Why do we use carbon 14 for carbon dating
Carbon from these sources is very low in C-14 because these sources are so old and have not been mixed with fresh carbon from the air.Thus, a freshly killed mussel has far less C-14 than a freshly killed something else, which is why the C-14 dating method makes freshwater mussels seem older than they really are.Well, if we’ve diluted it all, it looks like— MF: It’s really young. If we’ve diluted the carbon-14— MF: Oh, I see, right, right.CS: And you take an object, even a living one, it should have a lot of carbon-14; it doesn’t have much in there, it— actually, because it’s been diluted—but if you just gave that to somebody in a lab and you say, date this, they’ll say, oh, that’s 200 years old.So a lot of that decline you’re going to see in lake sediment in recent times is not because the lakes are getting cleaner, it’s just the illusion of all this carbon-13 being diluted out in the atmosphere.MF: Because it’s diluted by this massive amount of the other carbon.I mean, is it the same carbon that we’re talking about?Curt Stager: Yeah that’s actually pretty insightful.
This article will answer several of the most common creationist attacks on carbon-14 dating, using the question-answer format that has proved so useful to lecturers and debaters. Answer: Cosmic rays in the upper atmosphere are constantly converting the isotope nitrogen-14 (N-14) into carbon-14 (C-14 or radiocarbon).
CS: But I think you were referring to the carbon dating, and it’s actually kind of humorous what that’s doing to carbon dating, because what we normally do is look for carbon-14 radioactivity in the bodies of things we’re measuring.
Normally there’s a certain amount of carbon-14 circulating around in the air, but old fossil fuel carbon doesn’t have any, so the more we put into the air, the more diluted the carbon-14 around the world is.
Radiocarbon dating can easily establish that humans have been on the earth for over twenty thousand years, at least twice as long as creationists are willing to allow.
Therefore it should come as no surprise that creationists at the Institute for Creation Research (ICR) have been trying desperately to discredit this method for years.