Carbon dating reliability
And, of course, the reported error ignores the huge uncertainties in the Creationist physicists point to several lines of evidence that decay rates have been faster in the past, and propose a pulse of accelerated decay during Creation Week, and possibly a smaller pulse during the Flood year. He may suggest that some of the chemicals in the rock had been disturbed by groundwater or weathering.
What would our geologist think if the date from the lab were less than 30 million years, say 10.1 ± 1.8 million years? Or he may decide that the rock had been affected by a localized heating event—one strong enough to disturb the chemicals, but not strong enough to be visible in the field.
’ In fact, there is a whole range of standard explanations that geologists use to ‘interpret’ radiometric dating results.
Even different samples of rock collected from the same outcrop would give a larger scatter of results. He would again say that the calculated age did not represent the time when the rock solidified.In fact, he would have been equally happy with any date a bit less than 200 million years or a bit more than 30 million years.They would all have fitted nicely into the field relationships that he had observed and his interpretation of them.Clearly, Sedimentary Rocks A were deposited and deformed before the Volcanic Dyke intruded them.These were then eroded and Sedimentary Rocks B were deposited.
Search for carbon dating reliability:
It is clear that the sedimentary rock was deposited and folded before the dyke was squeezed into place.