Carbon Dating (Why I think Science Has It Wrong)

[alphaparticle]

I share from this:

http://ncse.com/cej/3/2/answers-to-creationist-attacks-carbon-14-dating

 

"

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. 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-14 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. (p. 108)

Cosmic rays form beta radiation all the time; this is the radiation that turns N-14 to C-14 in the first place. K-40 decay also forms plenty of beta radiation. Stearns, Carroll, and Clark point out that ". . . this isotope [K-40] accounts for a large part of the normal background radiation that can be detected on the earth's surface" (p. 84). 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."

[Spock]

I share from this:

http://ncse.com/cej/3/2/answers-to-creationist-attacks-carbon-14-dating

 

"

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. 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-14 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. (p. 108)

Cosmic rays form beta radiation all the time; this is the radiation that turns N-14 to C-14 in the first place. K-40 decay also forms plenty of beta radiation. Stearns, Carroll, and Clark point out that ". . . this isotope [K-40] accounts for a large part of the normal background radiation that can be detected on the earth's surface" (p. 84). 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."

Alpha,

I've been led to believe c14 dating is not reliable to date anything over 50,000 years old. Do you agree?

If that is true, how do you accurately date fossil bones?

[alphaparticle]

 

I share from this:

http://ncse.com/cej/3/2/answers-to-creationist-attacks-carbon-14-dating

 

"

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. 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-14 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. (p. 108)

Cosmic rays form beta radiation all the time; this is the radiation that turns N-14 to C-14 in the first place. K-40 decay also forms plenty of beta radiation. Stearns, Carroll, and Clark point out that ". . . this isotope [K-40] accounts for a large part of the normal background radiation that can be detected on the earth's surface" (p. 84). 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."

Alpha,

I've been led to believe c14 dating is not reliable to date anything over 50,000 years old. Do you agree?

If that is true, how do you accurately date fossil bones?

 

This is true.

 

You'd have to date other stuff in the same strata that the fossil bone was found using other isotopes with a bigger halflife.

[anthonyjmcgirr]

If you would like to read the studies of scientists without an agenda, then you must find one not paid by a university, etc, who would drop them like a hot biscuit the moment they mentioned intelligent design.  The moment they do, they immediately lose all credibility and respect in the scientific world.  They would lose their jobs and grants.  I'm telling ya, there is an atheistic bias monopoly on all science.

[Spock]

If you would like to read the studies of scientists without an agenda, then you must find one not paid by a university, etc, who would drop them like a hot biscuit the moment they mentioned intelligent design.  The moment they do, they immediately lose all credibility and respect in the scientific world.  They would lose their jobs and grants.  I'm telling ya, there is an atheistic bias monopoly on all science.

That's not good. Sigh!

[Enoch2021]

 

I share from this:

http://ncse.com/cej/3/2/answers-to-creationist-attacks-carbon-14-dating

 

"

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. 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-14 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. (p. 108)

Cosmic rays form beta radiation all the time; this is the radiation that turns N-14 to C-14 in the first place. K-40 decay also forms plenty of beta radiation. Stearns, Carroll, and Clark point out that ". . . this isotope [K-40] accounts for a large part of the normal background radiation that can be detected on the earth's surface" (p. 84). 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."

Alpha,

I've been led to believe c14 dating is not reliable to date anything over 50,000 years old. Do you agree?

If that is true, how do you accurately date fossil bones?

 

 

 

Spock, we just went over this in the Dino (Soft Tissue) thread.  Here's a refresher:

 

“Geologic stages are recognized, not by their boundaries, but by their content. The rich fossil record remains the main method to distinguish and correlate strata among regions, because the morphology of each taxon is the most unambiguous way to assign a relative age.”

James G. Ogg, Gabi Ogg, and Felix M. Gradstein, The Concise Geologic Time Scale (Cambridge University Press, 2008), 5.

 

They use the fossils to date the rocks and the rocks to date the fossils, remember.....

 

"Swing your partner round and round.......c'mon, join in....

[alphaparticle]

Well no, there are other radioactive isotopes used to date rocks. If you can date a bunch of stuff in one strata and get an age estimate, then the assumption is that the fossil is from that time also. It is an assumption but it seems reasonable to me?

[Enoch2021]

Well no, there are other radioactive isotopes used to date rocks. If you can date a bunch of stuff in one strata and get an age estimate, then the assumption is that the fossil is from that time also. It is an assumption but it seems reasonable to me?

 

 

Well not really....The above quote actually settles it.  Read it slowly.  One of the main reasons for that is the assumptive nature of all Radiometric Dating which we discovered the mysteries of a few weeks back.  And which someone has just recently "dug" back up again....you can reference that 

[Guest]

I get the limitations of the Radio Carbon dating process in both age range, and the objects to which it can be applied. However, I have not looked deeply into other radio dating techniques, and a question comes to mind about that, maybe someone can shed some light on.

I think the most common sorts of fossils, are those of life forms covered in sediments that later become sedimentary rocks. Suppose there is a mudslide, a flood, a sea bottom etc, and some living thing or formerly living thing get trapped in the resulting sediment. If for example, I know a mudslide occurred in 1 million years ago and trapped and preserved a scorpion. If I later discover this scorpion, it is reasonable to assume this scorpian is about 1 million years old.

Suppose that I have no idea when this mudslide occured. Can I use some sort of radio dating to tell me the age of this sediment layer? Seems to me that this sediment, is composed of older material, sand for example, that has existed long before this burial event - perhaps the particles are from different ages, not even the same age as each other. How can we date this material to the date of burial, instead of the age of the burial material?

As far as I know, this is not done with radiometric dating, but instead relies on index fossils. In other words if the layer has a trilobite in it, we assume the layer is from the age of trilobites. Do we have a way to know what age trilobites are, or do we assume from the layer's age from index fossils, and the age of fossils from their layers?

If that is the case, it does seem a bit circular. It has often troubled me the number of 'facts' that are known from unproven assumptions. It is not unique to scientists and or atheists either. Christians do it in their theology, eschatology is a perfect and obvious example.

Anyone understand the dating processes well enough to tell me how they are not assumption based and or circular arguments packaged to sound intellectual?

The climate change debate also seems to be victim to this game of consensus over-powering actual 'facts'. I get weary of all the certainty that seems based on speculation from my perspective, in all of these fields.

Ideas, comments, solutions?

[Tolken]

anthonyjmcgirr - But the fact that there is still carbon in these fossils and layers to test PROVES that the earth is indeed young and that the bible is correct.

 

This was posted in another thread, and I also had this bookmarked. It has been a number of years but Dr. Wiens was kind enough to have a back and forth by email for a time.

 

http://asa3.org/ASA/resources/Wiens.html

 

*I should add that there is a question answer section at the bottom which may be helpful.

Edited March 24, 2014 by Tolken