Levels of carbon-14 become difficult to measure and compare after about 50,000 years (between 8 and 9 half lives; where 1% of the original carbon-14 would remain undecayed).The question should be whether or not carbon-14 can be used to date any artifacts at all? There are a few categories of artifacts that can be dated using carbon-14; however, they cannot be more 50,000 years old.Carbon-14 cannot be used to date biological artifacts of organisms that did not get their carbon dioxide from the air.This rules out carbon dating for most aquatic organisms, because they often obtain at least some of their carbon from dissolved carbonate rock.
Davison • Mind and Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature Is Almost Certainly False • Moody Institute of Science • Polonium halos • Providence Lost: A Critique of Darwinism • Rethinking Darwin: A Vedic Study of Darwinism and Intelligent Design • Seeking God in Science: An Atheist Defends Intelligent Design • Suboptimal design • The Darwin Myth: The Life and Lies of Charles Darwin • The End of Darwinism • The Mystery of Life's Origin: Reassessing Current Theories • The Origin of Human Nature: A Zen Buddhist Looks at Evolution • The Wonders of Creation Reveal God's Glory • Thomas Nagel • Academic Freedom Act • Edwards v.
Carbon dating is used to determine the age of biological artifacts up to 50,000 years old.
This technique is widely used on recent artifacts, but educators and students alike should note that this technique will not work on older fossils (like those of the dinosaurs alleged to be millions of years old).
The level of atmospheric Radiometric dating in general, of course, poses a huge problem for people who believe that the universe is 6000-odd years old.
A favorite tactic of Young-Earthers involves citing studies which show trace amounts of Indeed, this results from a unique decay mode known as "cluster decay" where a given isotope emits a particle heavier than an alpha particle (radium-226 is an example.) This fact is extremely inconvenient to them, and creationist literature, accordingly, usually does not mention it.