## Carbon dating is unreliable.

Carbon dating is probably the most used "evidence(?)" to support evolution. It is also a big lie. I'll explain.

Now don't run off yet, I added some scientific jargon, but it was unavoidable.

Many people have heard of carbon dating, yet many are mistaken under the idea that carbon dating is proof for millions and billions of years. this isn't the case. Carbon dating usually gives an age much smaller than this. But they continually retest until the get the age they want. That is not science! Here's how it works... (Skip over the white text if you wanna jump over the science.)

Most carbon atoms are a stable variety called carbon-12, but a small fraction of carbon is C-14 (carbon-14), which is unstable. Unstable means that C-14 is constantly decaying - it is continually and spontaneously (randomly) changing into nitrogen. This happens slowly, one atom at a time. At this rate, in 5,736 years, half of the C-14 will have decayed into nitrogen. After another 5,736 years, half of the remaining amount would have decayed, which means you have 1/4 of what you started with. After another 5,736 you have half of 1/4, 1/8, and so on. so by making certain assumptions and then measuring the amount of C-14 in an ancient sample, scientists are able to make a guess of how old the sample is.

Since C-14 decays rapidly, compared to a billion years, it would decay to an amount that we couldn't even detect after 100,000 years. In fact, if the entire mass of the earth were C-14, after one million years, not even one atom would be left!

Summary: Okay, seeing that you have skipped the above definition, i'll make this simpler. a man found a fishing rod near a lake once, it was somewhat fossilized. The actual age of the rod was about 50 years old. he took it to a lab and carbon dated it, it dated to be a few million years old. now pay attention, we know the age of that fishing rod was 50 years old, and it was carbon dated to be a few million. ask the evolutionist this: if we can't trust carbon dating when we know the actual age, how can we trust it if we don't know the age?

Now don't run off yet, I added some scientific jargon, but it was unavoidable.

Many people have heard of carbon dating, yet many are mistaken under the idea that carbon dating is proof for millions and billions of years. this isn't the case. Carbon dating usually gives an age much smaller than this. But they continually retest until the get the age they want. That is not science! Here's how it works... (Skip over the white text if you wanna jump over the science.)

Most carbon atoms are a stable variety called carbon-12, but a small fraction of carbon is C-14 (carbon-14), which is unstable. Unstable means that C-14 is constantly decaying - it is continually and spontaneously (randomly) changing into nitrogen. This happens slowly, one atom at a time. At this rate, in 5,736 years, half of the C-14 will have decayed into nitrogen. After another 5,736 years, half of the remaining amount would have decayed, which means you have 1/4 of what you started with. After another 5,736 you have half of 1/4, 1/8, and so on. so by making certain assumptions and then measuring the amount of C-14 in an ancient sample, scientists are able to make a guess of how old the sample is.

Since C-14 decays rapidly, compared to a billion years, it would decay to an amount that we couldn't even detect after 100,000 years. In fact, if the entire mass of the earth were C-14, after one million years, not even one atom would be left!

__Carbon dating certainly challenges the billions-of-years idea__. Just tell the evolutionist this: Carbon dating is unreliable because it can only measure under 100,000 years. which is nothing compared to 4.6 billion years.Summary: Okay, seeing that you have skipped the above definition, i'll make this simpler. a man found a fishing rod near a lake once, it was somewhat fossilized. The actual age of the rod was about 50 years old. he took it to a lab and carbon dated it, it dated to be a few million years old. now pay attention, we know the age of that fishing rod was 50 years old, and it was carbon dated to be a few million. ask the evolutionist this: if we can't trust carbon dating when we know the actual age, how can we trust it if we don't know the age?

__All credit due to Dr. Jason Lisle for the scientific definition of carbon dating from his book "The Ultimate Proof of Creation."__