(We are not implying dishonesty here, merely showing how powerfully the evolutionary/uniformitarian concepts of Earth history influence great scientists to mould or discard evidence which appears to contradict that viewpoint.) What about modern measurements, using advanced technology such as satellites?
Unfortunately for the ‘old-Earth’ advocates, the studies of such renowned atmospheric physicists as Suess and Lingenfelter show that C is entering the system some 30-32% faster than it is leaving it.
Carbon-14 dating—explained in everyday terms by Dr Carl Wieland An attempt to explain this very important method of dating and the way in which, when fully understood, it supports a ‘short’ timescale.
In fact, the whole method is a giant ‘clock’ which seems to put a very young upper limit on the age of the atmosphere.
This is especially remarkable with samples of coal and gas supposedly produced in the carboniferous 100 million years ago! Note that the data presented does not necessarily endorse a particular age for the Earth, but reveals a pattern We see, then, that far from being an embarrassment to the creationist who believes in a young Earth, the radiocarbon method of dating—when fully understood in accordance with modern atmospheric data—gives powerful support to his position.
Some examples of dates which contradict orthodox (evolutionary) views: , pub.
Remember that this correction is based on measurable scientific data, not on any creationist preconceptions.
We need to consider two other effects: In any case, even the incorrect ‘uniform’ model has given, in many cases, serious embarrassment to evolutionists by giving ages which are much younger than those he expects in terms of his model of earth history.Imagine the same tank, this time it is not yet full and the top tap is flowing more quickly than the bottom one is leaking out—this gives you a way of measuring how long ago the whole system was ‘switched on’ and it also tells you that that can’t have been too long ago (see diagram above).Libby knew that if these figures were correct, it would mean that the atmosphere was young, so he dismissed the results as being due to experimental error!So we can ill afford to stand around with lengthy introductions and instead must dive straight into one of the more egregious posts: “Mammoths have been used quite frequently to promote the idea of evolution theory and old habits die hard among theorists.Here once again, we see the remains of mammoths being paraded as evidence for evolution, when quite the opposite is true.I’m somewhat skeptical that describing a CT scan as high-tech is part of some brainwashing campaign.