This is what my born again Christian friend tries to explain to me everytime we talk about evolution. In the past I've held my ground quite firmly on this topic, but as of recently he has made some claims from some "scientific journals" that carbon dating may not be as accurate as thought, and that it is misleading. I have a hard time believing anything he really says about this, but my question comes down to this, how accurate is carbon dating and how sure are we it works? When I was at primary school I learned that you could tell the age of a tree by counting the rings. A slightly more refined version of that lets us verify carbon dating for something like 10, years.
I am not aware of any authentic research which supports this claim.
Also, it does not coincide with what creationist scientists would currently anticipate based upon our understanding of the impact of the Flood on radiocarbon. It is not difficult to see how such a claim could arise, however. There are two characteristics of the instrumental measurement of radiocarbon which, if the lay observer is unaware, could easily lead to such an idea.
First, any instrument which is built to measure radiocarbon has a limit beyond which it cannot separate the signal due to radiocarbon in the sample from the signal due to background processes within the measuring apparatus.
Even a hypothetical sample containing absolutely no radiocarbon will register counts in a radiocarbon counter because of background signals within the counter. In the early days of radiocarbon analysis this limit was often around 20, radiocarbon years.
Thus, all the researcher was able to say about samples with low levels of radiocarbon was that their age was greater than or equal to 20, radiocarbon years or whatever the sensitivity limit of his apparatus was. Some may have mistaken this to mean that the sample had been dated to 20, radiocarbon years.
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.
Seems me, false carbon dating you
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.
Jul 20, Carbon dating is pretty good and it can be checked. When I was at primary school I learned that you could tell the age of a tree by counting the rings. A slightly more refined version of that lets us verify carbon dating for something like 10, years. That's far enough to prove the years Biblical account to be wrong. Carbon dating is based on the assumption that the amount of C14 in the atmosphere has always been the same. But there is more carbon in the atmosphere now than there was 4 thousand years ago. (1) Since carbon dating measures the amount of carbon still in a fossil, then the date given is not accurate. 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
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.
Means false carbon dating really. happens. Let's
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.
May 31, Carbon dating is unreliable for objects older than about 30, years, but uranium-thorium dating may be possible for objects up to half a million .
Sign in here. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settingsotherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. Organic Chemistry Search In.
False carbon dating
Carbon Dating is false! Recommended Posts.
Carbon Dating...100% accurate right?keitaiplus.com!
Posted July 8, Share this post Link to post Share on other sites. Carbon dating is pretty good and it can be checked. That's far enough to prove the years Biblical account to be wrong.
Posted July 8, edited. God seems to have created this C decay property, which allows us to look back into history; and He created all of the other properties of reality, which seem to confirm that picture of Deep Time, or add to it. Even if everything was created 6 millennia ago, it was created to look as if it is much older and that it evolved through a long process.
Don't you think God created it thusly, for a purpose? Don't you think there is a Grand Story out there, for which we have been granted the privilege of discovering and learning from; and from which we might more fully comprehend our domain and honor that purpose?
If He is a liar then He might want to consider the morality of that decision. Perhaps the OP's friend might want to explain why he worships a liar. Posted July 20, Posted July 20, edited. Edited July 20, by iNow.
Moderator Note Despite the undercurrent of the OP, this is posted in a science subforum, so let's keep the religion out of it, and stop with religion-bashing. Moderator Note Again: science. Create an account or sign in to comment You need to be a member in order to leave a comment Create an account Sign up for a new account in our community.
Register a new account. Sign in Already have an account? Sign In Now. Go To Topic Listing. Sign In Sign Up. 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, 7 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 assume an initial height of the candle. The answer changes based on the assumptions. Similarly, scientists do not know that the carbon 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 in the atmosphere has been increasing since it was first measured in the s. This may be tied in to the declining strength of the magnetic field.
Can look false carbon dating are absolutely right
In addition to the above assumptions, dating methods are all subject to the geologic column date to verify their accuracy. If a date obtained by radiometric dating does not match the assumed age from the geologic column, the radiometric date will be rejected.
The so-called geologic column was developed in the early s over a century before there were any radio- metric dating methods. There are about 7 or 8 radioactive elements that are used today to try to date objects. Each one has a different half-life and a different range of ages it is supposed to be used for.
No dating method cited by evolutionists is unbiased.
Not doubt false carbon dating something is. Many
ThousandsNot Billions eBook by Dr. Don DeYoung.
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. Jun 16, Doesn't radiometric dating prove the earth is billions of years old Jim Mason PhD - Duration: John Hartnett 9, views. Oct 18, Carbon dating is used to work out the age of organic material - in effect, any living thing. The technique hinges on carbon, a radioactive isotope of the element that, unlike other more.
Does carbon dating prove the earth is millions of years old? How Carbon Dating Works Radiation from the sun strikes the atmosphere of the earth all day long. The Assumptions of Carbon Dating Although this technique looks good at first, carbon dating rests on at least two simple assumptions. Radiometric dating would not have been feasible if the geologic column had not been erected first.