Carbon dating a fraud
Keith A Henderson
In article <4lqbc4$r...@janus.cqu.edu.au>,
Bob <will...@topaz.cqu.edu.au> wrote:
>not my personal opinion and frankly I am loath to perpetuate in the lie
>but recently I was told that in tests in the US it was found that
>carbon dating was wholly inaccurate and that even living tissue
>could be misdated by as much as 14million years.
>
Well, I'm no 14C dating expert, but you can't possibly be off by 14 million
years, since you can only date *anything* back to 60,000 years or so...unless
maybe you mean that it dates to 14 million yrs. into the future... :)
And dating modern carbon is a whole other subject, as the combined effects of
the Suess effect and contamination by bomb carbon since the 50's has far
outweighed the normal course of the del-14C curve. These effects don't have
relevance to the dating of materials deposited in natural landforms, assuming
that they haven't been contaminated by modern carbon since then.
--
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Keith Henderson-Byrd Polar Research Center (khen...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu)
"If you think you've got an answer for everything, you're part of the problem."
(George Carlin)
kashg...@llnl.gov
Bob wrote:
>
> not my personal opinion and frankly I am loath to perpetuate in the lie
> but recently I was told that in tests in the US it was found that
> carbon dating was wholly inaccurate and that even living tissue
> could be misdated by as much as 14million years.
>
> quite some time and while not perfect has till now been regarded
> as fairly accurate and the best we have.
>
> Can anyone confirm/deny these rummours?
>
> Bob Williams
Bob,
don't believe everything you hear!!
Carbon dating is not a fraud, but let's put it this way, the results
you get are no better than the quality of the sample material
submitted for dating.
The half life of Carbon-14 is 5730 years, therefore the limit to which
the dating technique is accurate is around 50,000-60,000 years. What
this means is that carbon dating cannot be applied to samples which
are 14 million years old!
By the way, there is an EXCELLENT web page which discusses all aspects
of radiocarbon dating--I recommmend it highly:
http://www2.waikato.ac.nz/c14/webinfo/index.html
Michaele Kashgarian
Center for AMS
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
Tom G. Young
Bob wrote:
>
not my personal opinion and frankly I am loath to perpetuate in the lie
but recently I was told that in tests in the US it was found that carbon
dating was wholly inaccurate and that even living tissue could be
misdated by as much as 14million years.
>
years. How can something with a half-life on the order of thousands of
years give an age on the order of millions of years? After 8
half-lives, less than 1% of the original C14 is left, giving an age of
approximately of 40,000 years. This is why C14 is usually only used to
date things less than 25,000-30,000 years old.
I think maybe some error can be introduced as to where the C14 came
from, especially in sediments. Is the carbon in the sediments "old" (0
pmc) or is it "young" (100 pmc). It is trying to detemine the
respective ratio of young:old C that can introduce error in the age.
Tom
Stuart Weinstein
Bob wrote:
>
> not my personal opinion and frankly I am loath to perpetuate in the lie
> but recently I was told that in tests in the US it was found that
> carbon dating was wholly inaccurate and that even living tissue
> could be misdated by as much as 14million years.
>
> quite some time and while not perfect has till now been regarded
> as fairly accurate and the best we have.
>
> Can anyone confirm/deny these rummours?
>
> Bob Williams
This is an obvious fallacy. Carbon -14 dating can't date anything past
50,000 years or so. How anyone could come up with a C-14 age of 14
million years is beyond me. This sounds like creationist propaganda.
--
Stuart A. Weinstein stu...@kaku.soest.hawaii.edu
Geology and Geophysics
University of Hawaii
"To err is human..
But to really foul things
up requires a creationist"
Bob
John Blenkinsop
...snip...
> but recently I was told that in tests in the US it was found that
> carbon dating was wholly inaccurate and that even living tissue
> could be misdated by as much as 14million years.
Good trick, as carbon dating is useful for dating material ranging in age
from a few years to about 30 000 years old.
John
----------------------------------------------------------------------
John Blenkinsop, Earth Sciences, Carleton University, Ottawa, Canada
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ray McAllister
An interesting note on carbon dating;
I went to a Fla Skin Diving Assoc meeting where a well known
exponent of Atl;antis in the Bahamas pointed out that some rock specimens
there dated over 40,000 years, the normal long range of C14 dating, as
poroof that the Atlanteans had made the "structure" (the Bimini Road). I
made the mistake of asking him whether the Atlanteans had also built my
house
because the marble sills were off the C14 scale, over 40,000 years old.
For challenging the MASTER I was mentally flamed, caught fire and buned up
on the spot.
Be careful that it is the object that you are dating, not the
material from which it is made!
Ray McAllister, Prof (Emeritus) Ocean Eng., FAU, Boca Raton, FL 33064
Diving Dinosaur, Geologist/Oceanographer/Ocean Engineer, 44 years SCUBA
mcal...@gate.net (954) 426-0808, Author Diving Locations, Boynton/Dania
John Stockwell
On 26 Apr 1996, Bob wrote:
> not my personal opinion and frankly I am loath to perpetuate in the lie
> but recently I was told that in tests in the US it was found that
> carbon dating was wholly inaccurate and that even living tissue
> could be misdated by as much as 14million years.
Ah, a hint of creationism in the air.
The typical creationist favorites are (I have not verified these
references):
A freshly killed seal dated by C14 showed it had died 1300
years ago. (Antarctic Journal, vol. 6, [September-October
1971], p. 211.)
Living mollusk shells were dated at up to 2,300 years old.
(Science, vol. 141, 1963, pp. 634-637.)
Living snails' shells showed they had died 27,000 years ago.
(Science, vol. 224, 1984, pp. 58-61.)
Young-earthers love these, because they seek to imply that all C14
greater that 5000-6000 years are similarly flawed.
For a better picture of what the calibration of C14 is like, see:
Becker, B., Kromer, B., and Trimborn P., 1991, A stable-isotope
tree-ring timescale of the Late Glacial/Holocene boundary:
Nature, vol. 353 (17 Oct 1991), 647-649.
Abstract:
Late Glacial and Holocene tree-ring chronologies, like deep-sea
sediments or polar ice cores, contain information about past
environments. Changes in tree-ring growth rates can be related
to past climate anomalies and changes in the isotope composition
of the atmosphere and the hydrosphere. We have established a
9,928-year absolutely dated dendrochronological record of Holocene
oak (Quercus robur, Quercus petraea)---and a 1,604-year floating
Late Glacial and Early Holocene chronology of pine (Pinus sylvestris)
from subfossil tree remains deposited in alluvial terraces of central
European rivers. The pine sequence provides records of dendro-dated
14-C, 13-C, and 3-H patterns for the late Younger Dryas and the
entire Preboreal (10,100-9,000 yr BP). Through the use of
dendrochronology, radiocarbon age calibration and stable isotope
analysis, we suggest that the Late Glacial/Holocene transition
may be dated by 13-C and 3-H tree-ring chronologies.
Particularly interesting is Figure 1 of this paper which shows
a plot of the radiocarbon dates (assuming a constant C12/C14 ratio)
plotted vs. corresponding dendrochronological dates. It's a pretty
tight trend.
>
> Bob Williams
John Stockwell | jo...@dix.Mines.EDU
Center for Wave Phenomena (The Home of Seismic Un*x)
Colorado School of Mines
Golden, CO 80401 | http://www.cwp.mines.edu/cwpcodes
voice: (303) 273-3049 | fax: (303) 273-3478.
Greg Evancio
Good shot, Ray! Got to keep the ufologists & the other "alternative science"
preachers on their toes.
Best regards,
Greg Evancio
Just a lonely prairie dog doing wellsite geology "somewhere, out there".
Jeff Baldwin
On 30 Apr 1996, John Stockwell wrote:
>
> On 26 Apr 1996, Bob wrote:
>
> > not my personal opinion and frankly I am loath to perpetuate in the lie
> > but recently I was told that in tests in the US it was found that
> > carbon dating was wholly inaccurate and that even living tissue
> > could be misdated by as much as 14million years.
>
> Ah, a hint of creationism in the air.
>
> The typical creationist favorites are (I have not verified these
> references):
>
> A freshly killed seal dated by C14 showed it had died 1300
> years ago. (Antarctic Journal, vol. 6, [September-October
> 1971], p. 211.)
>
> Living mollusk shells were dated at up to 2,300 years old.
> (Science, vol. 141, 1963, pp. 634-637.)
>
> Living snails' shells showed they had died 27,000 years ago.
> (Science, vol. 224, 1984, pp. 58-61.)
>
> Young-earthers love these, because they seek to imply that all C14
> greater that 5000-6000 years are similarly flawed.
>
> For a better picture of what the calibration of C14 is like, see:
>
> Becker, B., Kromer, B., and Trimborn P., 1991, A stable-isotope
> tree-ring timescale of the Late Glacial/Holocene boundary:
> Nature, vol. 353 (17 Oct 1991), 647-649.
>
>
> a plot of the radiocarbon dates (assuming a constant C12/C14 ratio)
> plotted vs. corresponding dendrochronological dates. It's a pretty
> tight trend.
>
> Center for Wave Phenomena (The Home of Seismic Un*x)
> Colorado School of Mines
> Golden, CO 80401 | http://www.cwp.mines.edu/cwpcodes
> voice: (303) 273-3049 | fax: (303) 273-3478.
I think it was Sci Am which had an article recently (can't find it right
now) where carbon isotopes were discussed. The idea was that "heavy"
carbon sinks, gets trapped in ice and oceans, stays in ice and travels on
slow moving ocean currents (at the bottom of oceans), and then resurfaces
some time in the future. When cycles of ice melting and ocean "turning"
match just right, there is large change in carbon isotope ratio. There is
thus a periodic swing in isotope ratio.... it is not a constant. The
swing is rather marked, as I recall. Assuming the ratio is constant seems
inconsistant with ice-cores which have been investigated for info dating
back hundreds of thousands of years.
As I recall, though, I came away from the article with the impression
that the ratio shift would make things look youger than they are.... but
it may have been the other way around; I can't remember.
-JB
S Krueger
In article <318B29...@gramercy.ios.com> Jeff Baldwin,
mv...@gramercy.ios.com writes:
>I think it was Sci Am which had an article recently (can't find it right
>now) where carbon isotopes were discussed. The idea was that "heavy"
>carbon sinks, gets trapped in ice and oceans, stays in ice and travels on
>slow moving ocean currents (at the bottom of oceans), and then resurfaces
>some time in the future. When cycles of ice melting and ocean "turning"
>match just right, there is large change in carbon isotope ratio. There is
>thus a periodic swing in isotope ratio.... it is not a constant. The
>swing is rather marked, as I recall. Assuming the ratio is constant seems
>inconsistant with ice-cores which have been investigated for info dating
>back hundreds of thousands of years.
>
>As I recall, though, I came away from the article with the impression
>that the ratio shift would make things look youger than they are.... but
>it may have been the other way around; I can't remember.
>
>-JB
The ratios of the stable isotopes C12 and C13 do vary slightly due to
the effects of their differing masses on chemical processes, but that
has nothing to do with carbon dating which measures the decay of the
radioactive isotope C14. A fairly steady stream of radioactive C14 is
being produced by processes in the upper atmosphere (solar radiation
altering nitrogen to carbon), and some of this winds up in all living
tissues (which ultimately get their carbon from the atmosphere). Once
the organism dies, its tissues stop exchanging carbon with the
atmosphere, and the traces of C14 present begin to decay away with
time. It is this decay which allows a radiocarbon age to be determined.
The fractionation of C12 and C13 by inorganic processes is well
understood, and can be calculated as a function of transformation
energies and mass differences. In lay terms, any process in which
carbon-bearing molecules are prone to be liberated tends to favor the
lighter isotope C12, while any process which tends to fix carbon will
preferentially take the heavier C13 isotope. But none of this affects
the relative abundance of the unstable isotope C14 on which dating
depends.
S W Krueger (skru...@arco.com) ***********************
* *
Views expressed are my own and * This Space for Rent *
do not reflect the opinion of my * *
employer. ***********************
Jeff Baldwin
S Krueger wrote:
>........
> carbon-bearing molecules are prone to be liberated tends to favor the
> lighter isotope C12, while any process which tends to fix carbon will
> preferentially take the heavier C13 isotope. But none of this affects
> the relative abundance of the unstable isotope C14 on which dating
> depends.
>
> S W Krueger (skru...@arco.com) ***********************
> * *
> Views expressed are my own and * This Space for Rent *
> do not reflect the opinion of my * *
> employer. ***********************
As I recall, the article made mention of C14 production rates effecting
the relative C abundances. Atmospheric production of C14 is effected by
atmospheric conditions. You've gotten my curiosity up again.... I'll have
to look that article up and read it in more detail.
-JB
Chuck Karish
In article <318F9D...@gramercy.ios.com>,
Jeff Baldwin <mv...@gramercy.ios.com> wrote:
>Atmospheric production of C14 is effected by atmospheric conditions.
My understanding of the process is that C14 is produced when
nitrogen atoms in the upper atmosphere are clobbered by protons
from the solar wind. This process is controlled by the strength
of the solar wind (which varies, for example, with the sunspot
cycle) and by the strength of the earth's magnetic field, which
deflects the protons to the poles (where they produce the
auroras).
Precise C14 dating depends on having a precise calibration of the
changes in concentration of C14 in the atmosphere. This has been
done through correlation with dendrochronology: measuring C14 in
tree rings.
--
Chuck Karish kar...@mindcraft.com
(415) 323-9000 x117 kar...@pangea.stanford.edu
John Blenkinsop
There was also a paper in 'Nature' (as I recall) a few years ago in which
U-series disequilibrium dates were compared to carbon 14 ages on the same
material. Agreement was quite good, considering the fluctuations in C14
production.
If anyone is interested, I could send (or post) the reference.
Stuart Weinstein
COuld you post it or send me email. Its something else I can use to clobber
creationists with...
John Blenkinsop
Re:
> There was also a paper in 'Nature' (as I recall) a few years ago in which
> U-series disequilibrium dates were compared to carbon 14 ages on the same
> material. Agreement was quite good, considering the fluctuations in C14
> production.
Paper is 'Calibration of the 14C timescale over the past 30 000 years
using mass spectrometric U-Th ages from Barbados corals' by Bard et al.,
Nature, vol. 345, pp 405-410
Charles S. Cagle
In article <4more1$l...@nntp.Stanford.EDU>, kar...@pangea.Stanford.EDU
(Chuck Karish) wrote:
>In article <318F9D...@gramercy.ios.com>,
>Jeff Baldwin <mv...@gramercy.ios.com> wrote:
>>Atmospheric production of C14 is effected by atmospheric conditions.
>
>My understanding of the process is that C14 is produced when
>nitrogen atoms in the upper atmosphere are clobbered by protons
>from the solar wind. This process is controlled by the strength
>of the solar wind (which varies, for example, with the sunspot
>cycle) and by the strength of the earth's magnetic field, which
>deflects the protons to the poles (where they produce the
>auroras).
>
>Precise C14 dating depends on having a precise calibration of the
>changes in concentration of C14 in the atmosphere. This has been
>done through correlation with dendrochronology: measuring C14 in
>tree rings.
Educate me a little here, Chuck. What is the baseline age or date where
such calibration is made from.? You seem to be presenting a circular
means for calibration. Just trying to understand.:-). If the solar wind
went through periods of strong activity wouldn't that crank the ratio of
C-14 up? If the magnetotoroid (erroneously called magnetosphere) of the
earth was cycling through a flip so that the dipole field was at zero,
there would be no deflection of the solar wind protons around the earth
hence cranking the ratio of C-14 up even higher. Couldn't these factors
skew the ratios and if so what would that say about the accuracy of C-14
dating? What say you?
Best Regards,
C. Cagle
--
"When we finally understand the universe we will be able to explain it to children." - Albert Einstein
John Viveiros
--
John J. Viveiros jv...@chevron.com (work)
Midland Texas vtt...@prodigy.com (home)
If this wasn't a .com account, I wouldn't be a lurker.
S Krueger
In article <singtech-170...@news.teleport.com> Charles S.
Cagle, sing...@teleport.com writes:
>>Precise C14 dating depends on having a precise calibration of the
>>changes in concentration of C14 in the atmosphere. This has been
>>done through correlation with dendrochronology: measuring C14 in
>>tree rings.
>
>Educate me a little here, Chuck. What is the baseline age or date where
>such calibration is made from.? You seem to be presenting a circular
>means for calibration. Just trying to understand.:-). If the solar wind
>went through periods of strong activity wouldn't that crank the ratio of
>C-14 up? If the magnetotoroid (erroneously called magnetosphere) of the
>earth was cycling through a flip so that the dipole field was at zero,
>there would be no deflection of the solar wind protons around the earth
>hence cranking the ratio of C-14 up even higher. Couldn't these factors
>skew the ratios and if so what would that say about the accuracy of C-14
>dating? What say you?
>
>Best Regards,
>
Tree ring chronology can provide wood samples of known ages going back
about 10,000 years. C14 dating of these samples shows that the method
works well within that age range. The atmospheric level of radiogenic
C14 doesn't vary much over that time period (although the atomic age
has made a mess of it recently!). The most recent flip in the earth's
magnetic field was far too long ago (around 300,000 years) to be
relevent to the time period for which carbon dating is used (last
70,000 years).
Ed Nuhfer
C-14 dates are also validated by counts of varve layers (annual lake
sediment deposits). Neither varve counts nor tree ring counts rely
on any assumptions that cannot be observed as annual processes.
There is no reason to believe that C-14 dates are very far off from
reality.
What is the motivation behind calling carbon dating a fraud? As soon
as one has a religious or political agenda to "prove," true science
is no longer present in the argument.
Ed Nuhfer CU-Denver