Arguments against relative dating
The following material has been taken from a sheet entitled Several Faulty Assumptions Are Used in all Radiometric Dating Methods.Carbon 14 is used for this example:, which was put out by Dr. is presently only 1/3 of the way to an equilibrium value which will be reached in 30,000 years. Knowing how faulty creationist "facts" can be, let's do a little research of our own.When the dipole moment is strong, carbon-14 production is suppressed below normal; when it is weak, carbon-14 production is boosted above normal.What the magnetic field does is to partially shield the earth from cosmic rays which produce carbon-14 high in the atmosphere.This nullifies the carbon-14 method as well as demonstrating that the earth is less than 10,000 years old. One suspects that the scientific world would not be using the carbon-14 method if it were so obviously flawed.Could it be that the whole scientific community has missed this point, or is it another case of creationist daydreaming?It's a great argument except for one, little thing.
A study of the deviations from the accurate tree-ring dating sequence shows that the earth's magnetic field has an important effect on carbon-14 production.
Creationists don't want their readers to be distracted with problems like that -- unless the cat is already out of the bag and something has to be said.
Tree-ring dating (see Topic 27) gives us a wonderful check on the radiocarbon dating method for the last 8000 years.
This argument was popularized by Henry Morris (1974, p.164), who used some calculations done in 1968 by Melvin Cook to get the 10,000-year figure. Whitelaw, using a greater ratio of carbon-14 production to decay, concluded that only 5000 years passed since carbon-14 started forming in the atmosphere!
The argument may be compared to filling a barrel which has numerous small holes in its sides.