The Conversation UK receives funding from Hefce, Hefcw, SAGE, SFC, RCUK, The Nuffield Foundation, The Ogden Trust, The Royal Society, The Wellcome Trust, Esmée Fairbairn Foundation and The Alliance for Useful Evidence, as well as sixty five university members.View the full list Radiocarbon dating has transformed our understanding of the past 50,000 years.The impact by man and climate is also studied since the early days of the method. The tools for measurements and statistical analysis have been improved during these first 3 or 4 decades, allowing interpretations not possible earlier.δC determinations are mostly very important and useful, but sometimes they have been misleading in discussions of the origin of carbon, especially for human tissues—the metabolism was not yet fully understood.First, it provides no evidence whatsoever to support their claim that the earth is very young.If the earth were only 6000–10 000 years old, then surely there should be some scientific evidence to confirm that hypothesis; yet the creationists have produced not a shred of it so far.The total mass of the isotope is indicated by the numerical superscript.
In most instances, these efforts are flawed because the authors have misunderstood or misrepresented the data they attempt to analyze (for example, Woodmorappe 1979; Morris HM 1985; Morris JD 1994).
Chemists, geophysicists, botanists, physiologists, statisticians, and other researchers have contributed to a prosperous interdisciplinary development.
Some pitfalls were not recognized from the beginning, although issues such as contamination problems were foreseen by Libby.
The dating of rocks by the radioactive decay of certain minerals is undoubtedly the main argument today for the dogma of an old earth.
But the Bible clearly teaches a recent creation of both the heavens and the earth, so Christians have often tried to reinterpret this doctrine to accommodate the long ages required by radioactive dating.