious groups, then atheism is a religion, if some people are excluded, the other religions reserve to right to not call their beliefs a religious one. Otherwise it is unfair.

According to the first definition of religion, atheism isn't a religion. It CAN be according to the other ones

Religiously unaffiliated?

They HAVE to put in atheism as a Major religions group xD

Otherwise 16.3% of the population is missing (abducted by non-supernatural forces!!)

Lol

Thanks verte interesting, a good evidencie based in a científic investigación 😀👍

Mike Riddle also wrote a small pamphlet on why the C14 dating method is inaccurate. Similar content to this.

This is a fallacy, sorry, it presumes all diamonds were created at the same time and place along with all of the rest of our solar system, some of the logic is fine the premiss is flawed.

The different methods of carbon dating are getting more accurate as the database and missing parts are populated, but the always give a range of dates and do not state to be 100% accurate, science does not like presumptions of this nature.