Difference between revisions of "Radiocarbon Dating"
m (1 revision) |
m (1 revision) |
||
| (15 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | + | {{Evolution Says|Radiocarbon dating accurately measures the age of plant and animal material. This method proves the evolution of life on earth. }} | |
| + | ==The Facts Are ..... == | ||
| + | |||
| + | {{Fact|1}} Carbon-14 calculations are based on 7 assumptions | ||
| + | |||
| + | , concerning the past 20-30 thousand years. 1/ | ||
| + | |||
| + | The balance between Carbon-14 production and decay has always been the same; 2/ The rate of Carbon-14 decay has not altered; 3/ Organic material tested has not been contaminated by Carbon-14 | ||
| + | |||
| + | since its death; 4/ Earth's magnetic field intensity has not changed; 5/ There have only been small variations in ocean depths; 6/ Ocean temperature changes have only been minor; and 7/ Cosmic ray intensity has not changed. Measurements based on assumptions are guesses, not fact. Willard F. Libby, | ||
| + | |||
| + | <ref>"Radiocarbon Dating", University of Chicago Press: Chicago, 1955 p:8, 10, 19-31</ref> | ||
| + | |||
| + | {{Fact|2}} Examples of where C-14 dating has been shown to be erroneous:- | ||
| + | |||
| + | (i) A living water snail taken from an artesian spring in Nevada was given as assessed age of 27,000 years. <ref>Science, Vol. 224, April 6, 1984 p:58-61</ref> | ||
| + | |||
| + | (ii) Shell from living clams was 'dated' thousands of years old. <ref>Science, Vol. 141, August 16, 1963 p:634</ref> | ||
| + | |||
| + | (iii) Dried seal carcasses less than 30 years old were 'dated' as 4,600 years old. <ref>Antarctic Journal of the United States, Vol. 6, October, 1971 p:210+</ref> | ||
| + | |||
| + | (iv) A freshly killed seal was assessed at 1,300 old. <ref>Antarctic Journal of the United States, Vol. 6, October, 1971 p:210+</ref> | ||
| + | |||
| + | (v) A 15,000 year difference appeared in the assessment of samples from a single sample block of peat. <ref>New Zealand Journal of Geology and Geophysics, Vol. 21, No. 4, 1978 p:463-466</ref> | ||
| + | |||
| + | {{Fact|3}} Thirty eight laboratories world-wide carbon-dated samples of wood, peat and carbonate, and produced differing dates for similar objects of the same age. The overall finding of the comparative test was that radiocarbon dating was 'two to three times less accurate than implied by their error terms'. Ages of objects assessed by this method cannot therefore be viewed as being credible. <ref>Nature, September 28, 1989 p:267; New Scientist, September 30, 1989 p:10</ref> | ||
| + | |||
| + | {{Fact|4}} "In the light of what is known about the radiocarbon method and the way it is used, it is truly astonishing that many authors will cite agreeable determinations as 'proof' for their beliefs ..... The radiocarbon method is still not capable of yielding accurate and reliable results. There are gross discrepancies, the chronology is uneven and relative, and the accepted dates are actually selected dates. "This whole blessed thing is nothing but 13th century alchemy, and it all depends upon which funny paper you read"." Written by Robert E. Lee in his article "Radiocarbon: Ages in Error" <ref>in Anthropological Journal Of Canada, Vol. 19, No. 3, 1981 p:9</ref> | ||
| + | |||
| + | {{Fact|5}} "Materials which give radiocarbon dates of tens of thousands of radiocarbon years could have true ages of many fewer calendar years." Personal correspondence from Gerald E. Aardsma to Paul Taylor. <ref>Quoted in Paul S. Taylor, "The Illustrated Origins Answer Book" (4th. ed.) Eden Publications: Mesa (Arizona), 1992 p:59</ref> | ||
| + | |||
| + | {{Fact|6}} In Dr Sheridan Bowman's book for the British Museum, "Radiocarbon Dating", it states: | ||
| + | |||
| + | "Radiocarbon is not quite as straightforward as it may seem. The technique does not in fact provide true ages, and radiocarbon results must be adjusted (calibrated) to bring them into line with calendar ages". <ref>Diggings, August, 1990 p:8</ref> | ||
| + | |||
| + | {{Fact|7}} "If a C-14 date supports our theories, we put it in the main text. If it does not entirely contradict them, we put it in a footnote. And if it is completely 'out of date', we just drop it." <ref>Professor Brew, quoted by T. Save-Soderbergh (Egyptologist) & Ingrid Olsson (Physicist) in "C-14 Dating and Egyptian Chronology" in Proceedings of the Twelfth Nobel Symposium, John Wiley & Sons: New York, 1970 p:35; [see also Diggings, August, 1990 p:8]</ref> | ||
| + | ==References== | ||
| + | <references></references> | ||
| + | [[Category:Unmasking Evolution]] | ||
Latest revision as of 07:59, 30 May 2014
Evolution Says....
The Facts Are .....
Fact #1
Carbon-14 calculations are based on 7 assumptions
, concerning the past 20-30 thousand years. 1/
The balance between Carbon-14 production and decay has always been the same; 2/ The rate of Carbon-14 decay has not altered; 3/ Organic material tested has not been contaminated by Carbon-14
since its death; 4/ Earth's magnetic field intensity has not changed; 5/ There have only been small variations in ocean depths; 6/ Ocean temperature changes have only been minor; and 7/ Cosmic ray intensity has not changed. Measurements based on assumptions are guesses, not fact. Willard F. Libby,
Fact #2
Examples of where C-14 dating has been shown to be erroneous:-
(i) A living water snail taken from an artesian spring in Nevada was given as assessed age of 27,000 years. [2]
(ii) Shell from living clams was 'dated' thousands of years old. [3]
(iii) Dried seal carcasses less than 30 years old were 'dated' as 4,600 years old. [4]
(iv) A freshly killed seal was assessed at 1,300 old. [5]
(v) A 15,000 year difference appeared in the assessment of samples from a single sample block of peat. [6]
Fact #3
Thirty eight laboratories world-wide carbon-dated samples of wood, peat and carbonate, and produced differing dates for similar objects of the same age. The overall finding of the comparative test was that radiocarbon dating was 'two to three times less accurate than implied by their error terms'. Ages of objects assessed by this method cannot therefore be viewed as being credible. [7]
Fact #4
"In the light of what is known about the radiocarbon method and the way it is used, it is truly astonishing that many authors will cite agreeable determinations as 'proof' for their beliefs ..... The radiocarbon method is still not capable of yielding accurate and reliable results. There are gross discrepancies, the chronology is uneven and relative, and the accepted dates are actually selected dates. "This whole blessed thing is nothing but 13th century alchemy, and it all depends upon which funny paper you read"." Written by Robert E. Lee in his article "Radiocarbon: Ages in Error" [8]
Fact #5
"Materials which give radiocarbon dates of tens of thousands of radiocarbon years could have true ages of many fewer calendar years." Personal correspondence from Gerald E. Aardsma to Paul Taylor. [9]
Fact #6
In Dr Sheridan Bowman's book for the British Museum, "Radiocarbon Dating", it states:
"Radiocarbon is not quite as straightforward as it may seem. The technique does not in fact provide true ages, and radiocarbon results must be adjusted (calibrated) to bring them into line with calendar ages". [10]
Fact #7
"If a C-14 date supports our theories, we put it in the main text. If it does not entirely contradict them, we put it in a footnote. And if it is completely 'out of date', we just drop it." [11]
References
- ↑ "Radiocarbon Dating", University of Chicago Press: Chicago, 1955 p:8, 10, 19-31
- ↑ Science, Vol. 224, April 6, 1984 p:58-61
- ↑ Science, Vol. 141, August 16, 1963 p:634
- ↑ Antarctic Journal of the United States, Vol. 6, October, 1971 p:210+
- ↑ Antarctic Journal of the United States, Vol. 6, October, 1971 p:210+
- ↑ New Zealand Journal of Geology and Geophysics, Vol. 21, No. 4, 1978 p:463-466
- ↑ Nature, September 28, 1989 p:267; New Scientist, September 30, 1989 p:10
- ↑ in Anthropological Journal Of Canada, Vol. 19, No. 3, 1981 p:9
- ↑ Quoted in Paul S. Taylor, "The Illustrated Origins Answer Book" (4th. ed.) Eden Publications: Mesa (Arizona), 1992 p:59
- ↑ Diggings, August, 1990 p:8
- ↑ Professor Brew, quoted by T. Save-Soderbergh (Egyptologist) & Ingrid Olsson (Physicist) in "C-14 Dating and Egyptian Chronology" in Proceedings of the Twelfth Nobel Symposium, John Wiley & Sons: New York, 1970 p:35; [see also Diggings, August, 1990 p:8]