Creation Science Rebuttals

The Problem of Carbon

     In the opening of this article, Tripp says that carbon dating is thought of as the main compelling evidence for evolution.  He goes on to say the Bible's age of the earth is 6,000 to 9,000 years, but that date is "incompatible with artifacts dated at hundreds of times such a figure."  Hundreds of times those figures would be a minimum of 600,000 years.  Carbon dating currently is only valid for artifacts less than 62,000 years old!  Right from the opening paragraphs, Tripp shows that he doesn't know what he is talking about.

     After the lengthy introduction, his first argument is that "Scientists performing radiocarbon dating assume that the amount in the environment has not changed."    Here we see another instance of Tripp not knowing what he is talking about.  Scientists do not assume the carbon levels are constant throughout time.  Calibration curves have been formulated from the actual carbon-14 levels in the atmosphere in the past.  This data has been obtained from tree-ring analysis, and calibration curves (the known level of C-14 in the air) are known for the last 11,000 years.

     Next, Tripp shows his ignorance of currently accepted young earth creation science theory.  He says "For example, consider that it is essentially accepted that an antediluvian water canopy existed surrounding the earth."  A quick check of the Answers in Genesis website, and the Institute for Creation Research site, will reveal that this theory is unworkable, and has been abandoned by young earth creationists.  He says this canopy would affect the amount of Carbon-14.  If the canopy were true, it would indeed affect it.  However, it would also already be accounted for in the calibration curves which go back 11,000 years.  He brings up other issues, such as dust in the atmosphere from a meteor strike.  Again, the correct level of C-14 would already be factored into the calibration curves for the year in question.

    Tripp then uses the declining magnetic field argument.  He says it has been declining since the creation.  Yes, it has been declining over the last several thousand years, but this ignores the fact that the field has both strengthened and weakened many times over the millions of years that have been analyzed. 

     He then makes a claim that is totally ridiculous.  He first mentions the limitation of carbon-14's half life.  This is valid, and a known limitation (the 62,000 year limit for dating objects is because of the half-life).  He goes on to claim "yet daily society is barraged with reports that some new find was dated in the hundreds of thousands, and even millions of years using Carbon 14."  No scientist has put forth any claims that carbon dating proves something is hundreds of thousands, or millions of years old.  If he has evidence of such false claims, bring them forth!  It is possible, that a reporter, putting together a story on something that is millions of years old, and the reporter "assumes" it to be dated by C-14.  But this is incorrect, and is the reporter's fault, not the scientists fault.  He claims this occurs daily, but in over 25 years of studying the creation, and reading newspapers and viewing television reports, I have never seen such a claim.

For More Reading

How Good are those Young Earth Arguments: Carbon Dating

   Want to learn more about creation science?  Are the claims of young earth creation science ministries truthful?  Visit the young earth creation science ministry rebuttal home page for more truth in creation science.