Creationist lies carbon dating

Content
  • Science vs. Fiction
  • Carbon-14 and the Age of the Earth
  • Refuting the Critics: Radiometric Dating
  • Evidence against a recent creation
  • Does carbon dating prove the earth is millions of years old?
  • Choose country
  • Primate’s Progress
  • Myths Regarding Radiocarbon Dating
  • Radiometric Dating and Creation Science

The evidence against a recent creation is o-ver-whelming. This article collects evidences that place a lower limit on the age of the Universe beyond the 6, to 10, years asserted by most Young Earth creationists YECs and the literalist Ussher chronology. All of this evidence supports deep time: Modern science accepts that the Earth is about 4. These limits usually take the form:

Science vs. Fiction

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.[rs_table_products tableName=”Best Dating Websites”]

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?

Very simply. 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 we extrapolate. 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 certain species of conifers, especially those at lower elevations or in southern latitudes, one season’s growth increment may be composed of two or more flushes of growth, each of which may strongly resemble an annual ring.

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. In years of severe drought, a bristlecone pine may fail to grow a complete ring all the way around its perimeter; we may find the ring if we bore into the tree from one angle, but not from another. 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.

Creationist Thomas G. 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. But how does one know that the magnetic field has fluctuated and reversed polarity? Aren’t these just excuses scientists give in order to neutralize Barnes’s claims? The evidence for fluctuations and reversals of the magnetic field is quite solid. 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.

He found that the earth’s magnetic field was 1. See Bailey, Renfrew, and Encyclopedia Britannica for details. In other words, it rose in intensity from 0. Even before the bristlecone pine calibration of C dating was worked out by Ferguson, Bucha predicted that this change in the magnetic field would make radiocarbon dates too young. This idea [that the fluctuating magnetic field affects influx of cosmic rays, which in turn affects C formation rates] has been taken up by the Czech geophysicist, V.

Bucha, who has been able to determine, using samples of baked clay from archeological sites, what the intensity of the earth’s magnetic field was at the time in question. Even before the tree-ring calibration data were available to them, he and the archeologist, Evzen Neustupny, were able to suggest how much this would affect the radiocarbon dates. Renfrew, p. There is a good correlation between the strength of the earth’s magnetic field as determined by Bucha and the deviation of the atmospheric radiocarbon concentration from its normal value as indicated by the tree-ring radiocarbon work.

As for the question of polarity reversals, plate tectonics can teach us much. It is a fact that new oceanic crust continually forms at the mid-oceanic ridges and spreads away from those ridges in opposite directions.

Have you heard the one about the live snail with a carbon age of In it, a bright young man from a good Christian (i.e. creationist). 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.

Jan 8. Posted by Paul Braterman. Have you heard the one about the live snail with a carbon age of years?

One of the most challenging tasks for the modern day creationist to is reconcile the belief in a 6, year old Earth with the ever-growing mountain of scientific evidence pointing to a vastly different conclusion — namely a universe that’s So, given these astoundingly dramatic discrepancies, biblical literalists and ‘young Earth creationists’ have had no choice but to get pretty darned imaginative when brushing science aside.

The topic of radiometric dating and other dating methods has received some of the most vicious attacks by young earth creation science theorists. However, none of the criticisms of young earth creationists have any scientific merit. Radiometric dating remains a reliable scientific method.

Refuting the Critics: Radiometric Dating

Often, critics of biblical creation will comment on my Facebook posts. Some of them have intelligent questions which I am happy to answer. But many critics simply post unsubstantiated, false assertions or emotionally charged rhetoric that is devoid of any rational content. It is a waste of time to interact with such trolls see Proverbs 9: But it can be encouraging to the Christian to examine these arguments to see how bad they are. Ironically, such rantings only serve to illustrate the truth of Romans 1:

Evidence against a recent creation

Don’t expect intellectual honesty from a theist. Dogma by definition won’t allow it. William Lane Craig even said that if he was taken back in a time machine and saw for himself that Jesus did not resurrect, he would still believe that it happened anyway. That feeling in his heart trumps empirical evidence apparently. Mark Armitage published a peer reviewed paper documenting soft tissue in a triceratops horn. The resultant age 33, years before present. Evidently you didn’t bother to read the article you are commenting on, since that claim is dealt with in it. It is not suppressed or ignored but is often referred to as an example of a creationist fraud. Do you know who lied to you and told it was published in a peer-reviewed journal, or did you just make that bit up?

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.

It is not as well publicized as its larger close neighbour Mt Ruapehu, which has erupted briefly several times in the last five years. Mt Ngauruhoe is thought to have been active for at least 2, years, with more than 70 eruptive periods since , when European settlers first recorded a steam eruption. The first lava eruption seen by Europeans occurred in

Does carbon dating prove the earth is millions of years old?

Carbon is an element that is required for life. All plants and animals contain carbon. The radioactive half-life for this emission is 5, years. Animals and humans eat plants and meat both of which contain carbon , and breathe the air, which contains a mixture of oxygen and carbon dioxide. In this way, both plants and animals are constantly exchanging carbon and oxygen with that in the atmosphere. While they are alive, their bodies contain the same fraction of the three carbon isotopes as does the atmosphere, but at death, respiration ceases and the exchange stops. As cosmic rays come in from outer space, they interact with gas molecules in the upper atmosphere, knocking off neutrons. Air circulation causes mixing, and the atmosphere contains this mixture, spreading it around the world. However, the process can be described in fairly simple terms. This is then compared with the same ratio at the time of death of the sample material.

Choose country

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 directly involved in this field. In the following article, some of the most common misunderstandings regarding radiocarbon dating are addressed, and corrective, up-to-date scientific creationist thought is provided where appropriate. MYTH 1. Radiocarbon is used to date the age of rocks, which enables scientists to date the age of the earth.

Primate’s Progress

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.

Myths Regarding Radiocarbon Dating

Ничего серьезного, – ответила Сьюзан, хотя вовсе не была в этом уверена. Следопыт задерживается. Она подумала, не ошиблась ли где-то. Начала просматривать длинные строки символов на экране, пытаясь найти то, что вызвало задержку. Хейл посматривал на нее с самодовольным видом.

Radiometric Dating and Creation Science

Хорошо бы помедленнее. Беккеру не хотелось так быстро уходить от алтаря, но когда две тысячи людей ждут причастия, а обслуживают их всего восемь священнослужителей, было бы неприличным медлить с этим священным глотком. Чаша была уже совсем близко, когда Халохот заметил человека в пиджаке и брюках разного цвета. – Estas ya muerto, – тихо прошептал он, двигаясь по центральному проходу. Ты уже мертвец. Времени на какие-либо уловки уже не.

Два выстрела в спину, схватить кольцо и исчезнуть.

Сьюзан, ты же говорила с. Разве Дэвид тебе не объяснил. Она была слишком возбуждена, чтобы ответить. Испания. Так вот почему Дэвид отложил поездку в Стоун-Мэнор. – Сегодня утром я послал за ним машину.

Debunking Creationism: “Radiometric Dating Is Unreliable!”p{text-indent: 1.5em;}

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.