One of the road blocks to achieving Biblical harmony with so-named science is that our chronological dates do not agree. And it's no small disagreement, therefore no small road block! Yet it's certainly a problem worth resolving. Some people otherwise disposed to believe in Jesus are convinced that science has proven that much of the Bible is in error. Some scientists that feel a tugging on their soul to believe in God and Christ do not feel that they can rationally bridge the gap between what science says is true and what scripture says is true; and so they hold back, and Christians believe that this is a deceit of the Devil that could cost a person their eternal life. Less gap would mean fewer misled souls
Often, archaeologists use graves and plant remains to date sites.
Confirm. c-14 dating problems are
Since its conception by Willard Libby init has been invaluable to the discipline. In fact, many important archaeological artifacts have been dated using this method including some of the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Shroud of Turin. Though radiocarbon dating is startlingly accurate for the most part, it has a few sizable flaws. The technology uses a series of mathematical calculations-the most recognizable of which is known as half-life-to estimate the age the organism stopped ingesting the isotope.
Unfortunately, the amount of Carbon in the atmosphere has not been steady throughout history. In fact, it has fluctuated a great deal over the years. This variation is caused by both natural processes and human activity. Humans began making an impact during the Industrial Revolution.
The vast majority of fossils aren't dated using C at all, but other radioisotopes. Science has several very reasonable explanations for levels of modern carbon in very old samples. Although this satisfies the scientist, who for all sorts of other reasons quite reasonably assumes that these samples are truly old, it leaves enormous scope for the creationists to reinforce their followers' faith that the earth is young.
I still feel that some definitive experiments in this area would be useful to test the various rational explanations for the c14 anomaly. I can see though that science has problems taking on creationists because of the perceived risk of lending credibility to their ideas.
Bit of a dilemma there. Also as soon as one creationist idea is exploded, they just move on to another area where uncertainty in the science offers them the opportunity to mislead. That begs the question that an anomaly even exists. What does exist are limits to the applicability of 14 C dating techniques. Several of the test results touted by creationists were definitive experiments to assess those limitations. There is no arguing with young earth creationists.
They are immune to logic and evidence. Broadly speaking I agree with you. But, reading the experts' explanations of the "anomaly" read to me, as a non-expert in this field, like perfectly reasonable explanations as long as you accept the "old earth" explanation. If you don't, such dismissive arguments as 'the extra C14 could be due to uranium decay' leave enough wriggle room uncertainty for the creationist to thrive in.
Anything much older than , years old is almost devoid of C because it has mostly all decayed away by then, so there is no longer any C within that object to use for dating it. But there are people, certainly some Christians, that challenge whether this method . Question: What specifically does C dating show that creates problems for the creation model? Answer: C dates show that the last glaciation started to subside around twenty thousand years ago. But the young-earth creationists at ICR and elsewhere insist that, if an ice age occurred, it must have come and gone far less than ten thousand years ago, sometime after Noah's flood. Feb 17, Ive been poking about on the internet again (as you do) and found a whole load of stuff by creationists about the problems with carbon 14 radiometric dating. Specifically they report (with some glee) that coal has been found to contain measurable amounts of .
You're right though, I'm probably being naive in thnking they will be convinced. Even so, it is always good when creationists have been casting doubt in some area to be able to completely explode their reasoning. I'm still looking for a reference, in a refereed scientific journal, confirming the finding of carbon14, in any amount, in diamonds or coal.
I suspect, but haven't been able to confirm, that the reports of carbon 14 in these substances have been made up out of whole cloth by Young Earth Creationists, but I am loath to make this claim, absent evidence that reports of these findings haven't been published in any journals that aren't connected with such organizations as the Institute for Creation Science.
I further think that it is the fact that the claims are conscpicuously bogus that has accounted for their not having been responded to. After all, to my limited understanding, carbon 14 is associated with organic processes, and, right off the bat, I find myself wondering why it would be found in any allotrope of carbon, which is an inorganic element.
This is because radiocarbon dating gives the date when the tree ceased its intake of Carbon-not when it was being used for weapons and other instruments! Since trees can have a lifespan of hundreds of years, its date of death might not even be relatively close to the date . show all steps Carbon Dating An exponential decay function can be used to model the number of atoms of a radioactive material that remain after a period of time. Carbon decays over time, with the amount remaining after t years given by where y 0 is the original amount. Dating an object from the early 20th century hence gives an apparent date older than the true date. For the same reason, 14 C concentrations in the neighbourhood of large cities are lower than the atmospheric average.
Can anyone out there either confirm or disconfirm my suspicions? You need to know that I will not be much impressed by anything coming from the ICR or any similar group.
Something c-14 dating problems matchless
Well one of two things could be happening, the carbon 14 signature is reset every time the rock melts because the carbon 14 disperses among the liquid rock, Also neutron bombardment from uranium decay could possibly have an impact, but you'd also have other trace elements that tell the tale of this neutron contamination. Since the discussion is specifically about Carbon14 in coal I am unclear as to why you would be talking about molten rock.
Coal is not known for its inclination to melt. Since Carbon14 dating is only relevant to dating organic matter I am unclear as to why you would be talking about resetting the Carbon14 clock in molten rock.
Are c-14 dating problems share your
Molten rock is not organic material friendly. We all make mistakes. I made one in You need to be a member in order to leave a comment.
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy! Already have an account? Sign in here. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settingsotherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. Physics Search In.
And two of the Gospels name all or part of the lineage from Adam to Jesus. Luke lists the entire lineage in Chapter 3. So, how can you rescue the Bible's chronological credibility if it is proven that the Earth is evenyears old? Big problem. Possible collapse of our Christian world view! And for Christians, unlike scientists, that is a really big deal! Science, by contrast, quite reasonably commits to adjusting its claims about the nature of things it studies as new evidence accumulates. But the Bible has in essence staked out a position and held it for centuries.
One of the main criticisms of the radiocarbon dating of the Shroud stems from the fact that the sample is heavily contaminated with varnish. In , a team led by Leoncio A. Garza-Valdes, MD, adjunct professor of microbiology, and an archaeologist specializing in pre-Columbian artifacts studied samples from the Shroud (Barrett). Jul 19, 14 6 C > 14 7 N + e (half-life is years) Example Problem A scrap of paper taken from the Dead Sea Scrolls was found to have a 14 C/ 12 .
And it can do little else. It does not have much wiggle room because it claims to be God's word. And it is! God, all knowing God, does not need to adjust His word as evidence accumulates. He knew the entire truth when He first spoke to those who directly placed His words into writing under His direction. For scientists, if it were irrefutably determined that the world was indeed only 6, years old, irrefutably in the eyes of scientists themselves, they would merely need to go about the business of reconciling all of their previous theories and hypothesis to this newly discovered irrefutable truth.
In truth some of them might feel some embarrassment or chagrin, but they are not really supposed to. For scientists, any certain truth should be a welcome certain truth.
Otherwise they are a corrupted group They are supposed to follow the hard evidence where ever it should lead without reluctance of resistance. And I would speculate that most scientists today will tell you that, based on what they think today, that time never will come. And so, we stand at odds with each other, we Christians and those scientists.
And the dating process and results for old or extremely ancient objects is one of the huge chasms that stand between us ever agreeing with each other. Carbon dating as presently understood says that the Earth is very old. It dates objects as being up to at leastyears old before this method begins to become un-useful. Anything much older thanyears old is almost devoid of C because it has mostly all decayed away by then, so there is no longer any C within that object to use for dating it.
But there are people, certainly some Christians, that challenge whether this method is reliable for objects more that even 4, years old. After that point it begins to produce dates that Bible chronology says are impossible. After all, per the Bible our world is only about 6, years old.
And the Bible has actually proven very reliable concerning history since the great flood of Noah. So, we believe it should be reliable concerning history before the flood also. It's a topic of debate between the two groups, scientists and Christians. But without going into any pro or anti Carbon dating arguments - why it should be trusted or why it should not - here is a possible solution to this whole issue.
Here is a test that might greatly answer the question:.
We cannot very easily prove that the Earth is as old as Carbon says it is, and the same is true using other types of isotope dating techniques. The reason is that you have to have a very ancient object of actual known age, and then have Carbon dating, or some other method of radio-isotopic dating independently produce results which also conclude that it is indeed that age.
Once the known age and the measured age showed themselves in agreement, you've largely proved your dating method. But the problem is - and it is a whopper of a problem - that there isn't any known object of extreme age for which the exact age of that object is truly known. We can't reach into a bone or fossil storage box and choose the femur of a dinosaur whose age is known with certainty to be 66, years old, right, and then test it with some isotopic dating method to show that yes, the tester verifies that to be the correct age!
We can't celebrate that our testing produced the exactly correct age result, as if we knew how old that bone was before we started the test. We have no dinosaur specimen of some exactly known age. There are none Recorded human history does not go back all that far. And forget dinosaurs, we don't even have a far less ancient mammoth bone known with exactitude to be, oh, let's say 5, years old to perform a Carbon test on.
There was no one on Earth keeping track of the exact year that a mammoth died back in time 5, years ago.
So for this reason we just can't prove that the Earth is as old as isometric dating claims it is. We lack the item that can be used as a standard. We lack the 'bone of ancient but exactly known age'. But while we can't easily prove any accurate measurement for the ancient Earth idea that science supports, it is theoretically possible, I believe, to prove that the Earth is either about as young as the Bible says that it is, or that it is not.
And we might be able to use Carbon dating to do so.
For c-14 dating problems amusing
Here's the notion:. On Noah's Ark the Bible says there were 8 people, as well as the animals.
Why Carbon Dating Might Be in Danger
We cannot know which animals were the specific animals that made the trip, to date their tissue. But we might, even today, discover the actual burial place and the body of Noah, his sons Shem, Japheth, and Ham, or one of their 4 Biblically un-named wives.
These are famous persons, and if a very well funded effort were made to trace down their remains, perhaps it could succeed. If you look it up you'll quickly find that several places in this world claim to be the burial place of Noah.
Obviously, since there are several locations making this claim, they probably cannot all be right! But that doesn't mean that they are all wrong. One of them could possibly be the location of Noah's remains. One internet site lists 6 places claiming to be the site of Noah's remains; there was a location in Turkey, one in Iraq, one in Iran, one in Lebanon, one in Jordan, and one in Azerbaijan.
C-14 dating problems
A rich enough or powerful enough or persuasive enough entity could negotiate with all of these locations for respectful access to the sites to gain possible tissue samples. It wouldn't be easy, but it might be possible. And we know that the Bible puts the flood at about years B. So, if we went to these locations and measured the remains with a Carbon tester assuming they sit upon any actual remains that might tell us something. After all, there are these 'alleged' locations for these burials in certain cases.
What if you found the marked burial site of Ham, one of the sons of Noah. Let's say you excavated and found an actual grave marker.