• Als Spam markieren
• Beitrag melden

• 
  Diese Gruppe Alles

• Archiv
• RSS-Feeds

• Kontakt
• Hilfe
• Impressum
• Datenschutz

Carbon 14 Dating

Bs'd

http://trueorigin.org/dating.asp#Carbon%2014%20dating

Carbon 14 Dating

Back to top

The following material is from http://www.rae.org/ch04tud.html: (It
looks like C14 dating is the "bad boy" of radiometric dating.)

Dr. Libby, the discoverer of the C14 method, which won for him a Nobel
prize, expressed his shock that human artifacts extended back only
5000 years, a finding totally in conflict with any evolutionary
concept. Older dates were found to be very unreliable (CRSQ , 1972,
9:3, p.157). By this time tens of thousands of C14 dates have been
published from tests performed by various laboratories around the
world. In the annual volumes in which the dates are published,
concerns have been expressed about many relatively young dates that
violate established geological age notions. One example given was
Ice-Age materials that were dated by C14 to fall within the Christian
era (CRSQ , 1969, 6:2, p.114). In his book on prehistoric America,
Ceram notes a classic case of the difficulties that befall C14 dating.
Bones 30,000 years old were found lying above wood dated at 16,000
years (Ceram, 1971, p.257-259).

Another classic C14 problem was noted for Jarmo, a prehistoric village
in northern Iraq. Eleven samples were dated from the various strata
and showed a 6000-year spread from oldest to most recent. Analysis of
all the archaeological evidence, however, showed that the village was
occupied no more than 500 years before it was finally abandoned
(Custance, 1968, Mortar samples can be given normal C14 tests since
mortar absorbs carbon dioxide from the air. Mortar, however, from
Oxford Castle in England gave an age of 7,270 years. The castle was
built about 800 years ago. The kind of contamination is unclear.
Living trees near an airport were dated with C14 as l0,000 years old,
because the wood contained contamination from plane exhaust (CRSQ ,
1970, 7:2, p.126; 1965, 2:4, p.31). p.19).

[I wouldn't be surprised if these last 2 examples have simple
explanations.]

C14 analysis of oil from Gulf of Mexico deposits showed an age
measured in thousands of years - not millions. Data produced by the
Petroleum Institute at Victoria, New Zealand, showed that petroleum
deposits were formed 6,000-7,000 years ago. Textbooks state that
petroleum formation took place about 300,000,000 years ago
(Velikovsky, 1955, p.287; CRSQ , 1965, 2:4, p.10). Fossil wood was
found in an iron mine in Shefferville, Ontario, Canada, that was a
Precambrian deposit. Later the wood was described as coming from Late
Cretaceous rubble, which made it about 100 million years old instead
of more than 600 million years old. Two independent C14 tests showed
an age of about 4000 years (Pensee , Fall 1972, 2:3, p.43).

The last major glacial advance in America was long dated at about
25,000 years ago. C14 dates forced a revision down to 11,400 years.
The United State Geological Survey carried out studies that gave a C14
date as recent as 3300 years ago, but no text treats such a puzzling
find that falls well within historic times (Velikovsky, 1955,
p.158-159; CRSQ , 1968, 5:2, p.67). Here is a remarkable example of
C14 difficulties in a book published by Stanford University Press. Six
C14 ages were determined from a core in an attempt to date the
formation of the Bering Land Bridge. The dates ranged from 4390 to
15,500 Before Present.

The first problem was that the results were so disarranged from bottom
to top of the core that no two samples were in the correct order. Then
the oldest date was discarded because it was ‘inconsistent' with other
tests elsewhere. Next the remaining dates were assumed to be
contaminated by a fixed amount, after which the authors concluded that
the delta under study had been formed 12,000 years ago (Hopkins, 1967,
p.110-111). ... Even more astonishing is this cynical statement made
at a symposium of Nobel Prize winners in Uppsala, Sweden, in 1969: If
a C14 date supports our theories, we put it in the main text. If it
does not entirely contradict them, we put it in a footnote. And if it
is completely ‘out of date,' we just drop it (Pensee , Winter 1973,
p.44).

As for the contamination issue, someone asserted that any C14 date of
30,000 years or more is due to contamination. If this is so, then why
do they say the method is accurate to 50,000 years? If any C14 date
has ever yielded a value over 30,000 years, this implies that such
contamination is not ubiquitous. Of course, it could be that older
measurement techniques were less accurate. Now, 30,000 years is about
5 half lives of C14, which means that a contamination of 1/32
(slightly less) would be required to achieve this date for a sample of
infinite age. This is a substantial contamination.

Anyway, as for C14 dating in general, it seems clear that many, many
results are much too young according to the standard view, and that
explaining away one or two of them does not appreciably diminish the
problem.

Here is another instance of an anomalously young carbon 14 date:

At the 1992 Twin Cities Creation Conference, there was a paper
presented called "Direct Dating of Cretaceous-Jurassic Fossils (and
Other Evidences for Human-Dinosaur Coexistence)". Among other things,
the results of carbon-dating of Acrocanthosaurus bones are given.

The authors noted that dinosaur bones are frequently ("as a rule")
found with a black carbon residue of some sort on the bones. The
authors speculated that this residue could be the leftovers of the
decayed skin and flesh: they quote the Penguin Geology Encyclopedia's
definition of "carbonization": "Carbonization; the reduction of
organic tissue to a carbon residue. An unusual kind of fossilization
in which the tissue is preserved as a carbon film. Plants are commonly
preserved in this manner, soft-bodied animals more rarely." Since this
material is organic, it can be used to carbon-date the fossils.

The authors describe in detail the measures taken to ensure that no
other source of carbon contamination was present inside or outside the
bones. When the bones were ground up and carbon-dated, the dates they
received from the lab from different methods were 9,890 to 36,500
years BP (before present).

Some have claimed that this bone was covered with shellac, causing the
carbon 14 date to be young. Concerning this issue, one individual sent
me the following information:

The papers of Miller's that are cited by Lepper are:

Fields, W., H. Miller, J. Whitmore, D. Davis, G. Detwiler, J. Ditmars,
R. Whitelaw, and G.Novaez, 1990, "The Paluxy River Footprints
Revisited," in _Proceedings of the Second International Conference on
Creationism held July 30-August 4, 1990, Volume 2, technical symposium
sessions and additional topics_, edited by R.E. Walsh and C.L. Brooks,
pp. 155-168, Christian Science Fellowship, Pittsburgh.

and

Dahmer, L., D. Kouznetsov, A. Ivenov, J. Hall, J. Whitmore, G.
Detwiler, and H. Miller, 1990, "Report on Chemical Analysis and
Further Dating of Dinosaur Bones and Dinosaur Petroglyphs," same
proceedings, pp. 371-374.

The above two articles are the ones that purportedly refer to carbon
14 dating of a dinosaur bone covered with shellac. The article I
referred to is the following:

"Direct Dating of Cretaceous-Jurassic Fossils (and Other Evidences for
Human-Dinosaur Coexistence)" (1992 Twin Cities Creation Conference).

In this paper, the authors describe in detail the measures taken to
ensure that no other source of carbon contamination was present inside
or outside the bones.

The fact that these are separate papers, and the fact that every
attempt was made to avoid contamination, suggests that these are two
different incidents. I also received the following information from
another person:

As far as I can ascertain from the paper, the researchers responsible
specifically mention that the dinosaur bones being dated were not
coated with shellac (page 10). Otherwise, the details of the material
at your website are as in the paper, and the comment about a black
carbon residue around fossilised dinosaur bones is referenced in their
paper to a secular source, so it is not simply their observation. The
comments from the Penguin Geology Encyclopedia merely add to their
case.

However, of the results they give in their paper, I personally would
only be comfortable with the AMS results obtained on the same sample
in two different laboratories - the one at 25,750+/-280 years BP and
the other at 23,760+/-270 years BP. The other results were obtained on
unspecified equipment or via the less reliable older beta technology
and generally appear not to have been cross-checked in another
laboratory.

Again I confirm that the claim about the shellac appears to be totally
false and merely a smokescreen to avoid the implications of an
uncomfortable radiocarbon date.

So, based on all of this information, it looks like there were two
separate incidents, and the one I referred to involved a dinosaur bone
that was not covered with shellac, but still gave a young carbon 14
date.

Finally, some more quotes about carbon 14 dating from
http://www.parentcompany.com/handy_dandy/hder12.htm:

A survey of the 15,000 radiocarbon dates published through the year
1969 in the publication, Radiocarbon, revealed the following
significant facts:27 a. Of the dates of 9671 specimens of trees,
animals, and man, only 1146 or about 12 percent have radiocarbon ages
greater than 12,530 years.

b. Only three of the 15,000 reported ages are listed as "infinite."

c. Some samples of coal, oil, and natural gas, all supposedly many
millions of years old, have radiocarbon ages of less than 50,000
years.

d. Deep ocean deposits supposed to contain remains of the most
primitive life forms are dated within 40,000 years.

I think it is interesting that so few specimens have old dates,
suggesting a rapid increase in the amount of carbon 14 in the
atmosphere.

On the same subject, some fossils from the Paluxy River are
"anomalous" as well. Carbonized (burnt) wood was discovered in
Cretaceous limestone, and dated to 12,800 to 45,000 YBP.

Coffin gives quite a bit of evidence from increases of C14 ages with
depth that the concentration of C14 has increased rapidly in recent
years, making C14 dates too old, especially after about 4000 years
ago. The fact that C14 is still increasing in the atmosphere shows
that the earth recently went through some kind of a catastrophe, and
this increase is even admitted by some evolutionists.

It has been claimed that Carbon 14 dating was revolutionized in 1969
or so. But it remains to establish how much in error the old dates
were. It seems to be a common pattern that when dating methods are
revised, we are told how inaccurate the old methods were, but are not
told how inaccurate the current methods are.

A number of people requested references for my statements about young
carbon 14 dates for coal and oil and fossils. Here is what I found at
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c007.html

Consider this: if a specimen is older than 50,000 years, it has been
calculated that it would have such a small amount of C14 that for
practical purposes it would show an infinite radiocarbon age. So it
was expected that most deposits such as coal, gas, etc. would be
undatable by this method. In fact, of thousands of dates in the
journals Radiocarbon and Science to 1968, only a handful were classed
"undatable" - most were of the sort which should have been in this
category. This is especially remarkable with samples of coal and gas
supposedly produced in the Carboniferous period 300 million years ago!
Some examples of dates which contradict orthodox (evolutionary) views:

Coal from Russia from the "Pennsylvanian," supposedly 300 million
years old, was dated at 1,680 years. (Radiocarbon, vol. 8, 1966).

Natural gas from Alabama and Mississippi (Cretaceous and Eocene,
respectively) should have been 50 million to 135 million years old,
yet C14 gave dates of 30,000 to 34,000 years, respectively.
(Radiocarbon, vol. 8, 1966. Many of the earlier radiocarbon dates on
objects such as coal and gas, which should be undatable, have been
attributed to contamination from, for example, workers' fingerprints,
creationist researchers are currently working on the construction of
an apparatus, using existing technology, to look for very low levels
of C14 activity in, for example, coal after excluding contamination.
Such low-level activity would not be expected on the basis of old
earth theory, and so is not looked for at present.)

Bones of a sabre-toothed tiger from the LaBrea tar pits (near Los
Angeles), supposedly 100,000-one million years old, gave a date of
28,000 years. (Radiocarbon, vol. 10, 1968)

Antworten