Is Carbon-14 outdated or flawed?

Amazing

It was asked below if C-14 dating is an outdated technology. Not to my knowledge. C-14 is viable for former living organisms that have been dead less than 60,000 years. For older dead organisms, other isotopes are employed. Also, because technology has grown, other methods are used to verify dating. If the object being dated was not a living organism, then other methods are used.

Also, someone asked if above-ground nuclear testing done after 1945 miht flaw dating results in the future. I don't see why it should. Nuclear bombs emit various radiation, such as gama and x-ray which are energy fields and do not leave any particles. Such bombs will emit large amounts of alpha (proton) and beta (electron) partcles. But these are components of atoms, and not carbon molecules. Most of the molecules are from plutonium, hydrogen, helium, etc. Also, the human body, as with other living organisms, maintain a constant ratio of Carbon-14 and Carbon-12. The body passes C-14, but then take in more, and maintains the ratio. When a body dies, the C-14 levels start to decay. But, I have no knowledge that such decay of C-14 would be altered by any radioactivity present from past above-ground nuclear tests. - Simply Amazing

SixofNine

hmmm, I'm pretty sure I read that pre a certain date, C-14 measurements were flawed for the reason that they were not factoring in radiation from bombs. I may be remembering the reason totally wrong, but I do know that at one point, science realized that c-14 dating was being done very inacurately and corrected the matter.

No doubt providing an eternity worth of anti c-14 fuel for the WTBS.

I would love to have you or Alan comment on the difficulties in dating Kenniwick man. He never brings flowers, but have flowers and other organic material skewed the results? What other methods (besides c-14) could be employed in dating him? All the ages for him have been older than the "flood", but they diverge in some cases by a couple of thousand years.

Amazing

Hi 6 of 9: Yes, other dating methods and isotopes can be used. In my earlier post I mention Potassium-40 as another example. But its half life is so long, that it is best for long term objects in the hundreds of millions of years.

Once an organism dies, it cannot take in any more C-14, but rather, the C-14 decays at a precise known half-life rate of 5700 years. I recall the Watch Tower Society citing some reference years ago about nearby dead organisms contaminating subject samples. But, I find this hard to accept, because it is not like C-14 jumps ship from one dead organism to another. But, if there was any such affects, it would be surface only. Various samples can be taken from a subject inside bones and from head to toe.

As for ions from other isotopes from nuclear test fallout, I believe that they would have little affect on C-14. The isotopes from nuke bombs are different molecules with different half lives. And, these isotopes can be detected for what they are. It is not like as though isotope decay looks all the same. Each element can be detected for what it is using various methods. So, I just don't see C-14 being flawed. I am not sure why age determinations have varied in some cases. But, all the age statements I have seen for Kennewick Man have been the same ... 9,800 years and change. LOL He clearly predates any global flood time frame, and also predates any Bible chronology all the way past Adam and Eve by about 4,000 years.

So, either the laws of physics have changed a lot since the days of CT Russell, or it might be that the Watch Tower religion is a bit mistaken in its ideas. - Simply Amazing

Seven

Hi Amazing, Interesting posts. Even if subject samples were contaminated it would be possible to remove most of the contaminates from the sample with acid and other solvents. Although some would remain, how significant would the amount be?

Seven

btw, what's up with the government not wanting to share CT scans of Kennewick Man with scientists? http://www.kennewick-man.com/news/021501.html

SixofNine

Here is a reference to the inacuracies I mentioned:

Are There Inaccurate Carbon Dates?
Yes. There are three kinds.
The first kind are datings of things that should't be carbon dated. For example, polar bears that eat seals aren't getting their carbon from an atmospheric source.
The second kind are datings on contaminated samples, or on samples which are a mixture. Old samples contain much less C14, so the measured date of older samples is strongly affected by even small amounts of contamination.
The third kind are dates which were measured before the 1970's. In the 70's:
much better measurement equipment was introduced.
the tree-ring calibration eliminated the assumption about the Sun being constant.
procedures for avoiding and recognizing contamination were established.
In short, all carbon datings published in the 1950's and 1960's are suspect.

This quote came from: http://www.cs.colorado.edu/~lindsay/creation/carbon.html#inaccurate

And here is something about the difficulty in dating Kennewick dude:

Date matches original assessment
The Interior Department last fall sent bone samples from the skeleton to three laboratories for radiocarbon testing, a process that dates organic material by determining how much of its radioactive carbon has decayed. The test of a foot bone - in which the department is most confident - gave researchers a "raw" radiocarbon age of 8,410 BP, or "before present," give or take 40 years.
A finger bone taken by anthropologist Jim Chatters shortly after the skeleton was found four years ago also produced a raw age of 8,410 years, plus or minus 60 years.
When the raw age is adjusted for changes in the amount of carbon in the atmosphere over the years, the age comes to between 9,320 and 9,510 years.
"Their raw date was very close to ours - eerily close," McManamon said.
Chatters said the recent dates give him a good measure of vindication. Federal researchers had doubted much of the work he did on the skeleton.
"This is fabulous," he said. "You can't ask for more. That's excellent. I'm quite pleased."
Another foot-bone sample taken by Interior scientists had a raw age of 8,130 years, with a 40-year margin of error. Samples from the front of a shin bone produced raw ages of 6,940 and 5,750 years, the latter with a 100-year margin of error.
Researchers told Interior officials that the tibia samples were more exposed to the younger carbon of surrounding sediments, producing the younger ages. The 1996 test was from a bone found among intact sediments in the skull, which might have protected it from contamination, researchers said.

That came from: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/news/local/html98/kenn_20000113.html

ps. precisely, it's 5730 years (the half life)

larc

Six,

As I look at the numbers you give, it appears that 3 of the 4 are pretty close on a % basis. The one lower number might be a statistical outlier and subject to question. Even accepting all the numbers and the variability, the numbers are still too large to fit the Bible.

Also, I understand that there are Indian village sites across North America, where the contents of their garbage dumps can be traced back as far as 8-10 thousand years.

larc

Here is more information on Carbon dating for folks to consider.

Abaddon

C14 is now pretty damn good.

Contamination is the only major problem.

Oh, and nuclear testing would make things younger if it did anything - I have no idea if there is C14 in fallout, but assuming it did and contaminated a sample, it would mean there was MORE C14 than there should be, which would result in a younger age being given.

Normally the creationists and Dubs only wail if the dates are too old for them to handle.

larc

Jason,

I brought this one up too.

Is Carbon-14 outdated or flawed?

Share this