MARGARET Oddly though, for all the attention it gets from creationists, the radiocarbon dating method is not the primary problem for those who want to believe the earth is young. There are dozens of other methods that date objects millions or even billions of years old that produce results far more problematic for creationists. The evidence for an old earth is so strong that many bible believing christians accept it. See the link below for a christian viewpoint. http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/radiometricdating/ The next link below is from a site that summarizes very well the mainstream scientific view of the age of the earth. http://www.stassen.com/chris/origins/faq-age-of-earth.html I will quote here, the conclusing paragraphs from the Christian web site mentioned above. Remember that this is not an atheist speaking, but a Christian: In short, there is an abundance of evidence pointing to an old earth. Before concluding this post, I want to give some actual results, quoted in the second link above, of age determinations on meteorites. The earth itself does not give age measurements as old as this, because it is believed that the first part of the earth's history was a stage in which whatever rocks were created did not survive until the present time. So the best idea of the age of the earth is derived indirectly from the ages of meteorites. Some of these age determinations are given below: Most of the other measurements for the age of the Earth rest upon calculating an age for the solar system by dating objects which are expected to have formed with the planets but are not geologically active (and therefore cannot erase evidence of their formation), such as meteorites. The table could not be easily reproduced in this post, but it contains a large number of results from meteorite samples whose ages average approximately 4.5 billion years. The table can be seen at the following URL, near the end of the page: http://www.stassen.com/chris/origins/faq-age-of-earth.html As shown in the table, there is excellent agreement on about 4.5 billion years, between several meteorites and by several different dating methods. Note that young-Earthers cannot accuse us of selective use of data -- the above table includes a significant fraction of all meteorites on which isotope dating has been attempted. According to Dalrymple (1991, p. 286), less than 100 meteorites have been subjected to isotope dating, and of those about 70 yield ages with low analytical error. Further, the oldest age determinations of individual meteorites generally give concordant ages by multiple radiometric means, or multiple tests across different samples." The above ages represent only a small fraction of the hundreds of dates available in mainstream science. Although there are a very few scientists, who for religious reasons, still maintain that the earth is young, they have never mounted a scientific challenge to data such as is shown above. Mainstream science has a coherent theory of the age of the earth, based on data such as the above. There is no competing coherent theory, that is based on real data, in the young earth camp. Creationists often claim that it is the assumption of an old earth or the need to support evolution that motivates mainstream scientists to claim an old earth. But the above ages, arrived at by more than one independent method, are dates that are objective and based on methods that are open to scrutiny and debate. Creationists could attack the methods and prove them wrong except for the fact that the methods are defensible and reasonable and objective. Although it is possible to find sites on the Internet that criticize these methods, to my knowledge, no YEC has ever published any critique in the peer reviewed literature that challenges these methods. With the thousands of journals available, the power to squelch a good paper is quite limited, so the possible argument that science censors any criticism does not hold any water with me. As a matter of fact, anyone who could show that the above dates are mistaken, would make a name for himself or herself in the history of science. So far, such a paper has not even appeared in the journals (one or two of them) that are under the control of creationists.