|
Problems with Carbon 14 Datingby JWing
|
|
Carbon 14 dating is still touted as to best way to date items of unknown date, although recently newer radiometric dating that is much more precise. Evolutionist still point back to Carbon 14 dating, as radiometric dating has produced dates ONLY UP TO 50,000 years, which does not agree with their assumption of millions of years. So I only felt it fair that we should take a look at some of the assumptions one needs to make in order to use Carbon-14 dating. The most common assumptions are listed below:
1) Carbon dating is a good dating tool for some things that we know the relative date of or you have a similar item to which you know the date of to compare the C-14 concentration to.
2) For carbon-14 dating to be accurate, one must assume the rate of decay of C-14 has remained constant over the years. However, evidence indicates that the opposite is true. In fact, changing the environments surrounding the samples can alter decay rates. 3) 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. 4) For C-14 dating to be accurate, the concentrations of C-14 and C-12 must have remained constant in the atmosphere. Again this assumption is incorrect as our atomsphere is constantly changing. 5) Dr. Libby and the evolutionist crowd have assumed that all plant and animal life utilize carbon-14 equally as they do carbon-12. |
Scientific Fact about Carbon 14
Carbon-14 has a half life of 5730 years and decays into stable (non-radioactive) isotope nitrogen-14. "Beyond 40-50,000 years, there usually is not enough left to measure with conventional laboratory methods."(a) The maximum theoretical detection limit for C-14 is about 100,000 years. This means if any item has any detectable amount of C-14, its age automatically has to be younger than 100,000 years and most likely even younger than 40-50,000 years. Any older and there is no C-14 detectable.
"Carbon dating is not generally reliable for finds that are more than 40,000 years old, so other dating methods have to be used."(b)
Carbon dating is not generally reliable for finds that are more than 40,000 years old, so other dating methods have to be used.
Ref: Carbon Dating - HowStuffWorks | Carbon-14 - Wikipedia | Carbon 14 Dating - Math Central | Carbon Dating - HyperPhysics | CARBON DATING OF FOSSILS - paleochronology(a)| UK Natural History Museum (b)
"I actually happen to know something about the "Miller Tale" as it is called. Miller "borrowed" some dinosaur bones from a museum without telling the curators or owners what he was actually intending on doing with it. He immediately took it to be C14 dated and received a date of roughly 40,000 years. So if Dinosaur bones are supposedly 65+ million years old, why is this?" --Physics Exchange
Carbon-14 has a half life of 5730 years and decays into stable (non-radioactive) isotope nitrogen-14. "Beyond 40-50,000 years, there usually is not enough left to measure with conventional laboratory methods."(a) The maximum theoretical detection limit for C-14 is about 100,000 years. This means if any item has any detectable amount of C-14, its age automatically has to be younger than 100,000 years and most likely even younger than 40-50,000 years. Any older and there is no C-14 detectable.
"Carbon dating is not generally reliable for finds that are more than 40,000 years old, so other dating methods have to be used."(b)
Carbon dating is not generally reliable for finds that are more than 40,000 years old, so other dating methods have to be used.
Ref: Carbon Dating - HowStuffWorks | Carbon-14 - Wikipedia | Carbon 14 Dating - Math Central | Carbon Dating - HyperPhysics | CARBON DATING OF FOSSILS - paleochronology(a)| UK Natural History Museum (b)
"I actually happen to know something about the "Miller Tale" as it is called. Miller "borrowed" some dinosaur bones from a museum without telling the curators or owners what he was actually intending on doing with it. He immediately took it to be C14 dated and received a date of roughly 40,000 years. So if Dinosaur bones are supposedly 65+ million years old, why is this?" --Physics Exchange
C-14 proves the Earth is YOUNG not old!!
Fossils are petrified ORGANIC MATERIAL encased sedimentary soil subjected to extreme pressure that squashed it into sedimentary rock. The only proper dating method for ORGANIC MATERIAL is C-14, not radiometric dating which is for rocks only.The maximum theoretical detection limit for C-14 is about 100,000 years but the realistic detectable limit is 40-50,000 years. This means if any item that has any detectable amount of C-14, automatically has to be younger than 40-50,000 years. Any older and there is no detectable C-14. Any C-14 reading of 1 million years or more are automatically INVALID because the there isn't enough C-14 to detect with our best instruments. More recently evolutionist claim that C-14 is only accurate for ages of LESS THAN 20,000 years.
Which number is consistent with C-14 saying life is YOUNGER than 20,000 yrs old?
"Beyond 40-50,000 years, there usually is not enough left to measure with conventional laboratory methods."-1998-2012 by Dennis O'Neil,Palomar College, San Marcos, CA
Radiocarbon dating doesn't work well on objects much older than twenty thousand years, because such objects have so little C-14 left that their beta radiation is swamped out by the background radiation of cosmic rays and potassium-40 (K-40) decay. --1982, Christopher Gregory Weber, Nat Center for Sci Education
Fossils are petrified ORGANIC MATERIAL encased sedimentary soil subjected to extreme pressure that squashed it into sedimentary rock. The only proper dating method for ORGANIC MATERIAL is C-14, not radiometric dating which is for rocks only.The maximum theoretical detection limit for C-14 is about 100,000 years but the realistic detectable limit is 40-50,000 years. This means if any item that has any detectable amount of C-14, automatically has to be younger than 40-50,000 years. Any older and there is no detectable C-14. Any C-14 reading of 1 million years or more are automatically INVALID because the there isn't enough C-14 to detect with our best instruments. More recently evolutionist claim that C-14 is only accurate for ages of LESS THAN 20,000 years.
- The Bible says life and the earth is 6000yrs old
- Evolutionist GUESS life is 3.8 BILLION yrs old and earth 4.6 BILLION yrs old.
Which number is consistent with C-14 saying life is YOUNGER than 20,000 yrs old?
"Beyond 40-50,000 years, there usually is not enough left to measure with conventional laboratory methods."-1998-2012 by Dennis O'Neil,Palomar College, San Marcos, CA
Radiocarbon dating doesn't work well on objects much older than twenty thousand years, because such objects have so little C-14 left that their beta radiation is swamped out by the background radiation of cosmic rays and potassium-40 (K-40) decay. --1982, Christopher Gregory Weber, Nat Center for Sci Education
Some of the most famous blunders to date.
a) Live mollusks off the Hawaiian coast have had their shells dated with the C-14 method. These test showed that the shells died 2000 years ago!
b) The shells of living mollusks have been dated using the C-14 method, only to find that the method gave it a date as having been dead for 23,000 years!(Science vol. 141 1963 pg. 634-637) c) Shells from living snails were dated using the C-14 method. The results stated that the snails had died 27,000 years ago. (Science vol. 224 1984 pg. 58-61) |
d) The body of a seal that had been dead for 30 years was carbon dated, and the results stated that the seal had died 4,600 years ago! ("The Illustrated Origins Answer Book" by Paul Taylor)
e) A lake Bonney seal known to have died only a few weeks before was carbon dated. The results stated that the seal had died between 515 and 715 years ago. (Antarctic Journal, Washington) |
e) A freshly killed seal was carbon dated to be 1300 years old.
-Antarctic Journal, Vol. 6, Sept-Oct, 1971, p. 211 g) Living penguins have been carbon dated and the results said that they had died 8,000 years ago! h) Mortar from an English castle less than 800 years old, was Carbon-14 dated as 7,370 years old. |
Allosaurus bone were sent to The University of Arizona to be carbon dated. The results were 9,890 +/- 60 years and 16,120 +/- 220 years. If the bones were millions of years old, there should have been NO DETECTABLE C-14, at all.
"We didn't tell them that the bones they were dating were dinosaur bones. The result was sample B at 16,120 years. The Allosaurus dinosaur was supposed to be around 140,000,000 years. The samples of bone were blind samples." This test was done on August 10, 1990 |
“The lower leg of the Fairbanks Creek mammoth had a radiocarbon age of 15,380 years while its skin and flesh were dated at 21,300 years old.”
-Harold E. Anthony, “Natures Deep Freeze,” Natural History, Sept. 1949, p. 300. “One part of the Vollosovitch mammoth was carbon dated at 29,500 years old and another part at 44,000 years old.” -Troy L. Pewe, Quaternary Stratigraphic Nomenclature in Unglaciated Central Alaska, Geological Survey Professional Paper 862 (U.S. Gov. printing office, 1975) p. 30 |
"The hair on the Chekurovka mammoth was found to have a carbon-14 age of 26,000 years but the peaty soil in which is was preserved was found to have a carbon-14 dating of only 5,600 years." (Radiocarbon Journal, Vol. 8, 1966.)
Dating Results of Known Items by Radiometric Dating
While Carbon 14 is used for dating organisms due their absorption of Carbon when alive, rocks can not be. Rather they use radiometric dating that uses other radioactive isotopes, that are not present in organisms, to yield a potential age of the rocks. This however is just as unpredictable as C-14 in their results. Here are examples of radiometric dating that have yielded lengthy ages when we know the actual age of the rock formations.
While Carbon 14 is used for dating organisms due their absorption of Carbon when alive, rocks can not be. Rather they use radiometric dating that uses other radioactive isotopes, that are not present in organisms, to yield a potential age of the rocks. This however is just as unpredictable as C-14 in their results. Here are examples of radiometric dating that have yielded lengthy ages when we know the actual age of the rock formations.
- Sunset Crater in Northern Arizona was formed in 1065AD: Dated 200,000 + years
- Lava flows at Mt. Ngauruhoe in New Zealand were formed in 1949, 1954, & 1975: yielded 3 different ages for the rocks. --133 million yrs, 197 million yrs, and 3.908 billion yrs.
- Hualalai basalt in Hawaii was formed in 1801: Dated 1.4-22 million years old
- Mt. Etna basalt in Sicily was formed in 1972: Dated 140,000 – 350,000
- Mt St. Helens erupted in 1986: radiometric age of 350,000 yrs
- Diamonds from Zaire: Dated at 6 billion years old (Note: earth is supposedly only 4.6 billion years old)
- Measuring uranium in zircon crystals from a borehole in New Mexico yields an age of 1.5 billion years. Yet measuring the amount of helium that leaked out as result of the decay yields an age of 6,000 yrs.
- Rock at the top of the Grand Canyon, formed by recent volcanic eruption, yielded the same age as volcanic rocks deep below the canyon wall --1.143 billion years
Scientific Laws to the Wind
With all this conflicting dating why does anyone still believe evolutionist who say things are into the millions and billion years? Worse yet it has been found that they falsify date readings when it comes up much younger than they would have hoped. Some of you know about Laws in science from Newton's law of gravity. Law basically has been proven over and over again with experimentation that it is true and is removed as a Theory (guess) to a Law (hard fact). Well one other set of Laws is that of Thermodynamics. Basically a fancy name for heat exchange. Thermo meaning 'heat' and dynamics meaning 'movement'. There is something called the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics and it goes thusly.
With all this conflicting dating why does anyone still believe evolutionist who say things are into the millions and billion years? Worse yet it has been found that they falsify date readings when it comes up much younger than they would have hoped. Some of you know about Laws in science from Newton's law of gravity. Law basically has been proven over and over again with experimentation that it is true and is removed as a Theory (guess) to a Law (hard fact). Well one other set of Laws is that of Thermodynamics. Basically a fancy name for heat exchange. Thermo meaning 'heat' and dynamics meaning 'movement'. There is something called the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics and it goes thusly.
2nd Law of Thermodynamics - The entropy of an isolated system not in equilibrium will tend to increase over time, approaching a maximum value at equilibrium.
Entropy = degree of dispersion of energy in a system = disorder |
I've seen evolutionary scientist try to change the wording of this Law to make it not help creationist. They change it to "The entropy of an isolated system does not decrease". But if you strip this down it is saying 'entropy does not decrease', which means it increases! Change the wording all you want but law simply states that disorder increases over time.
Here is a simple tests of this Law.
|
Simply put nature goes from order to disorder over time. Never in reverse as long as this 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is in effect. Well in order for disorder to occur you must have order before that. And if you have order you need someone that made that order as order doesn't happen spontaneously. As hard as science tries, it can not disprove a creator who made all the order found in nature that is slowly going toward disorder.
That creator is God (Jehovah) who also wrote the Bible and he told us exactly how everything was made and that the Earth is about 6000 years old.
That creator is God (Jehovah) who also wrote the Bible and he told us exactly how everything was made and that the Earth is about 6000 years old.
Genesis 2:1-2
1 Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them. 2 And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; |
By the way, the Hebrew word 'yom' when used with a number always means a literal 24 hour days.
So the question really only comes down to whose word you are going to take: Scientist's, who were not present when everything was created and even break their own Laws to come up with millions of years worth of accidents, or God's who actually was present and made everything with details and intricacies we haven't even fully discovered yet.
So the question really only comes down to whose word you are going to take: Scientist's, who were not present when everything was created and even break their own Laws to come up with millions of years worth of accidents, or God's who actually was present and made everything with details and intricacies we haven't even fully discovered yet.