Carbon-14 Dating

by Amazing 22 Replies latest jw friends

  • Amazing
    Amazing

    Hello All: In discussing evolution, creation, and Bible Chronology we will at some point pass through various dating methods that challenge religious beliefs, especially that of the Watch Tower religion.

    Some years ago the Watch Tower Society published material (i forget the actual reference) that challenged Carbob-14 dating as flawed and prone to error, especially when dating fossils. The WTS cited some sources that dealt with sample contamination that may cause errors in reading half-life of Carbon-14.

    I wish I could find the article again, because it was published when I was still working in nuclear engineering. I recall feeling that the WTS was stretching the claims to cover the understanding of Bible Chronology regarding the age of Homo Sapiens being about 4,026 years. While some marginal errors can exist, the margin is generally too small to make any real difference, and with the use of cross-verification test using other isotopes, the age of a fossil can readily be determined with a high degree of accuracy.

    Living organisms contain a constant ratio of carbon-14. And as the organism passes waste and other tissue, it will lose some carbon-14, but it is replaced through food intake, and the constant ratio is maintained. When living organisms die, they stop taking in new carbon.

    At the time of death, the ratio of carbon-12 to carbon-14 is the same as every other living organism. Carbon-14, however, begins to decay and is not replaced. Carbon-14 decay with a half-life of 5,700 years. By the time 57,000 pass there is only 1/1024th of Carbon-14 remaining, or put another way, 99.99% of the Carbon-14 has decayed. That is why Carbon-14 dating is better measured in less than 60,000 years after the death of an organism.

    On the other hand, carbon-12 remains constant in sample taken from organisms. The ratio of carbon-12 to carbon-14 taken from a deceased organism can be compared to the ratio in a living organism. From this the age of a formerly living organism can be precisely determined. Carbon-14 dating is a very accurate method and any challenge put forth by the Watch Tower Society has little merit.

    A common formula to calculate the age of a dead organism by using the carbon-14 dating method is:

    t = [ ln (Nf/No) / (-0.693) ] x t1/2

    where:

    "ln" natural logarithm
    "Nf/No" percent of carbon-14 compared between a dead vs living organism
    "t1/2" is the half-life of carbon-14 (5,700 years).

    Comparing a fossil that has 10 percent carbon-14 compared to live organisms, the formula would work as follows:

    t = [ ln (0.10) / (-0.693) ] x 5,700 years
    t = [ (-2.303) / (-0.693) ] x 5,700 years
    t = [ 3.323 ] x 5,700 years
    t = 18,940 years old

    Radioactive isotope decay rates do not vary from their known half-lives, and provide an excellent way to make age determinations. Another excellent isotope is Potassium-40 which is also an element naturally found in your body. Its half-life is 1.3 billion years. So when an object is suspected or known to be older than 60,000 years, then Potassium-40 becomes very useful for dating extremely old dead organisms.

    Verification methods also help any age determinations made from a Carbon-14 test. An example would include Uranium-235 (U-235) with a half-life of 704 million years. There are other isotopes that can also be used, such as U-238, Thorium-232 and Rubidium-87. In addition to dating dead organisms, various radioisotopes can be used in dating geological samples with a high degree of accuracy.

    Therefore, Homo Sapiens is much older than suggested by the WTS use of Bible chronology. The remains of an ancient indian found near Richland, Washington called "Kennewick Man" named after a nearby city to Richland, shows the person lived about 10,000 years ago, used tools weapons, and could not possibly fit the beliefs of the Watch Tower religion. Kennewick Man was determined to die from an arrow wound, bleeding and exposure.

    If the WTS tries to refute the age determination with respect to Kennewick Man, the only argument they might make would be to allege that radioactive contamination present in the Columbia River (where Kennewick Man's remains were found) may have altered the Carbon-14 readings. I can just visualize the WTS trying to make such a fantasy argument in the Awake!

    Hope the above helps. - Simply Amazing

  • LDH
    LDH

    UMMMMM

    You had me right up to the paragraph about the Formula, LOL!

    I remember being in 7th grade and being SO SKEPTICAL of Carbon dating because of one freakin article in the Awake magazine, and thinking how those evil evolutionist scientist were going to try to use it to prove evolution! The very nerve!

    I must've sounded like a real genius explaing to my college educated science teachers why Carbon dating was unreliable! LOL!

  • hippikon
    hippikon

    Apparently (although I’m no expert) carbon 14 is made in the upper atmosphere and filters down. A reaction between carbon 12 and ultraviolet light I think. So if the atmosphere was different the rate of C14 production would not be constant as is the assumption.

  • SixofNine
    SixofNine

    :So if the atmosphere was different the rate of C14 production would not be constant as is the assumption.

    I don't believe scientist think that it has been constant. However, they can get a good idea of the deviations by comparing c14 measurements to things such as tree rings, which are very consistant. They can then factor in those deviations when dating things by c14.

    I used to be very skeptical myself, since it blows away....well pretty much everything I thought my life was based on. But what the hell, as Farkel says, "Get a (new) life".

  • Duncan
    Duncan

    Hi amazing,

    very interesting post.

    I must say, though, I myself would only date Carbon-14, if it was with a view to marriage.

    Anything else would simply not be theocratic.

    Duncan.

  • Angharad
    Angharad

    Thanks Amazing

    I've saved your post, as I'm just getting to all this in the science course I'm doing and I'm struggling a bit.

  • mgm
    mgm

    Hello
    very good posting, amazing. As I know, nowaday, there are several different dating methods, which can be used for the same fossil. They can use 4-5 different methods of dating to prove the age.
    As far as I know, the C-14 dating is kind of an old technic, right?

    Fact is, a witness normaly never realy study this kind of science, they just know from the WT literature about dating methods.

  • larc
    larc

    Amazing,

    Thank you for your very informative post. The subject was something I wanted to get into someday, but never got around to it. I think that science and scientific discoveries are truely amazing. I just finished reading a book called "E equals MC squared." Although I took a lot of science in college, this book gave a nice overview of the modern history of science and the evolution of modern scientific thought. It gave me a much better picture and appreciation of the physical world than I had before. Amazing, if you haven't read this, you might want to take a look,

    As Mark Twain said, "If you like this kind of book, this is a book you will like."

  • larc
    larc

    Hi,

    Since questions have been raised on this subject just today, I brought this back to the the top of the board, to save some writing time for others.

  • larc
    larc

    Jason,

    I brought this back up for your consideration.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit