- How Good are those Young-Earth Arguments: Radiocarbon Dating
- How Good Are Those Young-Earth Arguments?
- How Accurate Is Radiocarbon Dating?
- A Close Look at Dr. Hovind's List of Young-Earth Arguments and Other Claims
- Answers to Creationist Attacks on Carbon-14 Dating
The water vapor canopy that existed from Creation to The Flood would have inhibited Carbon production in the atmosphere.
How Good are those Young-Earth Arguments: Radiocarbon Dating
This would have reduced the amount of Carbon incorporated into the bodies of plants and animals prior to The Flood and the effect would be that the remains from prior to The Flood would appear to be much older than they really were. There would be a lower Carbon content in the atmosphere before The Flood because of a larger biomass exchanging gases with the atmosphere.
This biomass was larger than all the vegetation on earth today. There may have been less Carbon before The Flood of Noah because of the existence of the stronger magnetic field. This would have prevented some or much of the cosmic ray bombardment of the upper atmosphere, the cause of Carbon generation. No one knows the exact amount of Carbon in the atmosphere at the time of creation.
It is reasonable to consider that there have been none. 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. This would mean that there was far less Carbon in the atmosphere in the past than anyone would have imagined.
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. Shells from living snails were carbon dated as being 27, years old. A freshly killed seal was carbon dated as having died 1, years ago.
The following five examples come from the scientific journal Radiocarbon. Mortar from an English castle less than years old, was Carbon dated as 7, years old. 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 earlier , but was Carbon dated as 4, years old.
Bones of a saber-toothed tiger from the LaBrea tar pits, supposedly , years 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.
In , Triceratops and Hadrosaur femurs were found in Montana. Bone collagen was radiocarbon dated. Blanco News, Sept-Oct, 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 about , years old. Using Carbon, fossil wood from a quarry near Banbury, England, was dated from 20, to 28, years 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: A petrified and coalified tree was uncovered in Western Colorado in May, 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!!
How Good Are Those Young-Earth Arguments?
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 editors , Radioisotopes 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 than , years. 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! Eds , Radioisotopes 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. Since this result was inexplicable by any conventional scientific means, Libby put the discrepancy down to experimental error.
Richard Milton, Shattering the Myths of Darwinism , , p. This statement should be very revealing! If it does not entirely contradict them [our theories], we put it in a footnote. Richard Dawkins commented on Carbon! Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker , , p. The flaws in the Carbon dating technique are undeniably deep and serious! Despite 35 years of technological refinement and better understanding, the underlying assumptions have been strongly challenged, and warnings are out that radiocarbon may soon find itself in a crisis situation. It should be no surprise, then, that fully half of the dates are rejected.
The wonder is, surely, that the remaining half have come to be accepted. There are gross discrepancies, the chronology is uneven and relative, and the accepted dates are actually selected dates. This whole blessed thing is nothing but 13th-century alchemy, and it all depends upon which funny paper you read. Radioactive decay rates were different in the past.
Recent experiments suggest that radioactive decay rates assumed to be constant can change due to causes that are not yet fully understood. Team member Jere Jenkins noted: Changes in radioactive decay rates can be induced! However, Fabio Cardone of the Institute per lo Studio dei Materiali Nanostrutturati in Rome and colleagues have shown a dramatic increase - by a factor of 10, - in the decay rate of thorium in water as a result of ultrasonic cavitation. Exactly what the physics is and whether or not this sort of effect can be scaled up into a technology for nuclear waste treatment remain open issues.
Reucroft, Steve and J. Carbon isotope ratios are central to many reconstructions of past climate. However, longer term reconstructions are less certain, and now with this new discovery, some of the long term work may have to be reconsidered. If the approach does not work over the past 10 million years, then why would it work during older time periods? Swart appears in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 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.
How Accurate Is Radiocarbon Dating?
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. 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.
- how do i find out if my girlfriend is on dating sites.
- london over 50s dating;
- speed dating sydney city!
- Answers to Creationist Attacks on Carbon Dating | NCSE.
- dating a filipino american;
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 in , ought to have known better than to quote the gropings and guesses of authors of the early sixties in an effort to debunk magnetic reversals.
Before plate tectonics and continental drift became established in the mid-sixties, the known evidence for magnetic reversals was rather scanty, and geophysicists often tried to invent ingenious mechanisms with which to account for this evidence rather than believe in magnetic reversals.
However, by , sea floor spreading and magnetic reversals had been documented to the satisfaction of almost the entire scientific community. Yet, instead of seriously attempting to rebut them with up-to-date evidence, Barnes merely quoted the old guesses of authors who wrote before the facts were known. But, in spite of Barnes, paleomagnetism on the sea floor conclusively proves that the magnetic field of the earth oscillates in waves and even reverses itself on occasion. It has not been decaying exponentially as Barnes maintains.
A Close Look at Dr. Hovind's List of Young-Earth Arguments and Other Claims
When we know the age of a sample through archaeology or historical sources, the C method as corrected by bristlecone pines agrees with the age within the known margin of error. For instance, Egyptian artifacts can be dated both historically and by radiocarbon, and the results agree. At first, archaeologists used to complain that the C method must be wrong, because it conflicted with well-established archaeological dates; but, as Renfrew has detailed, the archaeological dates were often based on false assumptions.
One such assumption was that the megalith builders of western Europe learned the idea of megaliths from the Near-Eastern civilizations. As a result, archaeologists believed that the Western megalith-building cultures had to be younger than the Near Eastern civilizations. Many archaeologists were skeptical when Ferguson's calibration with bristlecone pines was first published, because, according to his method, radiocarbon dates of the Western megaliths showed them to be much older than their Near-Eastern counterparts.
However, as Renfrew demonstrated, the similarities between these Eastern and Western cultures are so superficial that. So, in the end, external evidence reconciles with and often confirms even controversial C dates. One of the most striking examples of different dating methods confirming each other is Stonehenge.
Answers to Creationist Attacks on Carbon-14 Dating
C dates show that Stonehenge was gradually built over the period from BC to BC, long before the Druids, who claimed Stonehenge as their creation, came to England. Hawkins calculated with a computer what the heavens were like back in the second millennium BC, accounting for the precession of the equinoxes, and found that Stonehenge had many significant alignments with various extreme positions of the sun and moon for example, the hellstone marked the point where the sun rose on the first day of summer.
Stonehenge fits the heavens as they were almost four thousand years ago, not as they are today, thereby cross-verifying the C dates. What specifically does C dating show that creates problems for the creation model? C dates show that the last glaciation started to subside around twenty thousand years ago. But the young-earth creationists at ICR and elsewhere insist that, if an ice age occurred, it must have come and gone far less than ten thousand years ago, sometime after Noah's flood. Therefore, the only way creationists can hang on to their chronology is to poke all the holes they can into radiocarbon dating.
However, as we have seen, it has survived their most ardent attacks. Origin and Destiny of the Earth's Magnetic Field. Prehistory and Earth Models. Max Parrish and Co. Fictitious Results with Mollusk Shells. Critique of Radiometric Dating. Geological Evolution of North America, 3rd Edition. He has followed the creation-evolution controversy for over a decade. Copyright by Christopher Gregory Weber. National Center for Science Education, Inc.