Carbon dating is inaccurate and the trees are lying too?

Maurog II asked:

I often hear the claim that carbon dating is inaccurate, but it seems to be consistent with other methods of dating, such as counting the rings of really old trees to check their age.

Have the trees been lying to us by adding extra rings to fool us into thinking carbon dating is reliable? Are trees in league with Satan, starting from that tree of knowledge gig and on?

Website content

Share and Enjoy:

Tweet This Post

Comments (15) Posted in Religion & Spirituality

Subscribe RSS 2.0 feed. Leave a response, or Trackback from your own site.

Best Deal Ads :

15 Responses to 'Carbon dating is inaccurate and the trees are lying too?'

Rebecca - July 13th, 2008 at 2:45 pm
I agree with you.

I don’t understand how some people think how everything is only a couple thousand years old.
Pec - July 14th, 2008 at 5:03 am
Don’t forget clonal colony plants that have been alive for tens of thousands of years and still are.
Spirit Wanderer- Atheati Samurai - July 15th, 2008 at 7:56 am
I wonder if they realize we have other forms of dating, which collaborate with carbon dating….
Rough side of the sponge - July 18th, 2008 at 1:38 am
The trees aren’t lying.
The people are in denial.
Danielle - July 24th, 2008 at 3:08 pm
Well, Druids worship trees, and Druids are obviously in league with Satan!!one1!!

xD
Dynah - July 25th, 2008 at 5:23 am
You might remember that Satan was first spotted slithering down the tree of knowledge, could be he was readjusting the rings.
hasse_john - July 26th, 2008 at 6:31 am
And how old is your oldest tree? Perhaps it has been consistent that far back, but how can you PROVE it has been consistent FOREVER? Consider that if you measure the silt carried by any of the major rivers, and how much is in their delta, each of the rivers has been flowing for about 5000 years! How can you harmonize THAT with your ‘millions and millions of years’?
joe b - July 26th, 2008 at 12:52 pm
Your assumption is that if carbon dating were accurate that in itself would disprove the bible/Christianity. It would disprove them only according to your intended desires and standard of what constitutes proof. God created the world somewhat as we see it now. In other words God created the perception of timed geology along with the creation of the world. He made Mount Everest with evry strata of rock and geology as you see it. Leaving you with the assumption that it occurred by itself.

John 1:5
The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood it.

1 Corinthians 1
21 For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe. 22Jews demand miraculous signs and Greeks look for wisdom, 23but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles,

Matthew 11:25
At that time Jesus said, “I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children.

2 Corinthians 4:4
The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.

Luke 8
9 His disciples asked him what this parable meant. 10 He said, “The knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of God has been given to you, but to others I speak in parables, so that, “though seeing, they may not see; though hearing, they may not understand.’
John S, BaC - July 27th, 2008 at 10:36 am
Carbon dating is not consistently accurate. Some dates on certain specimens are believable.
However we still have to deal with the cowboy boot with a leg bone still in it that dates 240,000 years old. We know thats wrong. You can still identify the boot make.
And, the half life of c-14 is 5730 years. Its really dumb to attempt to date something that is thought to be 250 million years old with that method. Its just not a good idea.

Tree rings can indicate wet/dry seasons. In some instances you can have 4 or 5 seasonal changes in one year. It just depends on the tree, the environment, and other circumstances.

BTW- carbon dating is not uses much for anything anyway- why is it even an issue? Dino bones are dated by what layer of the geologic strata they are found in- not any radio-metric method.
Boo - July 30th, 2008 at 12:25 pm
Yeah, Ronald Reagan tried to warn us about the trees. Those lying, carbon-spewing, Druid-loving atheist sacks of sh1t.
Don’t get me started on the trees.
Frog E - August 2nd, 2008 at 11:25 am
According to young earthers all knowledge outside the intellectual vacuum known as the bible is in in league with Satan . Doesn’t it make you wonder how they cope with life ? I often wonder if they use a light switch when it gets dark or just scream let there be light ! Then huddle in the corner and whimper when it doesn’t work .
ruth - August 3rd, 2008 at 10:03 am
So, you’ve got a tree with 4.5 billion rings on it, have you? I doubt there is evidence of tree ring growth beyond 2,000 years. So, it would seem that carbon dating is based on the assumption that there have been no changes, which I find ironic since it is used to try to prove the theory of evolution.
Renata - August 5th, 2008 at 1:00 am
Go to this web site, to see how consistent carbon dating is with dendrochronology. Go ahead, it’s not Christian………
Did you know that tropical trees don’t have easily identifiable growth rings? Or that trees may have more than one growth ring in a year, if they go through extremes of climate change in that year?
So if the tree ring record shows one thing and carbon dating shows another, there’s really not a consistency in methods of dating.
the Christian - August 5th, 2008 at 10:36 pm
With inaccuracy comes inperfection….carbon dating has its flaws just like everything man does. Are you saying carbon dating is perfect?

God loves you…..God bless
Pradeep P - August 9th, 2008 at 9:22 am
my dear friend,

its not carbon dating but its radio carbon dating.

any material has a small part of radio carbon.

with that age is calculate not only of trees but fossils and so on.

but religionists oppose it because it ridicules them.

hence they hair split.

can u find in any religious book water is made of hydrogen and oxygen.

all inventiond are due to how and why?

not accepting because verses said