In this entry, I will discuss the many misunderstandings with Carbon and Radiometric dating, for instance most people think Carbon 14 dating is typically done in the millions and billons of years. Carbon dating can only give dates in the range of thousands of years…but more on that in a bit.
I’d like to first talk about how if you take the Bible literally, then believing it took millions of years for us to get to where we are now compromises scripture. There is an actual family genealogy in the book of Chronicles which gives us a very good idea of time in the Old Testament. From the Garden of Eden to the birth of Christ is about 4000 years. From Christ’s death until now has been about 2000 years. So, when we listen to dating methods that produce millions or billions of years, a Christian has to do some head scratching….
Let’s talk about how we get dates from Carbon-14 dating.
When a plant or animal dies the carbon-14 in that once living thing now decreases as time goes on. The carbon dating “clock” then starts the moment an organism dies. (Also note: Carbon dating only works for things which were ONCE LIVING – it doesn’t work for non-living things like rock). The rate of decay for the element Carbon 14 is such that, the half of the amount of carbon 14 will convert back to nitrogen in about 6,000 years (+ or – 40 years). This is what is referred to as a “half-life.” Therefore, in two half-lives or 12,000 years only one quarter carbon will be left. And, anything over 50,000 years should not have any detectable carbon-14 left at all. This is why carbon-14 dating cannot give “results” for millions of years. MOST IMPORTANTLY, if a sample contains carbon-14 this is EVIDENCE it is NOT millions of years old.
Seems simple, right? But it’s not. In a perfect world, carbon-14 dating should work as I previously explained, however, scientists are also assuming they have control over some factors that they do not. Below, I have listed some “exceptions” that make this carbon-dating process not so reliable.
1. Plants discriminate against carbon dioxide containing carbon-14
• Plants take up less carbon-14 than would be expected so they tend to test older than they really are. Also, different plants discriminate differently – not all plants “age” the same (carbon-14 wise)
2. The ratio of carbon-14 to carbon-12 has not been consistent over time
• The industrial era when fossil fuels were burning released a LOT of carbon dioxide (which contained carbon-12) depleted carbon-14. This would make things which died during the industrial age appear older in terms of carbon dating. Also, there was a rise in carbon-14 during the atmospheric testing of atomic bombs in the 1950s. This would make things that died during this time appear younger than their true age.
3. Most archaeologists do not regard carbon-14 dates as absolute because of their frequent anomalies and therefore also consult historical records
4. The strength in the earth’s magnetic field affects the carbon-14 decay as well. As the earth travels in the solar system it’s magnetic strength varies. Therefore, the carbon-14 decay will vary based on where the earth is in its orbit
Here again what I would like to point out is dating methods which have been “advertised” as fact or fool-proof actually have a lot of explaining to do. I am not saying that carbon-14 dating can’t give us a general idea of when things took place, but we can’t base everything on just the carbon-14 amounts remaining.
OTHER RADIOMETRIC DATING METHODS
The other item I feel is important to mention is that Carbon-14 dating isn’t the only method used to date today. There are other methods that are used that are relative to the concentrations between parent and daughter products of radioactive decay chains. For instance:
• Potassium-40 decays to Argon-40
• Uranium-238 decays to Lead-206
These techniques are often applied to volcanic/igneous rocks. But this type of dating also has its own set of problems just like carbon-14. Isotope concentration levels can be measured very accurately, but just like the variables that can cause carbon-14 to speed up or slow down, there are variables with radiometric dating too! Concentration levels do not always equal correct dates.
As you might not be surprised, I have some more issues to take with radiometric dating. In order to derive dates, scientists must make some very UNPROVABLE assumptions like:
• Assuming they understand the starting conditions of the decay
• Assuming the decay rates have always been constant
• Assuming the systems were closed or isolated so that no parent or daughter isotopes were lost or added (which would be very difficult considering none of these rocks spent millions of years in a lab environment…)
PROBLEMS WITH DATING
Here are some more issues I have with some of these dating methods. You would think that if we dated them against rocks we KNOW the ages on, then they would work reliably, but THEY DO NOT! There are many examples of rock formations that have “known” ages that when current dating methods are applied they give false results Here are some examples…
EXAMPLE: Mount Ngaurugoe in New Zealand
• There were lava flows here that occurred in 1949, three in 1954, and one in 1975
• However, using Potassium-40 to Argon-40 dating the dates ranged from 27-35 millions of years old
EXAMPLE: Geologist Dr. Steve Austin and the Grand Canyon
• Dr. Austin sampled basalt from the base (bottom) of the Grand Canyon strata and lava which spilled over the edge of the canyon (top)
• By evolutionary reasoning, the basalt should be MUCH OLDER than the top
• Laboratory dating showed the recent lava found at the top to be 270 million years OLDER than the basalts beneath the Grand Canyon
EXAMPLE: Dr. Steve Austin and the Grand Canyon – one sample, several dating techniques
• Using one rock sample, several dating techniques were used and each gave a different age to the same sample
I think it is truly important to know these things about the many facets of science. I think as a general rule of thumb most people tend to believe what they are told because it is SCIENCE or it has been SCIENTIFICALLY PROVEN and yet, they don’t know all the facts. Though many want to discredit the Bible for being old and out of date, it has stood the test of time. We keep finding more and more proof that words of the Bible once thought to be silly, are actually quite factual! Please do not be too quick to trash your Biblical beliefs because something has been reported as scientific fact.
With that same token, I am not trying to trash the scientific community! We have made so many wonderful developments because of what we have learned from the scientific realm. I LOVE SCIENCE!! It is weird and fascinating and exciting! However, I also believe we have to make sure we aren’t just being spoon fed mis-information for certain agendas. And that is true for any subject matter, but most importantly in matters of faith. So here again, I ask you, where do you put your FAITH? In God, or in Man?
Comments