Carbon-14: A Scientifally Proven Dating Method?
A. Introduction
Recently someone claiming to be knowledgeable on the subject told me that the Carbon-14 dating method was a reliable scientific method. In the past, individuals have rejected my writings because I look upon the Carbon-14 dating method as nonsense. However, I feel the time is right to address the issue.
B. What is Carbon-14?
Carbon comes in several different forms. A less common form has atoms, which are fourteen times as heavy as the hydrogen atom. Therefore it is called Carbon-14. What makes Carbon-14 different from the common Carbon-12 is that Carbon-14 easily disintegrates. That it falls into pieces makes it instable, and in the present case, its instability makes it radioactive.
Carbon-14, which is also called radiocarbon, is formed in the upper atmosphere by cosmic rays, which convert N-14 into C-14 by their actions. (This happens when cosmic rays 'attack' the upper atmosphere and produce fast moving neutrons, which collide with the nitrogen atoms to produce C-14.) Ordinary carbon, C-12, is found in the carbon dioxide when we breathe in air. This is cycled by plants and animals throughout nature, so that one's body, a leaf on a tree, of even a piece of wooden furniture all contain carbon.
Once carbon-14 has been formed, it behaves just like ordinary carbon. Carbon-14 can and will combine with oxygen to make carbon dioxide (it becomes C-14 O-2), which gets cycled freely through the cells of plants and animals. What makes this different is that once C-14 has been formed, it begins to decay radioactively back into N-14, at a transformation rate that can be measured. By taking a sample of air and then measuring how many C-12 atoms there are to C-14 atoms, researchers can then determine what is called the C-12/C-14 ratio.
Now, because C-14 is so well mixed in with C-12, it is expected that if we sample a leaf from a tree, or a part from your body, the ratio will be the same. The fact that C-14 atoms are changing back into N-14 atoms is a moot point since the body is constantly exchanging carbon with its surroundings. And so the mixture will be the same in the atmosphere and in all living things.
C. The Carbon Clock
As soon as a plant or an animal dies, the Carbon-14 atoms inside decay, and are no longer replaced by new ones from the outside. Naturally, the amount of Carbon-14 inside gets smaller and smaller as time goes on. The C-12/C-14 ratio gets smaller and smaller in other words. The moment something dies, the amount of regular carbon stays in the body in the same amount for an infinite period of time. What changes is the amount of C-14, for it becomes less and less until there is none left. The carbon clock can only 'work' for object that once contained carbon. This means that it cannot be used to date rocks and minerals. What makes the carbon clock fascinating is this: If we know how quickly the C-14 decays then we can measure how long it has been since a plant or living creature has died.
D. From Theory to Practice
There are problems though. One, we do not know what the C-12/C-14 ratio was to start with. Obviously we need to know this in order to be able to determine at what point the clock began to tick. We know that the ratio would be the same as is in the atmosphere at the time that the organism died, but how do we know what that ratio was? Do scientists assume that the ratio was as it is now? Not exactly. Researchers have shown that the Industrial Revolution because of its huge burnings of masses of coal terribly upset the natural carbon balance, by releasing enormous amounts of C-12 into the air. So we know that the ratio was changed, at least once. Tree ring studies have determined what the C-12/C-14 ratio was before the Industrial Revolution. All radiocarbon dating is made with this in mind. But what was the ratio like, say, 1000 years ago. We do not know, but evolutionists assume that it has been constant for a long period of time before the Industrial Revolution. On this assumption hangs the whole validity of the dating system.
Why would W.F. Libby, the founder of this method, assume this? If it has changed once in the last 300 years, could it not also have changed in the preceding 6000 years (for the creationist) or 6,000,000 years (for the evolutionist). To say, "NO", its impossible would be foolish and closed-minded, abandoning scientific research and embracing an irrational faith. We all know that C-14 is continually entering the atmosphere (via the carbon cycle), and that it is continually leaving the system by its decay back into N-14. The more you have the more there is to decay, and as more enters the system the rate of leaving then increases.
Now, C-14 enters the system at a constant rate, but the rate of entry, will of course be greater than the rate of exit. This allows some C-14 to build up, and the more that accumulates, the more at the rate of exit, until the amount pouring in is the same as the amount pouring out. At this point, when the entry rate and exit rate are identical, the "steady state" has been reached. Libby and other scientific minds of his day, believed that this steady state had been reached a very long time ago. They believed that C-14 would be entering and leaving at the same rate. They stated calculations showing that it would take 30,000 years for the 'switch' to turn on (for cosmic rays to attack the atmosphere) until C-14 would reach the steady state. By that time geologists and others had been persuaded that the earth was much older than that. Most believed that C-14 had been in a steady state now for millions of years.
E. What do the Measurement Show
During Libby's day, measurements showed that C-14 was entering the system approximately 12 % faster than it was leaving. This indicates that the system was considerably less than 30,000 years old, since equilibrium had not yet been reached. Newer measurements show an obvious difference between rate of production and of disintegration. Nuclear chemists, A.W Fairhall and J.A Young, much to the disappointment of old earth theorists, suggest that the rate of production and the rate of disintegration may be about 50% out of balance.
"We note in passing that the total number of C-14 inventory of 2.16x10^30 atoms corresponds to a C-14 decay rate of 1.63x10^4 disintegrations of the earth which is considerably below the estimated production rate of C-14 atom averages over the last ten solar cycles (111 years) of 2.5x10^4 (+/- 0.5x10^4) atoms..." (Advances in Chemistry Volume 93, pg 402)
Now there are discrepancies and complexities in all measurements. Some researchers use a newer non-uniform model based on the average imbalance of 35% to establish a recalibration scale which would mean that the older dates have to be more generally reduced than other ones. This seems proper, as does the use of the average imbalance to establish a limit to the age of the earth's atmosphere which ranges from 7000 years to 10,000 years.
F. Take this Into Account
1.Many creationists believe that there was a vast water vapor canopy around the earth before the flood of Noah’s day. This would have shielded the atmosphere from some of the cosmic radiation. This would mean that the amount of C-14 in the pre-flood times would have been much smaller than it was today. What this shows is that a specimen from before the flood could appear to be very old, or even of an infinite age, because it has so little C-14 in it, making it look as if it had been decaying for tens of thousands of years.
Also, most coal is vegetation that grew before the flood and was buried by the flood, so, it would not be surprising that coal and oil have virtually no radiocarbon activity to be measured.
2. I find this interesting that the measured exponential decay of the earth’s magnetic field suggests that as you go back in history, the strength of the field increases rapidly. A stronger magnetic field would mean more protection against cosmic rays. Therefore much less C-14 is produced and we are stuck with artificially old ages the more we go back in time, unless radiocarbon researchers take the magnetic field into account, which unfortunately they don’t. (Much can be read about the magnetic field. I recomend the work of Dr. Thomas Barnes).
3. The third one here I only mention because it is an interesting theory. Many are starting to consider the suggestion that the speed of light has decreased through time. During the 1930's and 40's measurements seemed to be dropping consistently. This has caused a controversy for some time. But if they are right then radioactivity decay rates would automatically be affected and would show artificially high ages.
G. C-14 Dating Embarassments
1. Errors in Judgement
-coal from Russia from the Pennsylvanian era supposedly 300 million years old, was dated only 1680 years (Radiocarbon, Volume 8)
-natural gas from Mississippi and Alabama should have been 50 to 135 million years old yet C-14 dated it 30 000 and 34 000 years old respectively (also Volume 8)
-bones from a saber-tooth tiger, found in the LaBrea tar pits (near Los Angeles) were supposedly between 100 000 and 1 000 000 years old, were given a date of 28 000 years (Radiocarbon, Volume 10)
2. Oops
-a freshly killed seal dated by C-14 showed that it had died 1 300 years ago (American Journal, Volume 6)
-living mollusc shells were dated at up to 2300 years old (Science, Volume 14)
-living snail shells showed that they had died 27 000 years ago (Science, Volume 224)
These are just a few errors. They are not meant to end the debate. But once one has considered everything else, it certainly makes it harder to believe that the C-14 dating method is a proven, trustworthy scientific method.
Perhaps one can find reasons to excuse these sorts of errors that I have pointed out. One could say that C-14 dissolves in water or any other piece of information with the attempt of excusing certain blunders. But when one is testing the age of an unknown organism in an unknown enviroment at the time of its death, how can we exclude similar sorts of results.
A respected antropological journal highlighted the nature of the problem of carbon-dating:
"The troubles of the radiocarbon dating method are undeniably deep and serious. It should be no surprise then, that half of the dates are rejected. The wonder is; Why are the remaining half accepted?" (Radiocarbon, Ages in Error: Antropological Journal of Canada, Vol 19, No 3, Pg 9)
H. Conclusion
The C-14 has not reached the steady state yet but it is building up. Unfortunately predictions are based on the belief that the steady state has been reached.
Also, based on the present evidence, the olders radiocarbon dates have to be adjusted from the inaccurate uniform model. When this is done there is shrinking in the dates. Not coincidentally, the older the date the greater the age reduction.
Third, the protective water vapor canopy and the greater magnetic field before likely means that the C-14 levels in the past were significantly smaller than at present. This would cause enormous dating problems.
Finally, any systematic change in atomic contrasts, such as the speed of light, would affectively reduce the radioactive ages given.
The General
[Edited to render readable. --Admin]
[This message has been edited by Admin, 08-01-2003]
™ Version 4.2