Carbon Dating Error
Contents |
for NCSEteachScientists in the ClassroomDealing with DenialClassroom ResourcesLearnLibraryEvolutionClimate ChangeSurveys & PollsLegislation & Court CasesAnti-Science Education LegislationCourt CasesClassroom ResourcesAboutWhat We DoNCSE NewsletterBoard of DirectorsAdvisory
Carbon Dating Error Margin
CouncilSupporting OrganizationsStaffNeed a Speaker?Financial InformationDonate/JoinBecome a MemberBe a SustainerFree Grad Student MembershipMore carbon dating error range Ways to GivePrivacy Policy and DisclaimerDisclosures Required by State Law HomeCreation/Evolution JournalIssue 8 (Spring 1982)Answers to Creationist Attacks
Carbon Dating Flaws
on Carbon-14 Dating Answers to Creationist Attacks on Carbon-14 Dating Creation Evolution JournalTitle:Answers to Creationist Attacks on Carbon-14 DatingAuthor(s):Christopher Gregory WeberVolume:3Number:2Quarter:SpringPage(s):23–29Year:1982 Radiocarbon dating can easily establish that humans have been carbon dating accuracy range 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-14) dating is one carbon dating accuracy flaws of the most reliable of all the radiometric dating methods. This article will answer several of the most common creationist attacks on carbon-14 dating, using the question-answer format that has proved so useful to lecturers and debaters. Question: How does carbon-14 dating work? Answer: Cosmic rays in the upper atmosphere are constantly converting the isotope nitrogen-14 (N-14) into carbon-14 (C-14 or radiocarbon). Living organisms are constantly incorporating this C-14 into their bodies along with other carbon isotopes. When the organisms die, they stop incorporating new C-14, and the old C-14 starts to decay back into N-14 by emitting beta particles. The older an organism's remains are, the less beta radiation it emits because its C-14 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-14 decays with a half-life of 5,730 years. Question: 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 discr
Today's Paper Video Most Popular Edition: U.S. / Global Search All NYTimes.com U.S. World U.S. PoliticsEducationTexas N.Y. / Region Business Technology Science Health Sports Opinion Arts Style Travel Jobs Real Estate Autos ERRORS ARE FEARED IN CARBON
Problems With Radiocarbon Dating
DATING By MALCOLM W. BROWNE Published: May 31, 1990 Since 1947, scientists carbon dating for kids have reckoned the ages of many old objects by measuring the amounts of radioactive carbon they contain. New research
How Far Back Does Carbon Dating Go
shows, however, that some estimates based on carbon may have erred by thousands of years. It is too soon to know whether the discovery will seriously upset the estimated dates of https://ncse.com/cej/3/2/answers-to-creationist-attacks-carbon-14-dating events like the arrival of human beings in the Western Hemisphere, scientists said. But it is already clear that the carbon method of dating will have to be recalibrated and corrected in some cases. Scientists at the Lamont-Doherty Geological Laboratory of Columbia University at Palisades, N.Y., reported today in the British journal Nature that some estimates of age based on carbon analyses were http://www.nytimes.com/1990/05/31/us/errors-are-feared-in-carbon-dating.html wrong by as much as 3,500 years. They arrived at this conclusion by comparing age estimates obtained using two different methods - analysis of radioactive carbon in a sample and determination of the ratio of uranium to thorium in the sample. In some cases, the latter ratio appears to be a much more accurate gauge of age than the customary method of carbon dating, the scientists said. In principle, any material of plant or animal origin, including textiles, wood, bones and leather, can be dated by its content of carbon 14, a radioactive form of carbon in the environment that is incorporated by all living things. Because it is radioactive, carbon 14 steadily decays into other substances. But when a plant or animal dies, it can no longer accumulate fresh carbon 14, and the supply in the organism at the time of death is gradually depleted. Since the rate of depletion has been accurately determined (half of any given amount of carbon 14 decays in 5,730 years), scientists can calculate the time elapsed since something died from its residual carbon 14. Dating Subject to Error But scie
do not realize is that carbon dating is not used to date dinosaurs. The reason? Carbon dating is only accurate back a few http://www.angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/carbondating.html thousand years. So if scientists believe that a creature lived millions of https://carm.org/carbon-dating years ago, then they would need to date it another way. But there is the problem. They assume dinosaurs lived millions of years ago (instead of thousands of years ago like the bible says). They ignore evidence that does not fit their preconceived notion. What would happen if carbon dating a dinosaur bone were carbon dated? - At Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Scientists dated dinosaur bones using the Carbon dating method. The age they came back with was only a few thousand years old. This date did not fit the preconceived notion that dinosaurs lived millions of years ago. So what did they do? They threw the results out. And kept carbon dating error their theory that dinosaurs lived "millions of years ago" instead. This is common practice. They then use potassium argon, or other methods, and date the fossils again. They do this many times, using a different dating method each time. The results can be as much as 150 million years different from each other! - how’s that for an "exact" science? They then pick the date they like best, based upon their preconceived notion of how old their theory says the fossil should be (based upon the Geologic column). So they start with the assumption that dinosaurs lived millions of years ago, then manipulate the results until they agree with their conclusion. Their assumptions dictate their conclusions. So why is it that if the date doesn't fit the theory, they change the facts? Unbiased science changes the theory to support the facts. They should not change the facts to fit the theory. A Dinosaur carbon dated at 9,890 and 16,000 years old NOT millions of years old like evolutionists claim I have documentation of an Allosaurus bone that was s
very accurate for wood used up to about 4,000 years ago. This is only because it is well calibrated with objects of known age. Example: wood found in a grave of known age by historically reliable documents is the standard for that time for the C14 content. This standard content of C14 can then be used for wood not associated with a historically documented date. Dates up to this point in history are well documented for C14 calibration. For object over 4,000 years old the method becomes very unreliable for the following reason: Objects older then 4,000 years run into a problem in that there are few if any known artifacts to be used as the standard. Libby, the discoverer of the C14 dating method, was very disappointed with this problem. He understood that archaeological artifacts were readily available. After all, this what the archeologist guessed in their published books. Some believe trees are known to be as old as 9,000 years. They use tree rings as the calibration standard. A lot of people doubt this claim for various good reasons I wont go into here. We believe all the dates over 5,000 years are really compressible into the next 2,000 years back to creation. So when you hear of a date of 30,000 years for a carbon date we believe it to be early after creation and only about 7,000 years old. If something carbon dates at 7,000 years we believe 5,000 is probably closer to reality (just before the flood). Robert Whitelaw has done a very good job illustrating this theory using about 30,000 dates published in Radio Carbon over the last 40 years. One of the impressive points Whitewall makes is the conspicuous absence of dates between 4,500 and 5,000 years ago illustrating a great catastrophe killing off plant and animal life world wide (the flood of Noah)! I hope this helps your understanding of carbon dating. If you have any more questions about it don't hesitate to write. (2.) I just listened