Radiocarbon dating - Wikipedia
reasons why you cant trust carbon dating creationist creationism evolution The results can be as much as million years different from each other!. While this research doesn't necessarily throw carbon dating out the window, carbon dating can only be trusted up to million years ago. Theoretically, carbon dating can be used to estimate the ages of .. have been constant for many thousands, if not millions of years! . at up to ca years) due to incorporation of carbon ultimately derived from limestone.”.
We have to take into consideration the effect of the bias of the person who interprets the data upon those dates which get published. The bias of the evolutionist interpreter of the Carbon data is that they see a normalized curve pattern as more important than the actual apparent age. The Carbon dating method is known to have flaws which cause an uneven chronology. This attempt to calibrate Carbon utterly fails for two reasons. The amount of Carbon in the atmosphere has not reached a constant level!
This is a critical piece of information in demonstrating the useless nature of the Carbon dating technique. Stansfield, Science of Evolution New York: Ralph and Henry M. The ramifications of this information are stunning. Please consider the following list of examples of Carbon dates which demonstrate just how far off Carbon dates can be: Shells from living snails were carbon dated as being 2, years old.
Mortar from an English castle less than years old, was Carbon dated as 7, years old.
Carbon Dating: How old is it really?
Natural gas from Alabama and Mississippi Cretaceous and Eocene, respectively - should have been 50 to million years old according to evolutionary time scales; however, they were Carbon dated at 30, and 34, respectively. A block of wood from the Cretaceous Period supposedly more than 70 million years old was found encased in a block of Cambrian rock hundreds of millions of years earlierbut was Carbon dated as 4, years old.
Bones of a saber-toothed tiger from the LaBrea tar pits, supposedlyyears old, gave a Carbon date of 28, years old. Coal from Russia, dated as Pennsylvanian Period and supposedly million years old, was Carbon dated as only being 1, years old! Mammoth bones from St. The dates were challenged by evolutionists, but then re-confirmed. InTriceratops and Hadrosaur femurs were found in Montana. Bone collagen was radiocarbon dated.
In one study of eleven sets of ancient human bones, all were dated at about 5, radiocarbon years or less. Vereshchagin and Alexei N. Merelotovedenia Institute,p. This Carbon should be non-existent if the wood were more than aboutyears old. However, the limestone surrounding the wood was dated as Jurassic, supposedly million years old.
Young radiocarbon date for ancient fossil wood challenges fossil dating, Creation 22 2: The 30 foot long tree presents a major problem for the arbitrary dating of the Geologic Column. The evolutionary age assigned to the strata is Million Years Old. There should be no measurable Radioactive Carbon in this tree!
The Carbon from the tree dated as 12, years old!! Burnt wood was found within Cretaceous Limestone, supposedly 65 to million years old.
The C content was dated by Dr. This means that none of these footprints could be older than about 13, years according to the Carbon dating technique. Carbon has been found in very unexpected places, too. Places that it should not exist at all. Carbon has been found inside twelve diamonds. They have been found to contain very high amounts of Carbon According to evolutionary assumptions, the diamonds were supposedly 1 to 3 billion years old.
In Vardiman, L, A. A Snelling and E. Chaffin editorsRadioisotopes and the Age of the Earth, pp. Hydrothermal vent fluids ejected from the Mid-Atlantic Ridge contain methane CH4 with Carbon contents ranging from 1. The authors believe that the hydrocarbons were produced by abiogenic Fischer-Tropsch type reactions. Abiogenic hydrocarbon production at Lost City Hydrothermal Field. Carbon has been found in a gold mine.
The Ar-Ar [Argon-Argon] radiometric dating method yielded a date of 32 million years old. The Carbon dating method yielded a date of 41, years old. Carbon has been found in coal. Carbon should not exist in any carbon compound supposedly older thanyears.
Yet it has been impossible to find any natural carbon compound that does not contain significant Carbon, even those supposed to be millions and billions of years old. In fact, we may say that almost all coal is the same age. There is no known correlation between the amount of Carbon contained in specific coal deposits and the supposed evolutionary geological age of that coal! EdsRadioisotopes and the Age of the Earth, Vol.
Carbon has been found in natural gas deposits. Carbon has been found in natural gas supposedly to million years old. The carbon dioxide found in the Valverde Basin gas fields of southwest Texas has significant amounts of Carbon The Carbon dates supposedly range from 37, to 49, years old.
Carbon has been found in every portion of the Phanerozoic Age supposedly million years ago to the present! Organic samples from every portion of the Phanerozoic display detectable amounts of C, even in the standard radiocarbon literature. Libby] found a considerable discrepancy in his measurements indicating that, apparently, radiocarbon was being created in the atmosphere somewhere around 25 percent faster than it was becoming extinct.
There is one that is very persuasive: What a horrible thought for staunch uniformitarianists! Could this be the main reason most scientists ignore the evidence for non-equilibrium?
Perhaps it is—but the most common cause is likely ignorance of these details. Another compelling reason seems to be that the C14 dating system has already been adjusted calibrated to fit better with tree-ring dating—which has been used to adjust conventional chronology. The downward curve represents the decay of C14 over time. This is a simplified version of his Figure Therefore, failure to recognize buildup, causes the ages of specimens to appear older than they actually are, and it introduces a significant error into the first of the four components of the calculation formula!
Would it be better not to buck the system and continue using an established—but invalid assumption? It appears that a re-vamping of the radiocarbon dating technique is needed. Since the C14 levels appear to be increasing, how does one correctly estimate the original content of a specimen? Using the difference between the formation rate and the decay rate, a buildup curve may be derived—as Cook has done.
In Libby wrote: At the present time, radiocarbon dates seem to be accurate within one or two centuries back to about years ago and possibly tobut beyond that there appears to be a discrepancy between the Egyptian historical and radiocarbon dates which increases to some years or more.
It may be, of course, that this is historical error rather than error in the radiocarbon dating method. Serious studies by chronologists have led to major revisions of the Egyptian dating see chapter 9 of Science and Religion for some specifics. In the mean time scientists had adjusted the C14 system to fit erroneous Egyptian dates. Paul Damon et al. They range from to BC. Nineteen of them were radiocarbon dates that range from to BC.
This so-called fixed date is by no means certain. Calibration from Tree-ring Dates As carbon dating gained acceptance it was believed necessary to calibrate the results of the technique to agree with tree-ring dates.
Porter criticized an introductory statement made at the 17th International C14 Conference by H. By calibration had arrived. Both laboratories gave results which again roughly agreed with conventional dates. These results, however, incorporated radiocarbon calibration. This makes it subject to a small age anomaly estimated at up to ca years due to incorporation of carbon ultimately derived from limestone.
Keenan studied the effects of C14 variations in portions of the Mediterranean, and noted: Hence, almost any conclusions based on those analyses should be regarded as being at least questionable. Although they are often dated, the accuracy of their age estimates is in question.
Van der Merwe reported: Such combinations give an unjustified air of precision to a date, and they disguise real uncertainty. Discussions concerning the reliability of 14C-based age determinations on bone have occurred throughout all four decades of radiocarbon research. Despite the amount of attention given. From the point of view of the archaeologist or paleoanthropologist, this is an unfortunate situation, since bone material is present in many sites where other organics are not.
Can other materials be similarly affected by chemical exchange? Inconsistencies with Other Methods Although most of the geologic dating procedures are used to estimate ages believed to be much older than the C14 dating, one that is claimed to overlap is the Uranium-Thorium U-Th method. Unfortunately, the results have not been consistent. For things that lived more than 9, years ago, according to Bard et al.
What historical dates can be used to check their validity? However, in common scientific usage it simply means the date estimate is expressed in years.
The following definition is fairly typical in science texts: Relative time—that is, whether one event in Earth history came before or after another event disregards years.
Creation Worldview Ministries: Carbon Dating Technique Does Not Work!
On the other hand, if we can determine [estimate] how many years before the present an event took place—whether it was 10, years or 60 million years—we deal in absolute time. The definition would be more accurate if the terms were replaced by some that accurately depict the uncertainty.
Thus, the margin of error is based on only one of the four essential facts for accurate date calculations—and the most precise one at that.
Aitchison and Scott described an additional concern: Every radiocarbon age has an associated error term of which a major component is the counting error of the radioactive measurement process. The quoted error terms are estimated in different ways by different laboratories. Analysis of the results from twenty laboratories throughout the world suggest that commonly quoted counting errors should be approximately doubled and that several of the laboratories which participated in the study were systematically biased with respect to others and to the overall trend by an amount up to several hundred years.
Conclusion Of the four facts essential to precise carbon dating: The first the original C14 content is based on an assumption—one that is contradicted by experimental evidence. The second the C14 decay rate appears to be accurate enough to support the system during historical times. The third the current content is by far the most sure of the four when AMS is used.
And the fourth other factors that may have affected the process presents serious problems. Newgrosh expressed his concern: If we were going to re-invent the method, knowing what we do about those assumptions, there is a real possibility that the method would now be deemed inadmissible. Although the errors increase with the actual age of the specimen, dates of things that died after about BC are usually close enough to be useful. The C14 dating technique would be much better if many of the so-called corrections made in the past, which were based on faulty information, were abandoned.
Then revisions could be made to account for non-equilibrium and other known effects. Dates prior to about 4, BC the time usually attributed to Adam should be considered spurious to those of us who believe that the fall of Adam introduced profound physical changes into the world.
Those who have read and understood this paper thus far should be able to see inconsistencies in the following quote: We know very little about the earliest inhabitants of the Nile Valley because no human remains have been found from that period.
To date a rock one must know the original amount of the parent element. But there is no way to measure how much parent element was originally there. It is very easy to calculate the original parent abundance, but that information is not needed to date the rock. All of the dating schemes work from knowing the present abundances of the parent and daughter isotopes. There is little or no way to tell how much of the decay product, that is, the daughter isotope, was originally in the rock, leading to anomalously old ages.
A good part of [Wiens' article] is devoted to explaining how one can tell how much of a given element or isotope was originally present. Usually it involves using more than one sample from a given rock. It is done by comparing the ratios of parent and daughter isotopes relative to a stable isotope for samples with different relative amounts of the parent isotope.
From this one can determine how much of the daughter isotope would be present if there had been no parent isotope. This is the same as the initial amount it would not change if there were no parent isotope to decay. Figures 4 and 5 [in Wiens' article], and the accompanying explanation, tell how this is done most of the time.
There are only a few different dating methods. There are actually many more methods out there. Well over forty different radiometric dating methods are in use, and a number of non-radiogenic methods not even mentioned here. A young-Earth research group reported that they sent a rock erupted in from Mount Saint Helens volcano to a dating lab and got back a potassium-argon age of several million years.
This shows we should not trust radiometric dating. There are indeed ways to "trick" radiometric dating if a single dating method is improperly used on a sample. Anyone can move the hands on a clock and get the wrong time. Likewise, people actively looking for incorrect radiometric dates can in fact get them. Geologists have known for over forty years that the potassium-argon method cannot be used on rocks only twenty to thirty years old.
Publicizing this incorrect age as a completely new finding was inappropriate.
The reasons are discussed in the Potassium-Argon Dating section [of Wiens' article]. Be assured that multiple dating methods used together on igneous rocks are almost always correct unless the sample is too difficult to date due to factors such as metamorphism or a large fraction of xenoliths. Different dating techniques usually give conflicting results.
This is not true at all. The fact that dating techniques most often agree with each other is why scientists tend to trust them in the first place. Nearly every college and university library in the country has periodicals such as Science, Nature, and specific geology journals that give the results of dating studies. The public is usually welcome to and should! So the results are not hidden; people can go look at the results for themselves. Over a thousand research papers are published a year on radiometric dating, essentially all in agreement.
Besides the scientific periodicals that carry up-to-date research reports, [there are] textbooks, non-classroom books, and web resources. Anomalies As noted above, creationists make great hay out of "anomalies" in radiometric dating. It is true that some "anomalies" have been observed, although keep in mind that these have been identified by professional scientists in published literature, not by creationists or others outside of peer-reviewed scientific literature.
First of all, many of these claimed "anomalies" are completely irrelevant to the central issue of whether the Earth is many millions of years old.
How reliable is geologic dating?
This is certainly true when errors are in the range of a few percent in specimens many millions of years old. This is also true of anomalies noted in carbon dates. Carbon dating cannot be used to date anything older than about 50, years, since the carbon half life is only years. For additional discussion, see Radiocarbon dating. In any event, it is important to keep these anomalies in perspective.
For example, out of literally tens of thousands of dates measured using the rubidium-strontium dating scheme see description of the Rb-Sr scheme in Agesonly about 30 cases have been noted where the individual data values initially appeared to lie nearly on a straight line as is requiredbut the result was later found to be significantly in error. And each of these 30 cases is fairly well understood -- none of these is truly "mysterious" [ Wien ]. Anomalies and other objections that have been raised by creationists are dealt with in detail in Roger Wiens' article [ Wien ], Mark Isaak's book [ Isaakpg.