Scientific arguments against carbon dating
The finding of pliable blood vessels, blood cells, animal proteins, and even DNA in dinosaur bone is consistent with an age of thousands of years for the fossils, not the 65 million years claimed by the paleontologists.
Fw-300 #ya-qn-sort h2 /* Breadcrumb */ #ya-question-breadcrumb #ya-question-breadcrumb i #ya-question-breadcrumb a #bc .ya-q-full-text, .ya-q-text #ya-question-detail h1 html[lang="zh-Hant-TW"] .ya-q-full-text, html[lang="zh-Hant-TW"] .ya-q-text, html[lang="zh-Hant-HK"] .ya-q-full-text, html[lang="zh-Hant-HK"] .ya-q-text html[lang="zh-Hant-TW"] #ya-question-detail h1, html[lang="zh-Hant-HK"] #ya-question-detail h1 /* Trending Now */ /* Center Rail */ #ya-center-rail .profile-banner-default .ya-ba-title #Stencil . Bgc-lgr .tupwrap .comment-text /* Right Rail */ #Stencil .
Also, a number of the evidences, rather than giving any estimate of age, challenge the assumption of slow-and-gradual uniformitarianism, upon which all deep-time dating methods depend.
It makes no sense at all if man appeared at the end of billions of years.
We will deal with carbon dating first and then with the other dating methods.
When the evolutionists throw up some new challenge to the Bible’s timeline, don’t fret over it.
Sooner or later that supposed evidence will be turned on its head and will even be added to this list of evidences for a young age of the earth.