Science Confirms a Young Earth—The Radioactive Dating Methods are Flawed
If this water is in contact with significant quantities of limestone, it will contain many carbon atoms from dissolved limestone.
Since limestone contains very little, if any, radiocarbon, clam shells will contain less radiocarbon than would have been the case if they had gotten their carbon atoms from the air. This gives the clam shell an artificially old radiocarbon age. This problem, known as the " reservoir effect ," is not of very great practical importance for radiocarbon dating since most of the artifacts which are useful for radiocarbon dating purposes and are of interest to archaeology derive from terrestrial organisms which ultimately obtain their carbon atoms from air, not the water.
MYTH 4. Samples of coal have been found with radiocarbon ages of only 20, radiocarbon years or less, thus proving the recent origin of fossil fuels, probably in the Flood.
I am not aware of any authentic research which supports this claim. Also, it does not coincide with what creationist scientists would currently anticipate based upon our understanding of the impact of the Flood on radiocarbon. It is not difficult to see how such a claim could arise, however.
There are two characteristics of the instrumental measurement of radiocarbon which, if the lay observer is unaware, could easily lead to such an idea. First, any instrument which is built to measure radiocarbon has a limit beyond which it cannot separate the signal due to radiocarbon in the sample from the signal due to background processes within the measuring apparatus. Even a hypothetical sample containing absolutely no radiocarbon will register counts in a radiocarbon counter because of background signals within the counter.
In the early days of radiocarbon analysis this limit was often around 20, radiocarbon years. Thus, all the researcher was able to say about samples with low levels of radiocarbon was that their age was greater than or equal to 20, radiocarbon years or whatever the sensitivity limit of his apparatus was. Some may have mistaken this to mean that the sample had been dated to 20, radiocarbon years. The second characteristic of the measurement of radiocarbon is that it is easy to contaminate a sample which contains very little radiocarbon with enough radiocarbon from the research environment to give it an apparent radiocarbon age which is much less than its actual radiocarbon age.
Flaws in carbon dating
It is not too difficult to supply contaminating radiocarbon since it is present in relatively high concentrations in the air and in the tissues of all living things including any individuals handling the sample. For this reason special precautions need to be exercised when sampling materials which contain only small amounts of radiocarbon.
Reports of young radiocarbon ages for coal probably all stem from a misunderstanding of one or both of these two factors.
Measurements made using specially designed, more elaborate apparatus and more astute sampling-handling techniques have yielded radiocarbon ages for anthracite greater than 70, radiocarbon years, the sensitivity limit of this equipment.
MYTH 5. Continuous series of tree-ring dated wood samples have been obtained for roughly the past 10, years which give the approximate correct radiocarbon age, demonstrating the general validity of the conventional radiocarbon dating technique. Several long tree-ring chronologies have been constructed specifically for use in calibrating the radiocarbon time scale.
By radiocarbon dating a piece of wood which has been dated by counting the annual growth rings of trees back to when that piece of wood grew, a calibration table can be constructed to convert radiocarbon years to true calendar years. Of course, the table, so constructed, will only give the correct calibration if the tree-ring chronology which was used to construct it had placed each ring in the true calendar year in which it grew.
Long tree-ring chronologies are rare there are only two that I am aware of which are of sufficient length to be of interest to radiocarbon and difficult to construct. They have been slowly built up by matching ring patterns between trees of different ages, both living and dead, from a given locality.
As one might expect, the further back the tree-ring chronology extends, the more difficult it becomes to locate ancient tree specimens with which to extend the chronology. To alleviate this problem it seems, from the published literature, to be a common practice to first radiocarbon date a large number of potential tree specimens and then select those with appropriate radiocarbon age for incorporation into the tree-ring chronology.
Such a procedure introduces a bias into the construction of the tree-ring chronology for the earliest millennia which could possibly obscure any unexpected radiocarbon behavior.
Jun 06, Though one of the most essential tools for determining an ancient object's age, carbon dating might not be as accurate as we once thought. When news is announced on the discovery of an. The field of radiocarbon dating has become a technical one far removed from the naive simplicity which characterized its initial introduction by Libby in the late 's. It is, therefore, not surprising that many misconceptions about what radiocarbon can or cannot do and what it has or has not shown are prevalent among creationists and evolutionists - lay people as well as scientists not. Jan 03, Carbon Dating Flaws - Doesn't Carbon Dating Disprove the Bible? January 3, Get the Full Hour Creation Seminar on DVD! This article will explain how carbon dating is supposed to work and then show you the serious flaws with this process. It is derived from a transcript of Dr. Hovind's video, which you can see above.
It is not clear to what extent this circular process has influenced the final tree-ring calibrations of radiocarbon. Efforts by creationist scientists to obtain the raw data from which the oldest tree-ring chronology has been constructed to investigate this possible source of bias have so far not met with success.
Until the raw data does become available for general scrutiny, creationists are clearly justified in maintaining a high degree of skepticism. In any event, the calibration tables which have been produced from tree rings do not support the conventional steady-state model of radiocarbon which Libby introduced.
Rather, they lend support to the idea that significant perturbations to radiocarbon have occurred in the past. Creationists are interested in the truth. This involves exposing areas of weakness and error in the conventional interpretation of radiocarbon results as well as suggesting better understandings of radiocarbon congruent with a Biblical, catastrophist, Flood model of earth history.
At ICR research into alternative interpretations of radiocarbon which are not in conflict with the Biblical record of the past continue to be actively pursued and a special radiocarbon laboratory is being developed for research into the method.
Radiocarbon holds unique potential for the student of earth history who adheres to a recent creation. It is doubtful that other radiometric dating techniques such as potassium-argon or rubidium-strontium will ever be of much value or interest to the young-earth creationist who desires to develop further our understanding of the past because they are only applicble on a time scale of millions or billions of years.
Radiocarbon, however, is applicable on a time scale of thousands of years. Each layer was assigned a name, an age, and an index fossil. The ages were chosen without any scientific reasoning: they were picked out of the clear blue sky!
Now any dating technique that comes along, like carbon dating, has to match the geologic column: or it is rejected. This is only because the geologic column has been taught for so long now and is assumed to be true. Just because something has been taught for a long time does not make it true.
Carbon dating is unreliable for objects older than about 30, years, but uranium-thorium dating may be possible for objects up to half a million years old, Dr. Zindler said. The method is less Founded: Sep 18,
However, this is the logic most scientists have. They might have to test a sample 5 or 6 times until they get the age that they want.
How would you know any of the dates given are right if you are getting a different one every time? Fossils are dated by their geological position. And as we mentioned earlier the dates on the geologic column were chosen out of the clear blue sky with no scientific basis. So their entire dating method for dating rocks and fossils is based off of circular reasoning.
Site Information Navigation
The atmosphere has very distinctive layers to it. This radioactive carbon 14 is different from regular carbon.
It is produced by radiation striking the atmosphere. In essence, sunlight strikes the atmosphere, slaps the nitrogen around, and turns it into carbon So it all starts by the sunlight striking the atmosphere.
About 21 pounds of carbon 14 is produced every year; and that is spread out all over the world. If you look at a periodic table you will notice that Carbon and Nitrogen are right next to each other.
Nitrogen has an atomic weight of 14 and Carbon has an atomic weight of If the sunlight slaps the nitrogen around, like talked about earlier, it will knock a few things off of it and it becomes Carbon It still weighs as much as nitrogen, but it is now considered carbon.
It is called radioactive because it is unstable and will eventually break apart.
Carbon dating accuracy called into question after major flaw discovery
On average half of it will break down every 5, years. While it is Carbon 14 it is floating around in the atmosphere and latches onto oxygen becoming carbon dioxide.
During photosynthesis plants breathe in carbon dioxide and make it part of their tissue. Animals eat plants and make it part of their bodies as well. This is how Carbon 14 gets into the living world. It gets produced in the atmosphere from the sun, the plants breathe it in, and the animals eat the plants.
We have all either eaten plants or eaten animals that have eaten plants. The plants are breathing in this carbon dioxide and some of the carbon is radioactive. If the atmosphere contains.Carbon 14 Dating Problems - Nuclear Chemistry & Radioactive Decay
So, you probably have. When a plant or animal dies it stops taking in carbon 14 and whatever it had starts to decay. It was decaying while it was alive, but now there is nothing coming in to replace it. So what they do is compare the amount of carbon 14 in the fossil to the amount of carbon 14 in the atmosphere. If the fossil only contains half as much carbon 14 as the atmosphere, it is assumed to have been dead for one half-life, or 5, years. While it was alive it should have had. If a fossil only has.
In theory the amount of carbon 14 never goes to zero. However, for practical purposes we cannot measure passed a certain amount.
In last Tuesday's lecture, radiocarbon dating was covered briefly. It is an essential technology that is heavily involved in archaeology and should be explored in greater depth. Radiocarbon dating uses the naturally occurring isotope Carbon to approximate the age of organic materials. These "materials" can be almost anything. Jun 05, Radiocarbon dating is a key tool archaeologists use to determine the age of plants and objects made with organic material. But new research shows Author: Daniel Aloi. I did not restrict my discussion to carbon dating. The same fatal problem applies to all dating methods. I discussed carbon dating and tree-ring chronologies towards the end of my comment above dated July 1, I included a couple of links to articles about tree-ring chronologies. You do not find one tree with 8, or 10, rings in it.
There should be no measurable carbon 14 after about 40, - 50, years. Yet it has proven impossible to find any natural source of carbon below Pleistocene Ice Age strata that does not contain significant amounts of carbon 14, even though such strata are supposed to be millions or billions of years old.
These constitute very strong evidence that the earth is only thousands, not billions, of years old. Now think for a minute of what this means. The textbooks say that coal formed million years ago. However, when coal is tested it still has carbon How is that possible? If all of the carbon 14 atoms would have disappeared at a maximum ofyears, why would there still be carbon 14 atoms in coal? Obviously it is not million years old. Also diamonds, which they say formed millions and millions of years ago, still have carbon 14 in them.