I dont understand their claim.It makes no sense, ...these should have reached equilibrium after only 30,......
The archeobiologist will measure a rate of 0.00000000005% (half that of a living being) showing that the bone belongs to someone who died (therefore lived) some 5,700 years before the archeobiologist found the bone.
As for the explanation you quote, this is the typical "made up science" that Creationists invent to convince themselves of their own lies.
And the Bible is totally SILENT about the age of Earth. There is an estimate worked out to a bit above 6,000 years by a paranoid Calvinist (Ussher) during the 17th century (it was immediately rejected by Church historians as being way too low). And some more modern ones where one day (in Genesis 1) is interpreted as 1,000 years (from a note in letters from Peter).
However, in Genesis 2, the word used for "world" describes a region bounded by 4 rivers (Genesis 2 is the original Hebrew creation myth)
Genesis 1 was added later (maybe by Moses himself), as it is a modification of an older Babylonian creation myth involving seven gods. When the story was adapted for a monotheist religion, the seven gods became seven days.
So, either way, the Bible does not give an age for the planet.
Frankly, I don't understand their claim. It makes no sense, "...these should have reached equilibrium after only 30,000 years..." I'm not sure what's in "equilibrium" Are they saying that C12 and C14 should have equal abundances? If so, they just said in the previous statement that "Radiocarbon dating is based on the levels of Carbon 12 and Carbon 14 being equal in the atmosphere at time of death" and go on to state that that's not true.
Given the poorly worded claim, I'd say they do not entirely understand radiocarbon dating --- and I'd say it's false. But they are right about one thing, "even science can not prove without a doubt the age of things". That is mostly accurate. What is TRUE is that science can only measure things to some precision and accuracy. Any good scientist will propagate the errors and tell you the uncertainty on the claim. What is *FALSE* however, is the idea of "prove". Science does not prove things, mathematics proves things. Science measures things and uses models (usually mathematical ones) to give an explanation for the event. The fact that they insist on "proof" in science, is the hallmark of a fundamental misunderstanding of Science in general.
keywords: Is,claim,this,radiocarbon,regarding,039,correct,creationist,dating,Is this creationist's claim regarding radiocarbon dating correct
