The Peabody Institute was a contributor to this work through past curator, Frederick Johnson, but that is a story for another blog. Instead of relying solely on relative dating – the basic concept that an object found below another is older than one found closer to the surface – archaeologists gained the ability to specifically identify a year range for organic artifacts. Libby received the Nobel Prize in Chemistry in 1960. Developed by University of Chicago physical chemist Willard Libby in the 1940s, C14 dating was a game-changer for the field of archaeology. An invaluable tool for contextualizing the past, C14 dating is a method for determining the age of an object containing organic material by measuring stable and unstable (radioactive) isotopes of Carbon. 42 (7): 20.You have probably heard of radio-carbon (C14) dating. Do Young C-14 Results Reflect Contamination? Acts & Facts. in Physics from the University of Texas at Dallas.Ĭite this article: Hebert, J. Hebert is Research Associate at the Institute for Creation Research and received his Ph.D. San Diego, CA: Institute for Creation Research and Chino Valley, AZ: Creation Research Society, 587-630. In Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth: Results of a Young-Earth Creationist Research Initiative. Carbon-14 Evidence for a Recent Global Flood and a Young Earth. Rethinking Carbon-14 Dating: What Does It Really Tell Us about the Age of the Earth? Acts & Facts. We are confident that additional testing will only strengthen the case for a biblically consistent age of the earth. We disagree, but we encourage these skeptics to submit additional dinosaur bones, fossilized wood, coal, and diamond for further AMS testing. Skeptics may object that the number of reported instances of “anomalous” AMS C-14 detection is too small to justify questioning the iconic long-age timescale. Furthermore, contamination should not be assumed without good cause to suspect that it has occurred-and a test result that simply contradicts long-age dogma does not provide enough scientific reason to make such an assumption! What about in situ contamination? While in situ contamination can sometimes occur, are we to believe that all the “anomalous” C-14 detected by the AMS method is the result of contamination? At some point, the contamination excuse begins to wear thin. Also, any C-14 that could inadvertently be introduced to a sample during the measurement process will be negligible compared to the C-14 already present, provided that sufficiently large sample sizes (about 100 mg) are used, which is usually the case. They know very well that any contamination may likely ruin the test results, and their frequent cross-checks virtually ensure that they only measure carbon integral to the sample. However, C-14 lab technicians take great pains to reduce or eliminate sources of contamination. Naturally, skeptics have tried to dismissed these findings, generally claiming that they are the result of contamination that occurred either during the laboratory procedures used to measure the C-14 or in situ (in the soil or rock where the specimen was originally found). The RATE researchers even found preliminary evidence of C-14 in diamond, which is supposedly 1 to 3 billion years old! Department of Energy were submitted for testing to one of the world’s most reliable radiocarbon laboratories. ICR’s RATE 4 creation research project confirmed these earlier results: 10 high-quality coal samples obtained from the U.S. Nevertheless, scores of instances of “anomalous” AMS detection of C-14 have been reported in the secular literature, including around 70 within just a 14-year period. Yet when secular researchers tested supposedly very “ancient” organic specimens with the newer AMS method, C-14 was still present! The number of specimens tested with the AMS method is relatively small, as it is considerably more expensive to process samples than with the earlier technique. However, a newer technique, acceleration mass spectrometry (AMS), is not subject to this error. By evolutionary reckoning, such samples should be radiocarbon “dead.” 2Įvolutionists were initially able to dismiss these results because of a source of error in the earlier “scintillation” method of detecting C-14. 1 The fact that C-14 has long been detected in coal, oil, fossilized wood, and natural gas samples is genuinely surprising to those who believe these samples to be millions of years old. Because this occurs relatively quickly, no C-14 should be detected in any specimen that is more than about 100,000 years old. C-14 is a radioactive variety or “isotope” of carbon that eventually decays into nitrogen. The presence of carbon-14 (C-14) in specimens that are supposedly millions of years old is a serious problem for believers in an old earth.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |