Brian writes:
Oh, you provide a lovely example of the great creationist trait of selective quoting..
Good point. You caught me. But the fact still remains that even though the information given is not fully clear yet, there still remains the question of whether our dating methods are accurate. As for ICR, though I've come across some rather one-sided arguments and books from them, such as "Refuting Evolution," I've found that some of their research is helpful in understanding new questions that have been recently raised.
Coragyps writes:
It's a pretty sure bet that the Hell Creek Formation is over 65,000,000 years old. What's lacking, as Schweitzer points out, is a few bits of knowledge about the variety of ways things can get fossilized.
Do have some reliable sources? I know the issue is widely agreed upon but just wonder where the key sources are.
To continue with the dating methods . . .
Don Batten, Ken Ham, Jonathan Sarfati, and Carl Wieland of
http://www.answersingenesis.org state -
"The strength of the earth’s magnetic field affects the amount of cosmic rays entering the atmosphere. A stronger magnetic field deflects more cosmic rays away from the earth. Overall, the energy of the earth’s magnetic field has been decreasing,5 so more 14C is being produced now than in the past. This will make old things look older than they really are.
Also, the Genesis flood would have greatly upset the carbon balance. The flood buried a huge amount of carbon, which became coal, oil, etc., lowering the total 12C in the biosphere (including the atmosphere”plants regrowing after the flood absorb CO2, which is not replaced by the decay of the buried vegetation). Total 14C is also proportionately lowered at this time, but whereas no terrestrial process generates any more 12C, 14C is continually being produced, and at a rate which does not depend on carbon levels (it comes from nitrogen). Therefore, the 14C/12C ratio in plants/animals/the atmosphere before the flood had to be lower than what it is now.
Unless this effect (which is additional to the magnetic field issue just discussed) were corrected for, carbon dating of fossils formed in the flood would give ages much older than the true ages."
link -
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/carbon_dating.asp
Don't be scared away by Jonathan Sarfati, I think this quote at least proposes a significant question of reliability. It seems that while carbon dating does tell us that Hell Creek Formation is around 65,000,000 years old, does it just appear to be so because of the effects from the flood and other causes? Could the new evidence about tissue inside fossils support that claim? Even if you don't agree with the flood, (which geographically, at least to me is hard to disagree with, but that's another subject for a different thread) assuming just for the minute that it did occur, could our techniques be outdated?
Sources:
K.L. McDonald and R.H. Gunst, ”An Analysis of the Earth's Magnetic Field from 1835 to 1965,’ ESSA Technical Report IER 46-IES, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington D.C., p. 14, 1965.