Answers to Creationist Attacks on Carbon Dating | NCSE
Carbon has a half-life of about years, so researchers use the process to This is meaningless - paleontologists do not use carbon dating to assess dinosaur fossils; dinosaurs You can help RationalWiki by expanding it. . What links here · Related changes · Special pages · Printable version. Carbondated dinosaur bones are less than 40, years old .. While teaching students how to use microscopes in the lab that he directed at CSUN. In this answer, I will try to go through this story in great detail, Miller, has claimed to have dated dinosaur bones using radiocarbon methods.
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.Radioactive Dinosaur Bones
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.
More Problems with Carbon and Old-Earth Assumptions – Proslogion
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. 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.
When lava at the ridges hardens, it keeps a trace of the magnetism of the earth's magnetic field. Therefore, every time the magnetic field reverses itself, bands of paleomagnetism of reversed polarity show up on the ocean floor alternated with bands of normal polarity.
These bands are thousands of kilometers long, they vary in width, they lie parallel, and the bands on either side of any given ridge form mirror images of each other. Thus it can be demonstrated that the magnetic field of the earth has reversed itself dozens of times throughout earth history. Barnes, writing inought to have known better than to quote the gropings and guesses of authors of the early sixties in an effort to debunk magnetic reversals.
Before plate tectonics and continental drift became established in the mid-sixties, the known evidence for magnetic reversals was rather scanty, and geophysicists often tried to invent ingenious mechanisms with which to account for this evidence rather than believe in magnetic reversals.
However, bysea floor spreading and magnetic reversals had been documented to the satisfaction of almost the entire scientific community. Yet, instead of seriously attempting to rebut them with up-to-date evidence, Barnes merely quoted the old guesses of authors who wrote before the facts were known.
But, in spite of Barnes, paleomagnetism on the sea floor conclusively proves that the magnetic field of the earth oscillates in waves and even reverses itself on occasion. Even combined with the previous studies, for example, the specimens represent only a small fraction of what is available to measure.
Also, until there is some explanation for the trends in the data, such as the grouping I mentioned above, there is always the possibility of an alternative explanation. Despite my caution, I can say two things for sure about these data. First, they are completely unexpected in any old-earth paradigm. If nothing else, then, that should give all old-earth scientists something to think about. According to this source: Since dinosaurs are thought to be over 65 million years old, the news is stunning.
And more than some can tolerate.
Carbon dating dinosaur bones !
After the AOGS-AGU conference in Singapore, the abstract was removed from the conference website by two chairmen because they could not accept the findings. Unwilling to challenge the data openly, they erased the report from public view without a word to the authors or even to the AOGS officers, until after an investigation.
Here is a screen shot of the old program. However, if you go to the official siteyou can see that the talk has been removed.
This was the session that contained the presentation. You have to ask yourself why some old-earth scientists are afraid of letting other scientists see these data. I think that speaks volumes.
Answers to Creationist Attacks on Carbon-14 Dating
Recent studies, however, show that 14C can form underground. The decay of uranium and thorium, among other isotopes, produces radiation which can create 14C from 12C. This fact is extremely inconvenient to young-earthers, and creationist literature, accordingly, usually does not mention it. Carbon-dating skeptics deniers also claim that the inconsistency of 14C levels in the atmosphere over the past 60, years creates causes a validity issue.
However, calibration of carbon levels using tree rings and other sources keep such effects to an extremely small level. These include the starting conditions, the constancy of the rate of decay, and that no material has left or entered the sample.
Ironically, given how supposedly useless carbon dating is claimed to be, Creation Ministries International rests part of their " Evidences" on carbon dating being a useful method for within several thousand years.