What do scientists find when they check for carbon-14 in fossils, rocks, and artifacts? Well, in 2001, a creationist named Paul Giem published an article reporting that he had found carbon-14 in every fossil he tested! Not only that, but his results suggested that the fossils he studied could not have been buried more than 25,000 years ago. This obviously does not fit conventional time scales, but instead opens the door for a compelling argument in favor of young-earth creationism.

This discovery did not immediately refute an old earth or Darwinian evolution. Evolutionists have an answer to their carbon-14 problem. They suggest that more recent carbon has contaminated the fossils, making them appear younger than they are. Scientists have even developed methods to remove the carbon-14 “contaminants” to get the dates that fit their model. Paul Giem already anticipated this answer, but this has not stopped evolutionists from dismissing this carbon-14 as contamination.

In more recent years, creationists have done deeper research into carbon dating, with some attempting to demonstrate that the leftover carbon-14 is not contamination. Andrew Snelling, for instance, found carbon-14 in diamonds which —due to their resistance to erosion, water, or abrasion— cannot be contaminated. In this case, evolutionists suggest the equipment used was experiencing “background radiation”. Snelling argued that the diamonds contained varying amounts of carbon-14, even when detected by the same machine. This rules out flaws in the equipment as an explanation.   

Creationists are not done with radiocarbon dating. Dr. Andrew Snelling and others are attempting to calibrate carbon dating to fit a young-earth model. When carbon dating is used, it yields dates that can reach 40,000 years of age. Why? Because an underlying assumption of carbon dating is that the amount of carbon in the atmosphere has not changed drastically in the past. This is linked to uniformitarianism, the conventional theory that things today are the same as they have always been. From a creationist perspective, however, this is not the case. The worldwide flood of Noah would have dramatically reduced carbon in the atmosphere. Assuming a dramatic carbon “reset” about 4,400 years ago, followed by a gradual restoration of carbon leading up to today, creationists can (hopefully) recalibrate carbon dating to yield dates that are accurate from a young-earth perspective.

For now, however, we need not fear the older dates yielded by carbon dating. We can even trust that conventional carbon dates, while not accurate in themselves, do reflect correct chronology. In other words, an artifact dated 20,000 years old is older than an artifact dated 10,000 years old, even if those dates are not quite accurate. Thus, creationists can infer data from carbon dating even without “fixing” the dates to fit the young Earth model.

Conventional archaeologists, evolutionists, and geologists cite carbon dating as an accurate dating technique. While the technique itself is valid, there is reason to believe the dates are miscalculated. Many creationists reject carbon dating as a whole because it seemingly yields ages older than 10,000 years. Just like carbon dating itself, both views of carbon dating need recalibration. Carbon dating is a sound method that will yield different dates depending on what assumptions are fed into it. Creation researchers have yet to perfect these calibrations, but the presence of carbon-14 in artifacts is encouraging evidence that the earth is not millions of years old.

The discussion of carbon dating’s role in the age of the Earth is not over. Creationists will work to fit carbon dating into their model, while conventional scientists will continue to accept carbon dating results. Is everyone still wrong? Well, yes. But perhaps “wrong” is too harsh a word. A more accurate–and gentle–description could be “in need of some recalibration.”