Carbon dating is the heavy artillery that the scientific establishment trundles out to blast any arguments against its holy of holies, the Theory of Evolution. Anyone not well schooled in physics and other sciences is likely to be intimidated or to get lost in the explanations of exactly how the dating method works.
It’s really not all that difficult. One needn’t have a science background to see the flaws; one need only remember the fable about the emperor who had no clothes but everyone pretended he did because they were afraid to say he was naked.
In brief, carbon dating involves the cycles of “decay” by which organic materials are returned to an inorganic state. Atoms that comprise a substance known as carbon, over time, are synthesized into other atoms. Dating an old material can be achieved by determining how much of the carbon remains. At least that’s the theory.
Carbon is also a form of latent energy. Coal, for instance, is a carbon that can be easily transmuted into heat through the process of combustion. There is also a thermonuclear aspect involving atomic radiation which accounts for the light and heat provided by the solar sun and other stars.
The laws of physics pertaining to carbon are immutable and the scientific description of how it works is accurate. The question is not with the principle of carbon dating, but rather with the unprincipled manner in which it is often employed to “validate” questionable assumptions.
Carbon dating assumes a premise that time is the only factor impinging on the breakdown of carbon atoms. In other words, it assumes that all other factors have remained unchanged over the past thousands or millions of years. Yet even the most biased defender of the technique will acknowledge that a number of things have changed – drastic changes in world climate, for instance, along with cataclysmic volcano eruptions, earthquakes, great floods, meteor hits, perhaps even near collisions with other planetary bodies. Considerable combustion took place during some of these events, and carbon is a combustible material. It would be fair to say that carbon atoms have been subjected to a good deal more than time over the millenia.
Proponents of the evolutionary theory speak glibly of hundreds of millions of years required for evolution to, ah, evolve. The mathematical odds of atoms accidentially combining to form an amino acid, for instance, is so remote that theorists account for it by tacking on another hundred million years to their estimate of the earth’s history. The fact is that these theorists don’t have a clue as to how, for example, nucleotides, the building blocks of genes, were first formed. Their “answer” is to say that surely, given enough time, hundreds of millions of years perhaps, such an accident could happen. In short, it is all wild theory and not even remotely “scientific.” The vaunted theory of evolution, held in such esteem by “educated” people, is an emperor with no clothes.