How Do Diamonds Prove Our Planet Is Young, and Not Billions of Years Old?

Because Carbon Dating is so often referred to, it is important to continue the discussion how Carbon Dating actually supports the viewpoint that we live on a young earth, rather than on a planet that is four-plus billions of years old as Darwinists claim it is.

By way of review of previous articles discussing Carbon-14 dating, Carbon Dating relies on several assumptions which corrupt the integrity of the dates that it obtains.

In Carbon Dating the amount of Carbon-14 remaining within organic remains is measured. Carbon-14 is produced up in the earth's atmosphere. During the process of photosynthesis, plants take in CO2, which contains trace amounts of Carbon-14. The plants' tissue thus contains trace amounts of Carbon-14.

When an animal breathes in air, eats a plant, or eats an animal which ate a plant, that animal also takes in trace amounts of Carbon-14 which becomes a part of its tissue. Once a plant or animal dies it stops taking in additional amounts of Carbon-14, and because Carbon-14 decays away over time, the less Carbon-14 found in an organic remain the older will be the age assigned to that particular remain.

As I stated in those previous articles, to derive the age of an item based on Carbon Dating, several wild guesses, which are referred to as assumptions, must be made. It is these assumptions that completely corrupt the integrity of the Carbon Dating method.

For example, scientists using the Carbon Dating method in order to ascertain the age of a particular organic remain must assume that the rate of Carbon-14 decay has always remained the same. Since no one was there to test, study or observe that the rate of decay has always been the same, this single wild guess, if incorrect, will cause the supposed age obtained by this particular dating method to be completely in error.

Still, most of these researchers appear to agree that measurable Carbon-14 should decay away in less than 100,000 years (most scientists claim an even shorter duration for complete decay). Please realize that this is an assumption, a wild guess, because there was no one around to test, study and observe that the decay rate of Carbon-14 has always been the same.

Based on the above-stated premise, Carbon Dating cannot gauge the age of an object older than 100,000 years since there would be no Carbon-14 left to measure if the item is actually that old, or older.

This is of particular interest because secular teachings claim that most diamonds are a billion or more years old, which is at least 10,000 one-hundred-thousand-year periods of time. If diamonds, and the earth, are indeed billions of years old, diamonds should never contain Carbon-14.

However, the Carbon Dating of diamonds from around the world provides strong proof that the earth is only a few thousand years old. Recent studies of diamonds obtained from various parts of the world reveal that the sparklers still contain amounts of Carbon-14. This proves that the diamonds can only be a few thousand years old, not millions, much less billions, of years in age.

Again, Carbon-14 Dating is proving to be unfriendly to the old-earth claims, which are a prerequisite for Darwinism and the secular worldview which is based upon "billions of years leading to Darwinian-style evolution" being true.

Seed Newsvine

Bookmark this article in your preferred program

Comments

Sat, 28 Feb 2009 at 8:58 PM, by Milton Crow
Not all diamonds are ancient. Some are formed by meteor impacts, and since they are formed at the earth's surface, they may contain carbon-14.

The decay of any radio-isotope is a physical constant, like gravity or the boiling point of water. Saying that carbon-14 might have decayed at a different rate in the distant past is like saying that gravity might not have existed before people were here to experience it, or that water might have boiled at 70°C 2,000 years ago. How do we really know it boiled at 100°C if no one had a thermometer to measure it? A wild guess?

Sat, 18 Jul 2009 at 8:16 AM, by James
The boiling point of water is not constant, it is depentant on atmospheric pressure

I think your answer would also raise reasonable dubt. As, as you say, No one was around to measure it.

Who nos

The only thing constant is change.

Add Comment

Popular Articles in this cathegory

This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 License.