Carbon dating - RationalWiki
reasons why you cant trust carbon dating creationist creationism evolution dinosaurs. So why is it that if the date doesn't fit the theory, they change the facts?. Describe how this is real climate myths and worksheet for over time. Thirty-Seven facts about them nice and carbon dating techniques were botched cast. Radiocarbon dating can easily establish that humans have been on the earth However, you now know why this fact doesn't at all invalidate radiocarbon dates.
It only changes your bank balance by 0. The atmosphere is a reservoir of carbon, but only one trillionth of 0.
You only have to add one trillionth of 0. Since there is so little carbon 14 to begin with, small changes in carbon 14 make large changes in ratios. Scientists have studied the amount of carbon in the atmosphere for many years long before anyone was worried about global warming. One reason they did this was to calibrate carbon 14 dates. Since aboutthe use of industrial and fossil fuels has resulted in large amounts of CO2 being emitted into the atmosphere. Because the source of the industrial fuels has been predominantly material of infinite geological age e.
Hans Suess discovered the industrial effect also called after him in the 's. This C14 is 'artificial' or 'bomb' C14, produced because nuclear bombs produce a huge thermal neutron flux. The effect of this has been to almost double the amount of C14 activity in terrestrial carbon bearing materials Taylor, A shellfish alive today in a lake within a limestone catchment, for instance, will yield a radiocarbon date which is excessively old.
The reason for this anomaly is that the limestone, which is weathered and dissolved into bicarbonate, has no radioactive carbon. Thus, it dilutes the activity of the lake meaning that the radioactivity is depleted in comparison to 14C activity elsewhere. The lake, in this case, has a different radiocarbon reservoir than that of the majority of the radiocarbon in the biosphere and therefore an accurate radiocarbon age requires that a correction be made to account for it. The point is that there is so little carbon dioxide in the water and atmosphere, that comparatively small changes in amounts of carbon cause large percentage changes.
Consequently, there are known correction factors which are used to convert radiocarbon years to calendar years, which work quite well for the last 5, years or so. The global warming folks are quick to point out that there are measurable changes in the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. There is no question they are right about that. We will leave it to others to argue whether or not changing the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere from 0.
We take no positions on these political issues. Furthermore, fluctuations in atmospheric carbon levels over the past 5, years have been large enough to make it necessary to come up with complex algorithms to convert radiocarbon years to calendar years. Since the carbon 14 ratio is still changing, they say that argues for a young earth. If it is true that the earth has been around for 4. The fact that the carbon 14 ratio is changing does not prove the second assumption i.
We know the first assumption i. The evolutionists certainly cannot claim that the ratio of carbon 14 to carbon 12 in the past is the same as it is today, because it has changed in the past, even before the industrial revolution. The discovery of tropical fossils in arctic places implies a time when the Earth was warmer, which might have been the result of more carbon dioxide and therefore more carbon 12 in the atmosphere.
If there was more carbon 12 in the atmosphere earlier than 5, years ago, then all radiocarbon dates would appear to be much older than actual calendar years. Carbon Dating Dinosaurs If dinosaurs really did die out millions of years ago, they could not be dated using carbon 14 dating because all the carbon 14 that was in their bodies would have decayed in 50, years or less.
Real evolutionists never even try carbon 14 dating on dinosaur bones. But, if the Earth is less than 6, years old, as some creationists claim, then it might be possible to find carbon 14 in coal or dinosaur bones. There are claims that some dinosaur bones do have measurable carbon 14 content. And they are right. It would not take much contamination. The most common charge is that the disputed date is inaccurate because of contamination.
It is a charge that is impossible to disprove because it takes so little contamination to skew the results. The Reality of Carbon Dating The myth is that radiocarbon dating can accurately establish exact dates of the death of organic remains almost as far back as 50, years.
The fact is that we can only infer that ratio for the past 5, years or so using historical records. From radiocarbon dates taken from bristlecone pines. There are two ways of dating wood from bristlecone pines: Since the tree ring counts have reliably dated some specimens of wood all the way back to BC, one can check out the C dates against the tree-ring-count dates.
Admittedly, this old wood comes from trees that have been dead for hundreds of years, but you don't have to have an 8,year-old bristlecone pine tree alive today to validly determine that sort of date. It is easy to correlate the inner rings of a younger living tree with the outer rings of an older dead tree.
Answers to Creationist Attacks on Carbon-14 Dating
The correlation is possible because, in the Southwest region of the United States, the widths of tree rings vary from year to year with the rainfall, and trees all over the Southwest have the same pattern of variations. When experts compare the tree-ring dates with the C dates, they find that radiocarbon ages before BC are really too young—not too old as Cook maintains.
For example, pieces of wood that date at about BC by tree-ring counts date at only BC by regular C dating and BC by Cook's creationist revision of C dating as we see in the article, "Dating, Relative and Absolute," in the Encyclopaedia Britannica. So, despite creationist claims, C before three thousand years ago was decaying faster than it was being formed and C dating errs on the side of making objects from before BC look too young, not too old.
But don't trees sometimes produce more than one growth ring per year? Wouldn't that spoil the tree-ring count?
If anything, the tree-ring sequence suffers far more from missing rings than from double rings. This means that the tree-ring dates would be slightly too young, not too old. Of course, some species of tree tend to produce two or more growth rings per year.
But other species produce scarcely any extra rings. Most of the tree-ring sequence is based on the bristlecone pine. This tree rarely produces even a trace of an extra ring; on the contrary, a typical bristlecone pine has up to 5 percent of its rings missing.
Concerning the sequence of rings derived from the bristlecone pine, Ferguson says: In the growth-ring analyses of approximately one thousand trees in the White Mountains, we have, in fact, found no more than three or four occurrences of even incipient multiple growth layers.
Hence at least some of the missing rings can be found. Even so, the missing rings are a far more serious problem than any double rings. Other species of trees corroborate the work that Ferguson did with bristlecone pines. Before his work, the tree-ring sequence of the sequoias had been worked out back to BC.
The archaeological ring sequence had been worked out back to 59 BC. The limber pine sequence had been worked out back to 25 BC. The radiocarbon dates and tree-ring dates of these other trees agree with those Ferguson got from the bristlecone pine. But even if he had had no other trees with which to work except the bristlecone pines, that evidence alone would have allowed him to determine the tree-ring chronology back to BC.
- Navigation menu
- Search form
- Carbon dating myths
See Renfrew for more details. So, creationists who complain about double rings in their attempts to disprove C dating are actually grasping at straws. If the Flood of Noah occurred around BC, as some creationists claim, then all the bristlecone pines would have to be less than five thousand years old. This would mean that eighty-two hundred years worth of tree rings had to form in five thousand years, which would mean that one-third of all the bristlecone pine rings would have to be extra rings.
Creationists are forced into accepting such outlandish conclusions as these in order to jam the facts of nature into the time frame upon which their "scientific" creation model is based. Barnes has claimed that the earth's magnetic field is decaying exponentially with a half-life of fourteen hundred years.
Not only does he consider this proof that the earth can be no older than ten thousand years but he also points out that a greater magnetic strength in the past would reduce C dates. Now if the magnetic field several thousand years ago was indeed many times stronger than it is today, there would have been less cosmic radiation entering the atmosphere back then and less C would have been produced.
Therefore, any C dates taken from objects of that time period would be too high. How do you answer him? Like Cook, Barnes looks at only part of the evidence. What he ignores is the great body of archaeological and geological data showing that the strength of the magnetic field has been fluctuating up and down for thousands of years and that it has reversed polarity many times in the geological past.
So, when Barnes extrapolates ten thousand years into the past, he concludes that the magnetic field was nineteen times stronger in BC than it is today, when, actually, it was only half as intense then as now. This means that radiocarbon ages of objects from that time period will be too young, just as we saw from the bristlecone pine evidence.
But how does one know that the magnetic field has fluctuated and reversed polarity? Aren't these just excuses scientists give in order to neutralize Barnes's claims? The evidence for fluctuations and reversals of the magnetic field is quite solid.
Bucha, a Czech geophysicist, has used archaeological artifacts made of baked clay to determine the strength of the earth's magnetic field when they were manufactured. He found that the earth's magnetic field was 1.
Carbon dating myths and facts · GitBook (Legacy)
See Bailey, Renfrew, and Encyclopedia Britannica for details. In other words, it rose in intensity from 0. Even before the bristlecone pine calibration of C dating was worked out by Ferguson, Bucha predicted that this change in the magnetic field would make radiocarbon dates too young. This idea [that the fluctuating magnetic field affects influx of cosmic rays, which in turn affects C formation rates] has been taken up by the Czech geophysicist, V. Bucha, who has been able to determine, using samples of baked clay from archeological sites, what the intensity of the earth's magnetic field was at the time in question.
Even before the tree-ring calibration data were available to them, he and the archeologist, Evzen Neustupny, were able to suggest how much this would affect the radiocarbon dates. There is a good correlation between the strength of the earth's magnetic field as determined by Bucha and the deviation of the atmospheric radiocarbon concentration from its normal value as indicated by the tree-ring radiocarbon work. As for the question of polarity reversals, plate tectonics can teach us much.
It is a fact that new oceanic crust continually forms at the mid-oceanic ridges and spreads away from those ridges in opposite directions.
When lava at the ridges hardens, it keeps a trace of the magnetism of the earth's magnetic field. Therefore, every time the magnetic field reverses itself, bands of paleomagnetism of reversed polarity show up on the ocean floor alternated with bands of normal polarity.
These bands are thousands of kilometers long, they vary in width, they lie parallel, and the bands on either side of any given ridge form mirror images of each other. Thus it can be demonstrated that the magnetic field of the earth has reversed itself dozens of times throughout earth history. Barnes, writing inought to have known better than to quote the gropings and guesses of authors of the early sixties in an effort to debunk magnetic reversals.