Carbon Dating and a Young Earth

Micaiah · #1 1st January 2004, 07:42 AM

The following link provides a good introduction to some of the principles of carbon dating, and how it relates to a young earth.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs...bon_dating.asp

Evolutionists have typically assumed that samples of material that are millions of years old, should have no C14. This follows logically from the half life of carbon.

Scientists have found that many of the samples previously considered millions of years old do still contain C14. These samples are found to have levels consistent with an age that is typically less that 100 000 years old, working with evolutionists assumptions about uniformity of the C14/C ratio.

YEC scientists suggest this ratio was different before the flood. With this assumption the dates of samples are consistent with the Biblical time frame which clearly indicates the earth is around 6000 years old.

In summary:

1.) The presence of C14 in samples previously though to be millions of years old, indicates that such ages are false.

2.) Carbon dating can be interpretted to support an earth age of about 6000 years.

notto · #2 1st January 2004, 08:32 AM

There are natural decay processes that occur under ground that would contribuet C14 to the coal. There is also the possibility of living bacteria or other organisms contributing to the coals c14 ratio as well. This is considered to be 'background' radiation and is well understood as a real phenomena. It is not the 'mystery' that AIG makes it out to be.

AIG's statements (and your summary conclusions) are premature and would only be true if it could be shown that there is no other way for the c14 to get there other than from atmospheric c14 before the material was buried. This has not been shown.

Micaiah · #3 1st January 2004, 09:40 AM

1. The samples tested include 'procedural blanks' that were supposed to represent infinite C14 age (ie those with no C14). This included materials other than coal.

2. How come no one accepts the possibility that the C14 found in these samples may not be 'in-situ' contamination, but rather a flaw in the method of Carbon dating?

3. My summary points are not phrased as conclusions.

notto · #4 1st January 2004, 09:53 AM

No one accepts the possiblity that the c14 in these samples may not be 'in-situ' contamination because the age of the coal and composition can be tested by other methods, background radiation can be measured and the sources can be found, and there is no reason to believe that the coal is younger than 50,000 years, accept in the world of creation science where you come to the conclusion and then use ad-hoc explainations (changing decay rates/ignoring other observed phenomena and explainations) to fit the evidence to it.

Background contamination is one of the reasons why c14 dating cannot be used for very old objects. Once the level that can be contributed via background radiation is close to the levels that would occur via atmospheric c14, the 'noise' becomes too high and the error becomes to great. This is incorporated into the method.

AIG states that old coal should be devoid of c14. This is a flawed statement because of course, we know that there are other mechanisms that can add to it.

Why would they make this statement? It is simply a false statement to support their conclusions as they deliver them to an audience who will accept this statment at face value.

just a note to add, AIG makes another false statement on of the same nature on this page:
"Red blood cells and hemoglobin have been found in some (unfossilized!) dinosaur bone. But these could not last more than a few thousand years—certainly not the 65 Ma since the last dinosaurs lived, according to evolutionists."

This is a significant mistrepresentation of the find. No intact hemoglobin, or red blood cells were found. What was found was protiens from broken down hemogloben, proteins which are stable and can certainly survive if isolated from reactans such as water and air.

Again, why would they make a statement like this? It is false.

lucaspa · #5 1st January 2004, 01:48 PM

Originally Posted by Micaiah

The following link provides a good introduction to some of the principles of carbon dating, and how it relates to a young earth.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs...bon_dating.asp

Evolutionists have typically assumed that samples of material that are millions of years old, should have no C14. This follows logically from the half life of carbon.

Scientists have found that many of the samples previously considered millions of years old do still contain C14. These samples are found to have levels consistent with an age that is typically less that 100 000 years old, working with evolutionists assumptions about uniformity of the C14/C ratio.

YEC scientists suggest this ratio was different before the flood. With this assumption the dates of samples are consistent with the Biblical time frame which clearly indicates the earth is around 6000 years old.

In summary:

1.) The presence of C14 in samples previously though to be millions of years old, indicates that such ages are false.

2.) Carbon dating can be interpretted to support an earth age of about 6000 years.

The relevant quote about C14 in coal is:
"Fossil wood found in ‘Upper Permian’ rock that is supposedly 250 Ma old still contained 14C.23 Recently, a sample of wood found in rock classified as ‘middle Triassic,’ supposedly some 230 million years old, gave a 14C date of 33,720 years, plus or minus 430 years.24 The accompanying checks showed that the 14C date was not due to contamination and that the ‘date’ was valid, within the standard (long ages) understanding of this dating system."

Unfortunately, the references are not to the actual literature. They are to a creationist paper:
"23. A.A. Snelling, Stumping Old-age Dogma. Creation, 20(4):48-50, 1998.
24. A.A. Snelling, Dating Dilemma, Creation, 21(3):39-41, 1999. "

The first one doesn't get me to the paper.

The second gets me to a creationist paper. The relevant quote is:
"The analytical report from the laboratory indicated detectable radiocarbon had been found in the fossil wood, yielding a supposed 14C ‘age’ of 33,720 ± 430 years BP (before present). This result had been ‘13C corrected’ by the lab staff, after they had obtained a d13CPDB value of –24.0 ‰.9 This value is consistent with the analyzed carbon in the fossil wood representing organic carbon from the original wood, and not from any contamination. Of course, if this fossil wood really were 225–230 million years old as is supposed, it should be impossible to obtain a finite radiocarbon age, because all detectable 14C should have decayed away in a fraction of that alleged time—a few tens of thousands of years."

Wrong. What this represents is the background counting. You are at the limit of the experimental technique. This is 7+ half lives out and this is at the limit of detectability. The lab gave an answer because it was paid to do so. It wasn't told how the collecting was done.

Also, as Notto has pointed out, since the material was at the surface, it is going to have bacterial contanimation.

The paper tries to avoid this by stating:

"Anticipating objections that the minute quantity of detected radiocarbon in this fossil wood might still be due to contamination, the question of contamination by recent microbial and fungal activity, long after the wood was buried, was raised with the staff at this, and another, radiocarbon laboratory. Both labs unhesitatingly replied that there would be no such contamination problem. Modern fungi or bacteria derive their carbon from the organic material they live on and don’t get it from the atmosphere, so they have the same ‘age’ as their host. Furthermore, the lab procedure followed (as already outlined) would remove the cellular tissues and any waste products from either fungi or bacteria."

However, it is clear that the bacteria wouldn't be living off the wood itself, since it is mostly rock. Their food source would be contemporary dust on the sample. And no, the washing used on the sample would not have removed the bacterial proteins. If it had done that, it would also have dissolved the wood.

They washed with dilute HCl and NaOH. This would remove carbonates and any dust, but the bacterial proteins would have been fixed in place.

Inappropriate technique getting results that we would expect: age at the limits of detectability of the method, since the method can't go back any further.

lucaspa · #6 1st January 2004, 01:49 PM

Originally Posted by Micaiah

YEC scientists suggest this ratio was different before the flood. With this assumption the dates of samples are consistent with the Biblical time frame which clearly indicates the earth is around 6000 years old.

Creationists are quite critical of evolutionist "assumptions". Yet here they are quite open about making an assumption and have no data whatsoever to back it up. How do you explain the inconsistency?

Micaiah · #7 1st January 2004, 10:41 PM

How do you get C14 contamination in diamonds?

Micaiah · #8 1st January 2004, 10:52 PM

Originally Posted by notto

There are natural decay processes that occur under ground that would contribuet C14 to the coal. There is also the possibility of living bacteria or other organisms contributing to the coals c14 ratio as well.

Can give give further explanation of these mechanisms.

Originally Posted by notto

This is considered to be 'background' radiation and is well understood as a real phenomena. It is not the 'mystery' that AIG makes it out to be.

What is 'back gound' radiation.

Originally Posted by notto

AIG's statements (and your summary conclusions) are premature and would only be true if it could be shown that there is no other way for the c14 to get there other than from atmospheric c14 before the material was buried. This has not been shown.

Can you demonstrate how the materials sampled were contaminated? How about diamond?

Micaiah · #9 1st January 2004, 11:33 PM

Originally Posted by Lucaspa

Creationists are quite critical of evolutionist "assumptions". Yet here they are quite open about making an assumption and have no data whatsoever to back it up. How do you explain the inconsistency?

If we accept the world is ~6000 years old, and a big percent of the buried fossil carbon resulted from the flood, we could expect the pre-flood biosphere (spere of living things) to have a greater percent of carbon than todays is present today. The C14/C ratio would be lower than tday. It logically follows that samples of pre-flood materials tested and dated using current assumptions about the C14/C ratio would give dates that are older than those derived using Creationsists' assumptions. Such assumptions seem reasonable, the only problem being that they contradict evolutionary theory.

The following post was taken from the above AIG link. Clearly, the C14/C ratio does change.

However, things are not quite so simple. First, plants discriminate against carbon dioxide containing 14C. That is, they take up less than would be expected and so they test older than they really are. Furthermore, different types of plants discriminate differently. This also has to be corrected for.2

Second, the ratio of 14C/12C in the atmosphere has not been constant—for example, it was higher before the industrial era when the massive burning of fossil fuels released a lot of carbon dioxide that was depleted in 14C. This would make things which died at that time appear older in terms of carbon dating. Then there was a rise in 14CO2 with the advent of atmospheric testing of atomic bombs in the 1950s.3 This would make things carbon-dated from that time appear younger than their true age.

Micaiah · #10 1st January 2004, 11:47 PM

Taken from the above AIG link.

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 50,000 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. It isn't. No source of coal has been found that completely lacks 14C.

Fossil wood found in ‘Upper Permian’ rock that is supposedly 250 Ma old still contained 14C.23 Recently, a sample of wood found in rock classified as ‘middle Triassic,’ supposedly some 230 million years old, gave a 14C date of 33,720 years, plus or minus 430 years.24 The accompanying checks showed that the 14C date was not due to contamination and that the ‘date’ was valid, within the standard (long ages) understanding of this dating system.

It is an unsolved mystery to evolutionists as to why coal has 14C in it,25 or wood supposedly millions of years old still has 14C present, but it makes perfect sense in a creationist world view.

So all coal has an amount of C14 present. Would you expect the C14 in coal to vary (decrease) with depth if it results from contamination, and does this occur?