http://SaturnianCosmology.Org/ mirrored file For complete access to all the files of this collection see http://SaturnianCosmology.org/search.php ========================================================== *Volume #4 **Fall Edition 200**4* *C-14 Dating/ //Tool or Magic Wand?/* *By: Robert F. Helfinstine** *Radiocarbon dating enjoys virtual slam dunk credibility in many minds. Bob Helfinstine raises questions deserving close scrutiny by objective scholars. * Archeologists, anthropologists and others involved in researching things of the past have used the tools of radiocarbon (14C) dating as a supposedly accurate measurement of time in past history by which they could correlate activities from remote parts of the world. As the method has been used, and the procedures improved with modem technology, the assumptions on which the method has been based have been questioned. If the assumptions are in question, what about the results? How many individuals who submit samples for dating understand the limitations on the dating results? What have been some of the objectives in obtaining 14C dates? In the book / Literature of the American Indians/ by Sanders and Peek the authors use 14C dating of ancient Indian sites to "prove" that the Indian culture was older than that of the Egyptians which was dated by a different method. *Charles **Ginenthal* states, "... radiocarbon dating is not employed to test theories, but to support them...radiocarbon always gives a scattered set of dates. The theorists then pick the ones they believe to be correct."^1 The ages of organic fossils, such as once living plant or animal remains, are often determined by the radiocarbon method. A certain amount of the carbon in living plant or animal tissue is 14C, usually obtained in the form of 14C02 from its environment. In a stable environment the amount of 14C is in equilibrium, that is, the amount of decay equals the amount of new 14C taken in. When a plant or animal dies, there is no additional 14C taken into the tissue, and the 14C decreases as a function of time with a half-life of 5700 years. By measuring the remaining 14C/12C ratio in a sample of wood, leather or ashes from an ancient campfire and compared with a "standard" ratio, a theoretical age of the sample is obtained. How accurate is the age? The assumptions on which the dating is made are:^2 1. It is independent of time for 70,000 years. 2. The value is independent of geographic location. 3. The percent of 14C is not species dependent. 4. The generation activity of 14C is a known constant. 5. There is no 14C contamination with modern 14C. 6. There is no loss of 14C except by radioactive decay. Radiocarbon is generated in the upper atmosphere primarily by cosmic ray bombardment of nitrogen (14N), converting it to 14C. The Mcgraw-Hill / Encyclopedia of Science and Technology/ states that the concentration of 14C in the earth's atmosphere, hydrosphere and biosphere is "relatively" uniform. It then go on to explain how this relatively uniform condition is really a variable. A key factor in the 14C generation rate is the strength of the earth's magnetic field. According to the technical monograph “Origin and Destiny of the Earth's Magnetic Field,”^3 the magnetic field is decaying as a first order exponential with a half life of 1400 years, a number much less than the 5700 year half life of 14C. The consequence of the decay is that there is a corresponding exponential increase of the generation rate of 14C. Using present conditions as a reference will result in an increase in the apparent age of older samples. The cosmic ray flux is an unknown for past ages. An eleven year sun-spot cycle also has a cyclic effect on the generation rate. Dilution of 14C in the atmosphere is caused by burning of hydrocarbon fuel or by release of 12C from C02 sinks as the result of atmosphere and hydrosphere warming.^4 Geographic location is probably one of the biggest variables in the 14C dating process, yet it seems to be systematically ignored. A few examples include a living tree growing next to an airport dated as being about 10,000 years old,^5 and living aquatic plants from Montezuma Well in Arizona which show apparent ages from 17,300 to 24,750 years.^6 Why the erroneous numbers? It is assumed that the tree by the airport has obtained carbon from the exhaust fumes of aircraft which diluted the natural 14C in the atmosphere. The plants at Montezuma Well are evidently getting much of their carbon from the well water, carbon that has lost most of its 14C content by being aged in the ground for many years. This apparent aging is known as the Seuss effect. Plants, and animals that feed on them, are influenced by the amount of "old carbon" in their immediate environment. Studies of soil and water conditions show that C02 concentration in water under grasslands is approximately 1000 times greater than C02 concentrations in water in equilibrium with air. Forest areas show an increase on C02 concentrations in both soil and water 100 times that of rainwater.^7 Therefore, both plants and animals from zones with high concentrations of old carbon will provide specimens that appear older by conventional 14C standards than they actually are. There are also assumptions of ages of certain rock formations, yet radiocarbon dating of wood samples extracted from the rock show dates radically different from the assumed age. An example is a partly burned but unfossilized branch found in Cretaceous limestone in Texas that was dated as 12,800 plus or minus 200 years B.P. [Before the Present].^8 Spruce wood, described as being in near normal condition, taken from the buried forest of Upper Michigan was dated at 10,200 years B.P. Other fossil wood found along the south shore of Lake Superior shows similar dates.^9 The relatively narrow dates for fossil wood is a problem for some researchers who have definite presuppositions about the time period of certain fossils. Wood found around the carcass of the baby *mammoth* Dima was dated between 9,000 and 10,000 years B.P. Samples of the carcass tissue were dated at 26,000 and 40,000 years B.P.^10 Fat and blood samples from the Berezovka *mammoth* were dated at 39,000 years B.P., but the plant and pollen remains found in its stomach was dated at between 6,000 and 7,000 years B.P.^11 These examples tend to indicate that older samples can give a variety of dates, many of which may have little direct correlation to dates obtained by other methods. This brings to question the validity of many 14C dates found in the literature. When the material being dated has an unknown past history, how can the measured date be considered valid? Contamination is a potential problem with old samples if the containers they are kept in are made of wood or wood products or are exposed to the air. Carbon 14 can be absorbed by the sample and made to appear younger than its normal 14C date. How much this affects the real date is questionable because of the other variables in the system. The assumptions on which the process was originally established need to be reconsidered. It is not independent of time, it is dependent on geographical location, it is species dependent, the generation activity is changing and it is subject to contamination. There have been a number of "correction factors" proposed in attempts to normalize 14C dating. Tree ring dating has been used, but that process has its own limitations. The influence of the earth's magnetic field can be compensated to some extent, but the large differences due to geographic locations can only be guessed at. Carbon 14 isn't the useful tool it was thought to be, but it is often used as a "magic wand" in an attempt to provide validity for establishing dates of ancient fossils. And because of the general commitment to using 14C dates, *Charles **Ginenthal* made the following comment. "I believe that because radiocarbon dating is the one great backbone and support of the superstructure of the uniformitarian history of the past, ... all of this evidence for a distorted ratio of 14C/12C, ... will be denied."^12 Old paradigms are hard to replace. *1. *Ginenthal*, *Charles*, */ The Extinction of the *Mammoth*/*, 'The Velikovskian', Special edition, 1997, p. 160. 2. Faure, Gunter, */ Principles of Isotope Geology/*, 1977, p. 307. 3. Barnes, Thomas G., */ Origin and Destiny of the Earth's Magnetic Field/*, Technical Monograph No. 4, Second Edition, 1983, p. 17. 4. *Ginenthal*, op cit., pp.178-180 The two main sinks for old carbon are the Arctic tundra which absorbs C02 from the atmosphere and methane hydrate, a frozen mixture of methane and water found in the tundra and in the ocean. 5. Huber, Bruno, "Recording Gaseous Exchange Under Field Conditions," */ The Physiology of Forest Trees/*, K. V. Thinmann ed., (NewYork, 1958) p. 194, cited in *Ginenthal*, op cit. p. 174. 6. Ogden, J. Gordon III, "Radiocarbon and Pollen Evidence for a Sudden Change in Climate in the Great Lakes Region 10,000 years Ago," Quaternary Paleoecology, E. J. Cushing, H. E. Wright, Jr. eds., (New Haven, CT, 1967) p. 119, cited in *Ginenthal*, op cit., p. 175. 7. */Encyclopedia Britannica/*, Macropedia, Vol. 7, p. 733, cited in *Ginenthal*, op cit., p. 176. 8. Found by Wilbur Fields of Joplin, MO., radiocarbon dating: UCLA-2088, 10/23/78. 9. Information obtained from professor W. James Merry, Northern Michigan University, Marquette, Michigan, on a personal visit to discuss the buried forest., 1978. 10. Guthrie, R. Dale, */ Frozen Fauna of the *Mammoth* Steppe/*, 1990, pp. 9-10. 11. *Ginenthal*, op cit. p.163. 12. *Ginenthal*, op cit., p. 184. * Robert F. Helfinstine is the director of Twin-Cities Creation Science Association. His article “Radiocarbon Dating: A Tool or a Magic Wand?” appeared originally in Ancient American Archaeology, and is excerpted here, courtesy of the author.* * Dr. Wernher von Braun <../vonBraun.htm>* Dr. Wernher von Braun <../vonBraun.htm> Phillip E. Johnson Phillip E. Johnson Dismantling Darwinism <../Dismantling%20Darwinism_Johnson.htm> Warren L Johns <../EvolutionsMissingEquationX.htm> Evolution's Missing <../EvolutionsMissingEquationX.htm> Equation "X" <../EvolutionsMissingEquationX.htm> * Dr. Brad Harrub <../GrandCanyonBirthdayCandles.htm>* Dr. Brad Harrub Grand Canyon Birthday Candles <../GrandCanyonBirthdayCandles.htm> What Darwin Didn't Know <../netbookshelf.htm> A Physician Dissects Darwinian Theory <../netbookshelf.htm> Copyright 2001, General Title Incorporated. All rights reserved. The names, logos, taglines and icons on this website are proprietary marks of General Title Incorporated.