It is assumed that we are dealing with a closed system—no loss of either parent or daughter elements has occurred since the study material formed.
Evolutionists assume that the rate of cosmic bombardment of the atmosphere has always remained constant and that the rate of decay has remained constant.
Scientists place great faith in this dating method, and yet more than 50% of radiocarbon dates from geological and archaeological samples of northeastern North America have been deemed unacceptable after investigation.
This assumption is backed by numerous scientific studies and is relatively sound.
However, conditions may have been different in the past and could have influenced the rate of decay or formation of radioactive elements.
You can help Amazing Discoveries reduce costs by upgrading or replacing your internet browser with one of the options below.
We thank you in advance for partnering with us in this small but significant way. All methods of radioactive dating rely on three assumptions that may not necessarily be true: It is assumed that the rate of decay has remained constant over time.Carbon-14 comes from nitrogen and is independent of the carbon-12 reservoir.If even a small percentage of the limestone deposits were still in the form of living marine organisms at the time of the Flood, then the small amount of carbon-14 would have mixed with a much larger carbon-12 reservoir, thus resulting in a drastically reduced ratio.Specimens would then look much older than they actually are.d) Even if the rate of decay is constant, without knowledge of the exact ratio of carbon-12 to carbon-14in the initial sample, the dating technique is subject to question.We could put forward the following counter arguments to the constancy of these assumptions: a) The constancy of cosmic ray bombardment might be questioned.