Calibrating carbon dating -

Creation Science Rebuttals

creation science carbon dating

How do you reply? If this is not true, the ratio of 14 C to 12 C is not a constant, which would make knowing the starting amount of 14 C in a specimen difficult or impossible to accurately determine. We have, in the Masoretic chronology, the best information possible for calibrating C data. By knowing the ratios in items of known age, a calibration curve was started, which today has many more data points. 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. The procedures used are not necessarily in question. If a date obtained by radiometric dating does not match the assumed age from the geologic column, the radiometric date will be rejected.

The Assumptions of Carbon Dating

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. The RATE group analyzed twelve diamond samples for possible carbon content. I will give you the benefit of the doubt and say that carbon dating is not accurate at dates longer than a few thousand years, but there are so many other observable things which point to billions of years of time rather than a few thousand. The Worldwide Distribution of Fossils. For instance, Egyptian artifacts can be dated both historically and by radiocarbon, and the results agree.

A single experiment can prove me wrong. Carter incorrectly states "The rate of decay is also not in question. On this site alone there have been statements disputing the constancy of radioactive decay.

One such is http: Indeed, as can be found in several more articles here: However, I will stand by my statement with this defense: First, we do not need changing decay rates to explain 14C dating. There are enough uncertainties in the physical history of earth to throw great uncertainty on the early dates.

A variable rate would only make the case worse for secular archaeology. Second, while we have discovered in recent years that certain radiometric decay rates do vary, the measured effect is slight, so far. Third, some creationists like the members of the RATE group theorize there was a pulse of accelerated radioactive decay around the time of the Flood, but this would not apply to the post-Flood era.

Fourth, while it is true that we cannot know the past this is the great limitation of experimental science , it is sometimes convenient to use the opposition's numbers against them. In the end, though, it seems to me there is little debate about the rate of decay in the historical era. Most of the debate centers around Creation Week and the Flood, so I do not think my statement was made in error, at least in the context of what is being discussed.

If you read articles like [note: Note the clear references to a "plateau in the calibration curve" from to BC, which would be due to the flood. C14 was originally calibrated using Egyptian artifacts of "known" age on the "standard" chronology.

If that chronology is wrong, as many think, the calibration is wrong. They even miss the flood when it is staring them in the face. Sadly, I could not include the URL in your reply, but the article you cited was interesting nonetheless.

However, the "plateau" certainly does not equate to the Flood, for that would put the Flood in the middle of Egyptian history, the archaeological evidence of which is sitting on top of kilometers of Flood-deposited sediments. They also brought up the question of "old wood" the fact that any wood used in an archaeological context must have been growing prior to when it was harvested , which affects my point 3, and warned against using organic material from an aquatic context, corroborating my point 2.

Carbon dates can be used to tell the age of organic materials up to around 50, years. But, lets be extremely conservative and say a 50, years old date is off by half. That still puts the earth at over 20, years old. So, why continue beating the 6, year old earth drum?

How certain are you that carbon dating is reliably able to give us dates back to 50KYA? With all that was said about the assumptions behind the measurements, about non-linear forcing functions like an expected pulse of non-radioactive carbon at the time of the Flood , and add the two prior comments about the demonstrably changing magnetic field strength of the earth, and I submit there is a lot more "art" than "fact" when generating such dates.

We beat this "drum" because of the straightforward historical claims of Scripture. We address areas of science that supposedly refute the historical claims of scripture because we are commanded in places like 1Pet3: Did you read the article? See my comment on magnetic field strength above. I did not get it posted before you asked the question again. We have, in the Masoretic chronology, the best information possible for calibrating C data.

The only notable exception is that he says carbon dating is only good for objects less than 40, years old. This date has been changed to about 62, years. As technologies advance, so does our ability to detect the amount of C in a sample. Therefore, the basic question which Hovind is answering is no. Carbon dating cannot prove that something is millions of years old. However, geologists know this, and would never try to prove that something is millions of years old based on carbon dating.

The major mistake Hovind makes in this article relates to his claim of equilibrium. He states that since the earth as a system would eventually equalize, then a freshly created earth would require about 30, years to reach this equilibrium assuming the earth at its creation contained no C The earth has not reached equilibrium, according to Hovind, so that proves it is less than 30, years old.

This is illustrated as a barrel with holes in it. As you pour water in C , some water leaks out the holes. At some point, the amount being poured in, and the amount leaking out, will be the same, thus the water level will remain constant. The original claim about this process originated with Dr. Henry Morris he got his ideas from previous research. However, this claim forgets one important point. Radiocarbon dating can easily establish that humans have been on the earth for over twenty thousand years, at least twice as long as creationists are willing to allow.

Therefore it should come as no surprise that creationists at the Institute for Creation Research ICR have been trying desperately to discredit this method for years. They have their work cut out for them, however, because radiocarbon C dating is one of the most reliable of all the radiometric dating methods.

This article will answer several of the most common creationist attacks on carbon dating, using the question-answer format that has proved so useful to lecturers and debaters. Cosmic rays in the upper atmosphere are constantly converting the isotope nitrogen N into carbon C or radiocarbon. Living organisms are constantly incorporating this C into their bodies along with other carbon isotopes.

When the organisms die, they stop incorporating new C, and the old C starts to decay back into N by emitting beta particles. The older an organism's remains are, the less beta radiation it emits because its C is steadily dwindling at a predictable rate.

So, if we measure the rate of beta decay in an organic sample, we can calculate how old the sample is. C decays with a half-life of 5, years.

Kieth and Anderson radiocarbon-dated the shell of a living freshwater mussel and obtained an age of over two thousand years. ICR creationists claim that this discredits C dating.

How do you reply? It does discredit the C dating of freshwater mussels, but that's about all. Kieth and Anderson show considerable evidence that the mussels acquired much of their carbon from the limestone of the waters they lived in and from some very old humus as well. Carbon from these sources is very low in C because these sources are so old and have not been mixed with fresh carbon from. Thus, a freshly killed mussel has far less C than a freshly killed something else, which is why the C dating method makes freshwater mussels seem older than they really are.

When dating wood there is no such problem because wood gets its carbon straight from the air, complete with a full dose of C The creationists who quote Kieth and Anderson never tell you this, however. A sample that is more than fifty thousand years old shouldn't have any measurable C Coal, oil, and natural gas are supposed to be millions of years old; yet creationists say that some of them contain measurable amounts of C, enough to give them C ages in the tens of thousands of years.

How do you explain this? Radiocarbon dating doesn't work well on objects much older than twenty thousand years, because such objects have so little C left that their beta radiation is swamped out by the background radiation of cosmic rays and potassium K decay. Younger objects can easily be dated, because they still emit plenty of beta radiation, enough to be measured after the background radiation has been subtracted out of the total beta radiation.

However, in either case, the background beta radiation has to be compensated for, and, in the older objects, the amount of C they have left is less than the margin of error in measuring background radiation. As Hurley points out:. Without rather special developmental work, it is not generally practicable to measure ages in excess of about twenty thousand years, because the radioactivity of the carbon becomes so slight that it is difficult to get an accurate measurement above background radiation.

Cosmic rays form beta radiation all the time; this is the radiation that turns N to C in the first place. K decay also forms plenty of beta radiation. Stearns, Carroll, and Clark point out that ". This radiation cannot be totally eliminated from the laboratory, so one could probably get a "radiocarbon" date of fifty thousand years from a pure carbon-free piece of tin.

However, you now know why this fact doesn't at all invalidate radiocarbon dates of objects younger than twenty thousand years and is certainly no evidence for the notion that coals and oils might be no older than fifty thousand years. Creationists such as Cook claim that cosmic radiation is now forming C in the atmosphere about one and one-third times faster than it is decaying.

If we extrapolate backwards in time with the proper equations, we find that the earlier the historical period, the less C the atmosphere had. If they are right, this means all C ages greater than two or three thousand years need to be lowered drastically and that the earth can be no older than ten thousand years. Yes, Cook is right that C is forming today faster than it's decaying.

However, the amount of C has not been rising steadily as Cook maintains; instead, it has fluctuated up and down over the past ten thousand years. How do we know this? 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. 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?

Imsges: creation science carbon dating

creation science carbon dating

Lets see the Creation model visually.

creation science carbon dating

Fossil wood in ancient sandstone:

creation science carbon dating

Paul, Sadly, I could not include the URL in your reply, but the article you cited was interesting creation science carbon dating. How Old Is the Earth? Not only does he consider this proof that the earth can crbon no older than ten thousand years but he also points out that a greater magnetic strength in the past would reduce C dates. This confirms the Bible and challenges the evolutionary idea of long geologic ages. This removes creation science carbon dating first assumption Tests indicate that the carbno has still online dating description help reached equilibrium.