Radiometric Dating & the Age of the Earth: Bible History vs. Secular Science
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. 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. 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. A proper understanding of radiocarbon will undoubtedly figure very significantly into the unraveling of such questions as when and possibly why the mammoths became extinct, the duration of the glacial period following the Flood, and the general chronology of events from the Flood to the present. Creationists are not so much interested in debunking radiocarbon as we are in developing a proper understanding of it to answer many of our own questions regarding the past.
Carbon Dating Undercuts Evolution's Long-Ages Claim
At the present time it appears that the conventional radiocarbon dating technique is on relatively firm ground for dates which fall within the past 3, years. For periods of time prior to this, there are legitimate reasons to question the validity of the conventional results and seek for alternative interpretations.
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. Carbon Dating Vs Creationism His name is Owen Cook (he also goes by the name of tyler Carbon Dating Vs Creationism durden (yes like the movie character)) this man started as a socially challenged man Carbon Dating Vs Creationism trying to pick up chicks and now he has become so efficient that many men reach out to him from all around the world. The pua scene isn't dissonest/
He received his Ph. Cite this article: Aardsma, G. Myths Regarding Radiocarbon Dating.
MeetBang lets you enjoy the benefits of dating without having to give up the excitement of being single. Find sexy singles and couples anywhere, anytime. MeetBang makes it Carbon Dating Vs Creationism fun, safe, and discrete to communicate with all your new adult contacts/ Oct 27, аи One of the few radiometric dating methods that gives consistently reliable results when tested on objects of known age is carbon dating. But carbon dating confirms the biblical timescale of thousands of years. It never gives age estimates of billions or even millions of years - even on things evolutionists believe to be very old like coal and. Whenever the worldview of evolution is questioned, the topic of carbon dating always comes up. Here is how carbon dating works and the assumptions it is based upon. How Carbon Dating Works. Radiation from the sun strikes the atmosphere of the earth all day long. This energy converts about 21 pounds of nitrogen into radioactive carbon
Skip to main content. MYTH 6. Creationists are only interested in debunking radiocarbon. More Radiometric Dating. What About Radioisotope Clocks? But ICR scientists have carefully Many scientists rely on the assumption that radioactive elements decay at constant, undisturbed rates and therefore can be used as reliable clocks to measure More Impact. The Bible, by contrast, paints a radically different picture of our planet's history.
In particular, it describes a time when God catastrophically destroyed the earth and essentially all its life. The only consistent way to interpret the geological record in light of this event is to understand that fossil-bearing rocks are the result of a massive global Flood that occurred only a few thousand years ago and lasted but a year.
This Biblical interpretation of the rock record implies that the animals and plants preserved as fossils were all contemporaries. This means trilobites, dinosaurs, and mammals all dwelled on the planet simultaneously, and they perished together in this world-destroying cataclysm.Neil deGrasse Tyson vs. Young Earth Creationism
Although creationists have long pointed out the rock formations themselves testify unmistakably to water catastrophism on a global scale, evolutionists generally have ignored this testimony. This is partly due to the legacy of the doctrine of uniformitarianism passed down from one generation of geologists to the next since the time of Charles Lyell in the early nineteenth century. Uniformitarianism assumes that the vast amount of geological change recorded in the rocks is the product of slow and uniform processes operating over an immense span of time, as opposed to a global cataclysm of the type described in the Bible and other ancient texts.
With the discovery of radioactivity about a hundred years ago, evolutionists deeply committed to the uniformitarian outlook believed they finally had proof of the immense antiquity of the earth. In particular, they discovered the very slow nuclear decay rates of elements like Uranium while observing considerable amounts of the daughter products from such decay.
Carbon dating vs creationism
They interpreted these discoveries as vindicating both uniformitarianism and evolution, which led to the domination of these beliefs in academic circles around the world throughout the twentieth century. However, modern technology has produced a major fly in that uniformitarian ointment.
A key technical advance, which occurred about 25 years ago, involved the ability to measure the ratio of 14 C atoms to 12 C atoms with extreme precision in very small samples of carbon, using an ion beam accelerator and a mass spectrometer. This earlier method was subject to considerable "noise" from cosmic rays.
The expectation was that this improvement in precision would make it possible to use this technique to date dramatically older fossil material. Therefore they mounted a major campaign to discover and eliminate the sources of such contamination.
The Assumptions of Carbon Dating
Although they identified and corrected a few relatively minor sources of 14 C contamination, there still remained a significant level of 14 C-typically about times the ultimate sensitivity of the instrument-in samples that should have been utterly " 14 C-dead," including many from the deeper levels of the fossil-bearing part of the geological record. Let us consider what the AMS measurements imply from a quantitative standpoint.
The ratio of 14 C atoms to 12 C atoms decreases by a factor of 2 every years. After 1. This means that if one started with an amount of pure 14 C equal to the mass of the entire observable universe, after 1. This earnest effort to understand this "contamination problem" therefore generated scores of peer-reviewed papers in the standard radiocarbon literature during the last 20 years.
The reality of significant levels of 14 C in a wide variety of fossil sources from throughout the geological record has thus been established in the secular scientific literature by scientists who assume the standard geological time scale is valid and have no special desire for this result! The ten samples include three coals from the Eocene part of the geological record, three from the Cretaceous, and four from the Pennsylvanian.
These samples were analyzed by one of the foremost AMS laboratories in the world. Figure 1 below shows in histogram form the results of these analyses.
These values fall squarely within the range already established in the peer-reviewed radiocarbon literature. When we average our results over each geological interval, we obtain remarkably similar values of 0. Although the number of samples is small, we observe little difference in 14 C level as a function of position in the geological record. This is consistent with the young-earth view that the entire macrofossil record up to the upper Cenozoic is the product of the Genesis Flood and therefore such fossils should share a common 14 C age.
Percent Modern Carbon. However, uniformitarian assumptions are inappropriate when one considers that the Genesis Flood removed vast amounts of living biomass from exchange with the atmosphere-organic material that now forms the earth's vast coal, oil, and oil shale deposits.
A conservative estimate for the pre-Flood biomass is times that of today. Percent Modern Carbon Some readers at this point may be asking, how does one then account for the tens of millions and hundreds of millions of years that other radioisotope methods yield for the fossil record?
Most of the other RATE projects address this important issue. Equally as persuasive as the 14 C data is evidence from RATE measurements of the diffusion rate of Helium in zircon crystals that demonstrates the rate of nuclear decay of Uranium into Lead and Helium has been dramatically higher in the past and the uniformitarian assumption of a constant rate of decay is wrong.
Carbon Dating Vs Creationism am an angel from Nairobi with a perfect body and assets in all the right places. I Carbon Dating Vs Creationism am the perfect companion for a passionate encounter!!! Your time with Read More. Camel Toe. Login / Register. ESCORT Service/ Download Carbon Dating Undercuts Evolution's Long Ages Even if they cannot provide a naturalistic mechanism, they appeal to the "fact of evolution," by which they mean an interpretation of earth history with a succession of different types of plants and animals in a drama spanning hundreds of millions of years. Carbon dating and the geologic time scale. by John Baumgardner, Ph.D. Evolutionists generally feel secure even in the face of compelling creationist arguments today because of their utter confidence in the geological time scale.
The bottom line of this research is that the case is now extremely compelling that the fossil record was produced just a few thousand years ago by the global Flood cataclysm. The evidence reveals that macroevolution as an explanation for the origin of life on earth can therefore no longer be rationally defended. Acknowledgement: The RATE team would like to express its heartfelt gratitude to the many generous donors who have made the high precision analyses at some of the best laboratories in the world possible.
The credibility of our work in creation science research depends on these costly but crucial laboratory procedures. Cite this article: Baumgardner, J. Skip to main content. Endnotes and References F. Schmidt, D. Balsley, and D. One failure?