Doesn't radiometric dating prove the earth is billions of years old Jim Mason PhD
In I ran across an article on the internet talking about a Japanese lake which had calibrated Carbon dating back to 43, years ago. The article said. When these one? The rest of the year, dark clay sediments settle on the bottom. The alternating layers of dark and light count the years like tree rings.
How Good Are Those Young-Earth Arguments?
That has allowed scientists to fine-tune a technique called carbon dating, which is used to pin down dates for artifacts tens of thousands of years old. Anyway, I got the Science article to see what they were talking about.
It is H. Kitagawa and J. With this, we can then count the white layers to get what year the white layer was deposited. They found radiocarbon when none could be present if the earth were millions of years old. Rocks, minerals, and fossils cannot be dated accurately by any known scientific method, including radiometric techniques. When we read that a fossil is millions or billions of years old, these are merely beliefs or opinions and not based on science.
Living Snails. Another absurdity is that living snails were aged at 27, years old by radiometric dating methods.
· Tree-ring dating (see Topic 27) gives us a wonderful check on the radiocarbon dating method for the last years. That is, we can use carbon dating on a given tree-ring (the year sequence having been assembled from the overlapping tree-ring patterns of living and dead trees) and compare the resulting age with the tree-ring date. Carbon dating is a method, based on utraveltimefrom.comovable assumptions about the past, used to date things that contain carbon (e.g. fossils). It can only give maximum ages of around 50, years and yet C has been found in fossils and diamonds thought to be millions and billions of years old respectively. Thus the earth's atmosphere couldn't be any older than this. Efforts to salvage carbon dating are many and varied, with calibration curves attempting to bring the C "dates" in line with historical dates, but these produce predictably unreliable results.Àâòîð: JOHN D. MORRIS, PH.D.
On the contrary, radiometric dating proves the earth is young. Another indicator is helium. Nuclear decay creates helium, which is easily lost to the air. The large amount of helium that can still be found in rock layers today indicates the earth is between 4, and 10, years old, not billions of years old. Sometimes it slows down to a trickle so that much more water is leaking out the barrel than is coming in; sometimes it goes full blast so that a lot more water is coming into the barrel than is leaking out.
Thus, the mere fact that the present rate of water coming in exceeds that of the water leaking out cannot be extrapolated back to a starting time. And, that destroys the entire argument. See Figure 1. The point is that fluctuations in the rate of C production mean that at times the production rate will exceed the decay rate, while at other times the decay rate will be the larger.
Henry Morris chose not to mention that portion of the paper! Tree-ring dating see Topic 27 gives us a wonderful check on the radiocarbon dating method for the last years. That is, we can use carbon dating on a given tree-ring the year sequence having been assembled from the overlapping tree-ring patterns of living and dead trees and compare the resulting age with the tree-ring date. When the dipole moment is strong, carbon production is suppressed below normal; when it is weak, carbon production is boosted above normal.
Radiocarbon dating can only date an object that is about 30, or so years old. It has a half life or decay rate of 5, years, and after half lives, it becomes too small to measure. This means that radiocarbon dating methods aren’t usable for dating older objects. · He was a published young earth creationist prior to becoming an old earth creationist, having written 27 articles. He has published his own website on creation science, where he argues for the old earth viewpoint as a theistic evolutionist. As of October , Mr. Morton's website is no longer online. This has been retrieved from web archives. · Recently Bill Nye and Ken Ham had a debate regarding the validity of evolution and creationism. This debate mixed with the recent discovery of the earliest known human footprints outside Africa is leading a big question to arise: How does carbon dating work? Well, Trace did some digging and is here to tell you all about carbon dating Àâòîð: Seeker.
What the magnetic field does is to partially shield the earth from cosmic rays which produce carbon high in the atmosphere. Figure The curve is roughly fitted to mean values determined about every to 1, years The curve is roughly degrees out of phase with the C curve. The 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.
The RATE team (Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth) have studied a variety of subjects pertaining to the age of the Earth including radiocarbon dating. In the traditional model of science, radiocarbon has little to do with the age of the Earth, since its lifespan is so short. Answer: Radiometric dating does not fit with the "young earth" view. Radiometric dating is a method which scientists use to determine the age of various specimens, mainly inorganic matter (rocks, etc.), though there is one radiometric dating technique, radiocarbon dating, which is used to date organic specimens. How do these dating. Radiometric Dating and Creation Science. The topic of radiometric dating (and other dating methods) has received some of the most vicious attacks by young earth creation science theorists. However, none of the criticisms of young earth creationists have any scientific merit. Radiometric dating remains a reliable scientific method.
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. Renfrew, p. Therefore, as already noted, Dr. It may interest the reader to know that within this year period, where the radiocarbon method can be checked by tree-ring data, objects older than BC receive a carbon date which makes them appear younger than they really are!
An uncorrected carbon date of years for an object would actually mean that the object was years old. Seven hundred years or so is about as far as the carbon method strays from tree-ring dating on the average.
Individual dates given on a correlation chart Bailey,p.
As it turns out, we have a check on the carbon production which goes back even further than years:. Evidence of past history of C concentration in the atmosphere is now available through the past 22, years, using ages of lake sediments in which organic carbon compounds are preserved.
Reporting before a conference on past climates, Professor Minze Stuiver of the University of Washington found that magnetic ages of the lake sediments remained within years of the radiocarbon ages throughout the entire period.
He reported that the concentration of C in the atmosphere during that long interval did not vary by more than 10 percent Stuiver,p. Thus, the available evidence is sufficient to validate the radiocarbon method of age determination with an error of about 10 percent for twice as long a period as the creation scenario calls for.
Yes, the atmospheric content of carbon can vary somewhat. Of course, when we reach the upper limit of the method, around 40, years for the standard techniques, we should allow for much greater uncertainty as the small amounts of C remaining are much harder to measure. Tree-ring data gives us a precise correction table for carbon dates as far back as 8, years.
The above study by Stuiver shows that the C fluctuations in the atmosphere were quite reasonable as far back as 22, years ago. Therefore, atmospheric variation in C production is not a serious problem for the carbon method. The evidence refutes Dr.
Young earth radiocarbon dating
Thus, we can dismiss this young-earth argument. It is painfully obvious that Dr. Hovind knows next to nothing about carbon dating! Carbon is produced by energetic collisions between cosmic rays and molecules of nitrogen in the upper atmosphere.How Radiometric Dating Works: Relative not Absolute Ages
Sunspots have absolutely nothing to do with the rate of C decaywhich defines the half-life of that radioactive element.
Hovind has confused two completely different concepts. We also have direct observation:. That radiocarbon ages agree so closely with tree-ring counts over at least years, when the observed magnetic effect upon the production rate of C is taken into account, suggests that the decay constant itself can be assumed to be reliable.
We also have laboratory studies which support the constancy of all the decay rates used in radiometric dating.
A great many experiments have been done in attempts to change radioactive decay rates, but these experiments have invariably failed to produce any significant changes.
It has been found, for example, that decay constants are the same at a temperature of degrees C or at a temperature of degrees C and are the same in a vacuum or under a pressure of several thousand atmospheres. Measurements of decay rates under differing gravitational and magnetic fields also have yielded negative results.
Although changes in alpha and beta decay rates are theoretically possible, theory also predicts that such changes would be very small [ Emery, ] and thus would not affect dating methods. There is a fourth type of decay that can be affected by physical and chemical conditions, though only very slightly.
This type of decay is electron capture e. Because this type of decay involves a particle outside the nucleus, the decay rate may be affected by variations in the electron density near the nucleus of the atom.
For example, the decay constant of Be-7 in different beryllium chemical compounds varies by as much as 0. The only isotope of geologic interest that undergoes e. Measurements of the decay rate of K in different substances under various conditions indicate that variations in the chemical and physical environment have no detectable effect on its e.
Believe it or not, a number of creationist attacks against radiometric decay rates are aimed at a kind of "decay" called internal conversion ICwhich has absolutely nothing to do with the radiometric dating methods Dalrymple,p.
Harold Slusher, a prominent member of the Institute for Creation Research, claimed that "Experiments have shown that the decay rates of cesium and iron 57 vary, hence there may be similar variations in other radioactive decay rates.
These are both stable isotopes so there is no decay rate to be changed. Gamma decay of an excited state of iron 57 has been studied, but this has nothing to do with the kinds of decays used in radiometric dating. DeYoung [ ] lists 20 isotopes whose decay rates have been changed by environmental conditions, alluding to the possible significance of these changes to geochronology, but the only significant changes are for isotopes that "decay" by internal conversion.
These changes are irrelevant to radiometric dating methods. Keep an eye on those creationists! They will switch tracks faster than you can say "tiddlywinks.
Professor Timothy H. Heaton
Morris claimed that free neutrons might change the decay rates. However, Henry Morris, that icon of creationism, only demonstrated that he knew no more about radiometric dating than does Dr. Hovind today. Free neutrons might change one element into another, but the decay rates all remain true to their elements. Morris [ ] also suggests that neutrinos might change decay rates, citing a column by Jueneman 72 in Industrial Research.
Jueneman describes a highly speculative hypothesis that would account for radioactive decay by interaction with neutrinos rather than by spontaneous decay, and he notes that an event that temporarily increased the neutrino flux might "reset" the clocks. Jueneman, however, does not propose that decay rates would be changed, nor does he state how the clocks would be reset; in addition, there is no evidence to support his speculation.
There was also an attempt by Slusher and Rybka to invoke neutrinos. Those mysterious neutrinos seem to be a hot topic! Slusher and Rybka also propose that neutrinos can change decay rates, citing an hypothesis by Dudley 40 that decay is triggered by neutrinos in a "neutrino sea" and that changes in the neutrino flux might affect decay rates.