How accurate are Carbon and other radioactive dating methods? • ordendelsantosepulcro.info
Discussion on the inaccuracies found using the Carbon dating method, and the various other It cannot be used to date volcanic rocks, for example. .  This excess appears to have come from the upper mantle, below the Earth's crust . PEOPLE who ask about carbon (14C) dating usually want to know about the not be used to date volcanic rocks, for ex am p le. The rate of decay of 14C is .. Methods should work reliably on things of known age. There are many age. 14 This excess appears to have come from the upper mantle, below Earth's crust. Radiocarbon dating can easily establish that humans have been on the earth however, because radiocarbon (C) dating is one of the most reliable of all the . It is a fact that new oceanic crust continually forms at the mid-oceanic ridges.
How accurate are Carbon-14 and other radioactive dating methods?
Over the years an age of 2. After this was widely accepted, further studies of the rocks brought the radiometric age down to about 1. Such is the dating game. Are we suggesting that evolutionists are conspiring to massage the data to get what they want? It is simply that all observations must fit the prevailing paradigm. We must remember that the past is not open to the normal processes of experimental science, that is, repeatable experiments in the present.
A scientist cannot do experiments on events that happened in the past. Scientists do not measure the age of rocks, they measure isotope concentrations, and these can be measured extremely accurately. Those involved with unrecorded history gather information in the present and construct stories about the past. The level of proof demanded for such stories seems to be much less than for studies in the empirical sciences, such as physics, chemistry, molecular biology, physiology, etc.
Williams, an expert in the environmental fate of radioactive elements, identified 17 flaws in the isotope dating reported in just three widely respected seminal papers that supposedly established the age of the Earth at 4.
What date would you like? The forms issued by radioisotope laboratories for submission with samples to be dated commonly ask how old the sample is expected to be. If the techniques were absolutely objective and reliable, such information would not be necessary. Testing radiometric dating methods If the long-age dating techniques were really objective means of finding the ages of rocks, they should work in situations where we know the age.
Furthermore, different techniques should consistently agree with one another. The secular scientific literature lists many examples of excess argon causing dates of millions of years in rocks of known historical age. This is consistent with a young world—the argon has had too little time to escape. So data are again selected according to what the researcher already believes about the age of the rock. Steve Austin sampled basalt from the base of the Grand Canyon strata and from the lava that spilled over the edge of the canyon.
By evolutionary reckoning, the latter should be a billion years younger than the basalt from the bottom. Standard laboratories analyzed the isotopes. The rubidium-strontium isochron technique suggested that the recent lava flow was Ma older than the basalts beneath the Grand Canyon—an impossibility.
Different dating techniques should consistently agree If the dating methods are an objective and reliable means of determining ages, they should agree. If a chemist were measuring the sugar content of blood, all valid methods for the determination would give the same answer within the limits of experimental error. However, with radiometric dating, the different techniques often give quite different results. In the study of the Grand Canyon rocks by Austin, different techniques gave different results.
Techniques that give results that can be dismissed just because they don't agree with what we already believe cannot be considered objective. In Australia, some wood found the Tertiary basalt was clearly buried in the lava flow that formed the basalt, as can be seen from the charring. The latter figures are significant because thorium-derived dates should be the more reliable, since thorium is less mobile than the uranium minerals that are the parents of the lead isotopes in lead-lead system.
More evidence something is wrong— 14C in fossils supposedly millions of years old Carbon Dating in many cases seriously embarrasses evolutionists by giving ages that are much younger than those expected from their model of early history. A specimen older than 50, years should have too little 14C to measure.
Laboratories that measure 14C would like a source of organic material with zero 14C to use as a blank to check that their lab procedures do not add 14C. Coal is an obvious candidate because the youngest coal is supposed to be millions of years old, and most of it is supposed to be tens or hundreds of millions of years old.
Such old coal should be devoid of 14C. No source of coal has been found that completely lacks 14C. It is an unsolved mystery to evolutionists as to why coal has 14C in it, or wood supposedly millions of years old still has 14C present, but it makes perfect sense in a creationist world view. A few of them follow. Evidence for a rapid formation of geological strata, as in the biblical flood. Some of the evidences are: For more, see books by geologists Morris  and Austin.
But these could not last more than a few thousand years—certainly not the 65 Ma since the last dinosaurs lived, according to evolutionists. Rapid reversals during the flood year and fluctuations shortly after would have caused the field energy to drop even faster. This helium originally escaped from rocks.
This happens quite fast, yet so much helium is still in some rocks that it has not had time to escape—certainly not billions of years. The supernova remnants SNRs should keep expanding for hundreds of thousands of years, according to physical equations.
Yet there are no very old, widely expanded Stage 3 SNRs, and few moderately old Stage 1 ones in our galaxy, the Milky Way, or in its satellite galaxies, the Magellanic Clouds. But even if the moon had started receding from being in contact with the Earth, it would have taken only 1. This gives a maximum age of the moon, not the actual age.
Radioactive Dating - Carbon, Method, Earth, and Age - JRank Articles
This is far too young for evolutionists who claim the moon is 4. The sea is not nearly salty enough for this to have been happening for billions of years. Even granting generous assumptions to evolutionists, the sea could not be more than 62 Ma years old—far younger than the billions of years believed by the evolutionists. Again, this indicates a maximum age, not the actual age. Russell Humphreys gives other processes inconsistent with billions of years in the pamphlet Evidence for a Young World.
They realize that all science is tentative because we do not have all the data, especially when dealing with the past. The atheistic evolutionist W. In reality, all dating methods, including those that point to a young Earth, rely on unprovable assumptions. Creationists ultimately date the Earth historically using the chronology of the Bible.
This is because they believe that this is an accurate eyewitness account of world history, which bears the evidence within it that it is the Word of Godand therefore totally reliable and error-free. What the do the radiometric dates of millions of years mean, if they are not true ages?
To answer this question, it is necessary to scrutinize further the experimental results from the various dating techniques, the interpretations made on the basis of the results and the assumptions underlying those interpretations. The isochron dating technique was thought to be infallible because it supposedly covered the assumptions about starting conditions and closed systems.
This problem cannot be overlooked, especially in evaluating the numerical time scale. Similar questions can also arise in applying Sm-Nd [samarium-neodymium] and U-Pb [uranium-lead] isochron methods. Another currently popular dating method is the uranium-lead concordia technique.
This effectively combines the two uranium-lead decay series into one diagram. Numerous models, or stories, have been developed to explain such data.
Again, the stories are evaluated according to their own success in agreeing with the existing long ages belief system. Andrew Snelling has suggested that fractionation sorting of elements in the molten state in the Earth's mantle could be a significant factor in explaining the ratios of isotope concentrations which are interpreted as ages. As long ago asNobel Prize nominee Melvin Cookprofessor of metallurgy at the University of Utah, pointed out evidence that lead isotope ratios, for example, may involve alteration by important factors other than radioactive decay.
Thorium has a long half-life decays very slowly and is not easily moved out of the rock, so if the lead came from thorium decay, some thorium should still be there. The concentrations of lead, lead, and lead suggest that the lead came about by neutron capture conversion of lead to lead to lead When the isotope concentrations are adjusted for such conversions, the ages calculated are reduced from some Ma to recent.
Other ore bodies seemed to show similar evidence. Cook recognized that the current understanding of nuclear physics did not seem to allow for such a conversion under normal conditions, but he presents evidence that such did happen, and even suggests how it could happen. Anomalies in deep rock crystals Physicist Dr.
Robert Gentry has pointed out that the amount of helium and lead in zircons from deep bores is not consistent with an evolutionary age of 1, Ma for the granite rocks in which they are found. Furthermore, the amount of helium in zircons from hot rock is also much more consistent with a young Earth helium derives from the decay of radioactive elements. The lead and helium results suggest that rates of radioactive decay may have been much higher in the recent past.
Humphreys has suggested that this may have occurred during creation week and the flood.
How do geologists use carbon dating to find the age of rocks?
This would make things look much older than they really are when current rates of decay are applied to dating. Whatever caused such elevated rates of decay may also have been responsible for the lead isotope conversions claimed by Cook above. Orphan radiohalos Decaying radioactive particles in solid rock cause spherical zones of damage to the surrounding crystal structure. A speck of radioactive element such as Uranium, for example, will leave a sphere of discoloration of characteristically different radius for each element it produces in its decay chain to lead Gentry has researched radiohalos for many years, and published his results in leading scientific journals.
For example, Po has a half-life of just 3 minutes. Curiously, rings formed by polonium decay are often found embedded in crystals without the parent uranium halos.Radiometric Dating is Flawed!! Really?? How Old IS the Earth?
Now the polonium has to get into the rock before the rock solidifies, but it cannot derive a from a uranium speck in the solid rock, otherwise there would be a uranium halo. Either the polonium was created primordial, not derived from uraniumor there have been radical changes in decay rates in the past. Gentry has addressed all attempts to criticize his work. Whatever process was responsible for the halos could be a key also to understanding radiometric dating.
We don't have all the answers, but we do have the sure testimony of the Word of God to the true history of the world. Footnotes Also known as isotope or radioisotope dating. Today, a stable carbon isotope, 13Cis measured as an indication of the level of discrimination against 14C.
Radiation from atomic testing, like cosmic rays, causes the conversion of 14N to 14C. Tree ring dating dendrochronology has been used in an attempt to extend the calibration of the calibration of carbon dating earlier than historical records allow, but this depends on temporal placement of fragments of wood from long dead trees using carbon dating, assuming straight-line extrapolation backwards.
Government Printing Office, Washington D. Musk ox muscle was dated at 24, years, but hair was dated at 17, years. Corrected dates bring the difference in age approximately within the life span of an ox.
With sloth cave dung, standard carbon dates of the lower layers suggested less than 2 pellets per year were produced by the sloths. 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. 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 we extrapolate - page 25 - as far back as ten thousand years ago, we find the atmosphere would not have had any C in it at all. 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? Wouldn't that spoil the tree-ring count? If anything, the tree-ring sequence suffers far more from missing rings than from double rings. This means that the tree-ring dates would be slightly too young, not too old.
Of course, some species of tree tend to produce two or more growth rings per year. But other species produce scarcely any extra rings. Most of the tree-ring sequence is based on the bristlecone pine. This tree rarely produces even a trace of an extra ring; on the contrary, a typical bristlecone pine has up to 5 percent of its rings missing. Concerning the sequence of rings derived from the bristlecone pine, Ferguson says: In the growth-ring analyses of approximately one thousand trees in the White Mountains, we have, in fact, found no more than three or four occurrences of even incipient multiple growth layers.
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. 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.