|
|
"Why do geologists and archeologists still spend their scarce money on costly radiocarbon determinations? They do so because occasional dates appear to be useful. While the method cannot be counted on to give good, unequivocal results, the number do impress people, and save them the trouble of thinking excessively. Expressed in what look like precise calendar years, figures seem somehow better ... 'Absolute' dates determined by a laboratory carry a lot of weight, and are extremely helpful in bolstering weak arguments.
"No matter how 'useful' it is, though, the radiocarbon method is still not capable of yielding accurate and reliable results. There are gross discrepancies, the chronology is uneven and relative, and the accepted dates are actually selected dates. This whole bless thing is nothing but 13th-century alchemy, and it all depends upon which funny paper you read."
Robert E. Lee, "Radiocarbon: ages in error". Anthropological Journal of Canada, vol.19(3), 1981, pp.9-29. Reprinted in the Creation Research Society Quarterly, vol. 19(2), September 1982, pp. 117-127 (quotes from pp. 123 and 125)
Radiocarbon dates less than 3,500 years old are probably accurate. However, before accepting any radiocarbon date, one should understand how the technique works, its limitations, and its assumptions. One limitation is that the radiocarbon technique dates only material that was once part of an animal or plant, such as bones, flesh, or wood. It cannot date rocks directly. To understand the other capabilities and limitations of radiocarbon dating, we must understand how it works and consider the flood.
How
carbon dating works:
The carbon in the atmosphere normally
combines with oxygen to make carbon dioxide (CO2). Plants breathe CO2 and
make it part of their tissue. Animals eat the plants and make it part of
their tissues. A very small percentage of the carbon plants take in is
radioactive C-14. When a plant or animal dies
it stops taking in air and food so it should not be able to get any new
C-14. The C-14 in the plant or animal will begin to decay back
to normal nitrogen. The older an object is, the
less carbon-14 it contains.
Radiation from the sun strikes the atmosphere of the earth all day long. This energy converts about 21 pounds of nitrogen into radioactive carbon 14. This radioactive carbon 14 slowly decays back into normal, stable nitrogen. Extensive laboratory testing has shown that about half of the C-14 molecules will decay in 5730 years. This is called the half-life. After another 5730 years half of the remaining C-14 will decay leaving only ¼ of the original C-14. It goes from ½ to ¼ to 1/8, etc. In theory it would never totally disappear, but after about 5 half lives the difference is not measurable with any degree of accuracy. This is why most people say carbon dating is only good for objects less than 40,000 years old. Nothing on earth carbon dates in the millions of years, because the scope of carbon dating only extends a few thousand years.
Point
of equilibrium:
Since sunlight causes the formation
of C-14 in the atmosphere, and normal radioactive decay takes it out, there
must be a point where the formation rate and the decay rate equalizes.
This is called the point of equilibrium. Let me illustrate: If you
were trying to fill a barrel with water but there were holes drilled up
the side of the barrel, as you filled the barrel it would begin leaking
out the holes. At some point you would be putting it in and it would be
leaking out at the same rate. You will not be able to fill the barrel past
this point of equilibrium. In the same way the C-14 is being formed and
decaying simultaneously. A freshly created earth
would require about 30,000 years for the amount of C-14 in the atmosphere
to reach this point of equilibrium because it would leak out as it is being
filled. Tests indicate that the earth has still not reached equilibrium.
There is more C-14 in the atmosphere now than there was 40 years ago. This
would prove the earth is not yet 30,000 years old! This also
means that plants and animals that lived in the past had less C-14 in them
than do plants and animals today. Just this one
fact totally upsets data obtained by C-14 dating.
Assumptions
of C-14 dating:
Although this technique looks good
at first, carbon-14 dating rests on two simple
assumptions. They are, obviously, assuming
the amount of carbon-14 in the atmosphere has always been constant, and
its rate of decay has always been constant. Neither of these assumptions
is provable or reasonable. An illustration may help: Imagine
you found a candle burning in a room, and you wanted to determine how long
it was burning before you found it. You could measure the present height
of the candle (say, seven inches) and the rate of burn (say, an inch per
hour). In order to find the length of time since the candle was lit we
would be forced to make some assumptions. We would, obviously, have to
assume that the candle has always burned at the same rate, and assumes
an initial height of the candle. The answer changes based on the assumptions.
Similarly, scientists do not know that the carbon-14 decay rate has been
constant. They do not know that the amount of carbon-14 in the atmosphere
is constant. Present testing shows the amount of C-14 in the atmosphere
has been increasing since it was first measured in the 1950's. This may
be tied in to the declining strength of the magnetic field.
Copyright © 1995–2001
Center for Scientific
Creation
A few examples of wild dates by radiometric dating:
Shells from living
snails were carbon dated as being 27,000 years old.
Science vol. 224, 1984,
pp. 58-61
Living
mollusk shells were dated up to 2300 years old.
Science vol. 141, 1963,
pp.634-637
A freshly killed
seal was carbon dated as having died 1300 years ago!
Antarctic Journal vol.
6, Sept-Oct. 1971, p.211
"One part of the Vollosovitch mammoth
carbon dated at 29,500 years and another part
at 44,000.
Troy L. Pewe, Quaternary
Stratigraphic Nomenclature in Unglaciated Central Alaska, Geological Survey
Professional Paper 862 (U.S. Gov. printing office, 1975) p. 30.
"One part of Dima [a baby frozen mammoth]
was 40,000, another part was 26,000
and the "wood immediately around the carcass" was 9-10,000.
Troy L. Pewe, Quaternary
Stratigraphic Nomenclature in Unglaciated Central Alaska, Geological Survey
Professional Paper 862 (U.S. Gov. printing office, 1975) p. 30
"The lower leg of the Fairbanks Creek
mammoth had a radiocarbon age of 15,380 RCY,
while its skin and flesh were 21,300 RCY.
In the Beginning Walt
Brown p. 124
The two Colorado Creek mammoths had
radiocarbon
ages of 22,850,670 and 16,150,230 years respectively."
In the Beginning Walt
Brown p. 124
"A geologist at the Berkeley Geochronology
Center, [Carl] Swisher uses the most advanced techniques to date human
fossils. Last spring he was re-evaluating Homo erectus skulls found in
Java in the 1930s by testing the sediment found with them. A hominid species
assumed to be an ancestor of Homo sapiens, erectus was thought to have
vanished some 250,000 years ago. But even though he used two different
dating methods, Swisher kept making the same startling find: the bones
were 53,000 years old at most and possibly no more
than 27,000 years— a stretch of time contemporaneous with modern
humans."
Kaufman, Leslie, "Did
a Third Human Species Live Among Us?" Newsweek (December 23, 1996), p.
52.
A few examples of wild dates by Potassium Argon dating:
"Potassium Argon dating is based on many of the same assumptions as Radio Carbon dating and often gives similar wild dates shown below. Since so many wrong dates are found, how would we know which dates are "correct?"
For years the KBS tuff, named for Kay
Behrensmeyer, was dated using Potassium Argon (K-Ar) at 212-230
Million years. [See Nature, April 18, 197, p. 226.]
Then skull #KNM-ER 1470 was found (in 1972) under the KBS tuff by Richard
Leakey. It looks like modern humans but was dated at 2.9 million years
old. Since a 2.9 million year old skull cannot logically
be under a lava flow 212 million years old many immediately saw the dilemma.
If the skull had not been found no one would have suspected the 212 million
year dates as being wrong. Later, 10 different samples were taken from
the KBS tuff and were dated as being .52- 2.64 Million years old. (way
down from 212 million. Even the new "dates" show a 500%
error!)
[Bones of Contention
by Marvin Lubenow, pp. 247-266]
Basalt from Mt. Etna, Sicily (122
BC) gave K-AR age of 250,000 years old.
[Earth and Planetary
Science Letters, 6-47 55. See also: Impact #307 Jan. 1999]
Lava from the 1801
Hawaiian volcano eruption gave a K-Ar date of 1.6
Million years old.
[Earth and Planetary
Science Letters, 6-47 55. See also: Impact #307 Jan. 1999]
Basalt from Mt. Kilauea Iki, Hawaii
(AD 1959) gave K-AR
age of 8,500,000 years old.
[Impact #307 Jan. 1999]
Basalt from Mt. Etna, Sicily (AD
1972) gave K-AR age of 350,000 years old.
[Impact #307 Jan. 1999]
Admissions from the Minnesota
State University
E-Museum
website:
"Each
sample type has specific problems associated with its use for dating purposes,
including contamination and special environmental effects."
"After
about 50,000 years, the amount of C14 remaining will be so small that
the fossil can't be dated reliably."
More scientific admissions from the Carbon-Dating homepage!!
"At
about 50 - 60 000 years, then, the limit
of the technique is reached..."
"Radiocarbon
samples which obtain their carbon from a different source (or reservoir)
than atmospheric carbon may yield what is termed apparent
ages. A
shellfish alive today in a lake within
a limestone catchment, for instance, will
yield a radiocarbon date which is excessively old."
[from
a section entitled:] "Why
radiocarbon measurements are not true calendar ages"
"the proportion of radiocarbon in the atmosphere
has varied... over time"
"the true half life of radiocarbon is 5730
years not the original measured value"
Check out these startling assumptions and conflicting ideas from the Science Against Evolution homepage
"Carbon
14 dating is of limited use to geologists.
It doesn’t tell you how old something is."
"We
have to assume
that the average amount of radiation striking the atmosphere is constant...Although
sunspots might cause daily fluctuations in radiation..."
"The half-life
is a convenient concept for getting a general feel for how fast
radioactive elements decay, but it isn’t very
convenient for calculating the amount left after an arbitrary period of
time."
[We first have to make this
assumption...]
"The
assumption we have to make when computing carbon 14 dates is that the ratio
of 14C to 12C is essentially the same today as it was when the thing we
are dating died."
[...but then we are told this
- by the same reference!!...]
"There’s
no doubt in the scientific world that the 14C ratio was different a few
thousand years ago than it is today."
[...hmmmm...]
"Many
fanciful and imaginative explanations are offered to try to reconcile 14C
dates with other dates."
< BACK >