Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
Table of Contents
• Introduction
• What is Carbon 14?
• Making Carbon 14
• Loosing Carbon 14
• Using Carbon 14 as a Clock
• Carbon 14 in Living Things
• A Few Potential Problems
• Calibrating Carbon 14 Dating
• Tree Ring Dating and Carbon 14
o A Few Minor Problems
o More Difficult Problems
o Anatolia
• Other Calibration Methods
• A Sudden Historical Decrease in Carbon 12
(Hypothetical)
• Carbon 14 in Coal and Oil
• The Contamination Argument
• Unfortunate Creationist Misquotes or
Misleading Statements
• References
Home Page
the 50's, for which he received the Nobel Prize in Chemistry in 1960.
It has a radio half-life (T 1/2) of 5,730 years and is a low energy beta
currently at a fairly constant rate in the upper atmosphere through the action of cosmic
about 1/trillion atmospheric carbon atoms radioactive 14C. The 14C then makes its way
fairly evenly throughout the atmosphere and living things incorporate it into their carbon
“skeletons”. When they die, they no longer obtain more 14C to incorporate, and so, the
14
C decays back into 14N without being replaced. A ratio can then be established and
compared with the known half-life of 14C. Then an age can be obtained for the organic
material.
What Is Carbon 14?
To understand this process we must first understand a little bit about the atoms
themselves and how they get their names. Most carbon atoms have six positively
charged protons and six uncharged neutrons. Since protons and neutrons weigh about
the same, the atomic mass of ordinary carbon is 6 + 6 = 12. It is called “Carbon 12,”
which is abbreviated “12C.” The fact that the atom has six protons is what makes it
carbon. Most nitrogen atoms have seven protons and seven neutrons, so their atomic
mass is 7 + 7 = 14. The fact that it has seven protons is what makes it nitrogen. Other
atoms are also named based on the number of protons they carry. Notice in the
diagram that eight different isotopes of Carbon are illustrated. Three of the Carbon
isotopes (12C, 13C, and 14C) are found in nature. The rest of the carbon isotopes are only
of laboratory interest. To the left side of each C (C is the symbol for Carbon) are two
numbers, the bottom number indicates the Atomic Number or the number of protons in
the nucleus. Since all the atoms are carbon, they should all have an Atomic Number of
6. The top number is the Mass Number for each isotope. The Mass Number for any
isotope is the addition of all the protons and neutrons in the nucleus. Looking at the first
isotope in the chart, Carbon 9 has 9 (protons + neutrons). Remember that the Atomic
Number (the bottom number) indicates the number of protons. So simple arithmetic
should tell us the number of neutrons. Carbon 9 has 3 neutrons. Carbon 10 would have
4 neutrons and Carbon 11 would have 5 neutrons, and so on. What should catch your
attention is the nature of the various carbon isotopes. Only two of the carbon isotopes
are stable (12C and 13C). They constitute essentially 100% of the carbon in our world,
although 12C is obviously much more common (99%). All the other Carbon Isotopes are
unstable and they degrade into something else. Notice that the farther away the Mass
Number gets from 12-13, the faster they break down (The blue numbers indicate half-
lives, the time it takes for one half of the atoms in a sample to break down.). So the
farther the carbon is from the norm, the more unstable it is. 9C, 10C, and 11C have too
few neutrons so when they breakdown, they release a positron which effectively turns a
proton into a neutron. The opposite occurs with 14C, 15C, and 16C. They have too many
process; those Isotopes which have too many neutrons loose a neutron in the beta
decay, and those Isotopes which have too few neutrons gain a neutron in the positron
decay.
Looking
specifically at
that it is a Beta
emitter with a half life of 5730 years. When Carbon 14 emits a beta particle, the Carbon
14 atom becomes a Nitrogen 14 Atom. Looking at the Mass Number and Atomic
Number of the atoms we see that the atom has lost a neutron and gained a proton. Also
you will see that the Mass and Atomic Numbers in the equation are equal on both sides
of the equation.
Making Carbon 14
The
atoms that
we are
particularly
interested
in are the
ones that
make up
the earth's
atmosphere. These include nitrogen (78 percent), oxygen (21 percent), argon (0.9
percent), carbon dioxide (0.03 percent), varying amounts of water vapor, and trace
amounts of hydrogen, ozone, methane, carbon monoxide, helium, neon, krypton, and
xenon. Cosmic rays, which contain even higher levels of energy than ultraviolet light,
cause some of the atoms in the upper atmosphere to fly apart into pieces. Neutrons that
come from these fragmented molecules run into other molecules. When a neutron
collides into a Nitrogen 14 atom, the Nitrogen 14 turns into Carbon 14 along with a
proton. So in this reaction, a neutron is captured by the nitrogen atom and a proton is
released. Thus in the nitrogen atom, a proton is effectively converted into a neutron,
which allows a Carbon to be produced. Two other reactions (Oxygen 17 reacting with
neutrons, and He 4 reacting with Carbon 13) both produce Carbon 14, but with much
smaller yields. It has been estimated that about 21 pounds of 14C is produced every
year in the upper atmosphere. So in addition to 12C and 13C, which are both naturally
occurring, 14C is also naturally occurring in our world. However, unlike both 12C and 13C,
14
C is unstable. The only reason why 14C continues to be found on Earth is because of
of a nitrogen atom to a carbon atom does decrease the total number of nitrogen atoms,
but it makes about as much difference as removing a teaspoon of water from the Pacific
Ocean. Remember, all the carbon in the entire atmosphere makes up less than 0.03%
of all the atoms in the atmosphere. Also, 14C is rare compared to 12C (~0.6%). So, if
the amount of nitrogen in the atmosphere stays the same, and the amount of cosmic
radiation stays the same, 14C will be produced at a steady rate. If the atmosphere
started out with absolutely no 14C, there would be a certain amount after one year of
exposure of nitrogen to cosmic radiation. After two years, there would be twice as much
14
C. This “birth rate” would be constant. But what about the death rate?
Loosing Carbon 14
Stable carbon has six protons and six neutrons. Stable nitrogen has seven protons
and seven neutrons. Stable oxygen has eight protons and eight neutrons. But 14C is not
so well balanced. It has six protons and eight neutrons, which makes it unstable.
Sooner or later, one of the neutrons spits out an electron and becomes a proton. This
gives it seven protons and seven neutrons, which makes it nitrogen. One cannot
predict exactly when a particular 14C atom will emit an electron and turn into 14N, but the
statistics are very predictable. Given a large number of 14C atoms, we can say with a
high degree of confidence that half of them will turn into 14N in 5,730 years. This is
called the “half-life” because half of the 14C will disappear in that time. At the end of that
time, half of the remaining 14C will turn into 14N in another 5,730 years (the second half-
life). As one would expect, the exponential curve of radioactive decay does not give
accurate results at either extreme of the curve. It does not work very well on things that
died a few hours ago, nor does it work well on things that died several tens of
thousands of years ago. Let us plug a few numbers in the equations and see why.
the casket was cut down 135 years ago, the ratio of 14C to 12C in that wood sample
divided by the ratio of 14C to 12C in the air today should be 0.983803. But suppose our
equipment for measuring the ratio is only accurate to 0.1%. Then our measurement
could be off by one digit in the third decimal place. In other words, our measured ratio
might be between 0.982803 and 0.984803 because of the limited accuracy of our
equipment. Plugging these two ratios into the equation that converts the 14C ratio into
time the calculation yields a range of dates between 143.4 and 126.6 years ago. What it
boils down to is that a 0.1% error in the measurement produces up to a 6.2% error in
the result.
Now, lets try a few other thought experiments and see what happens. Lets try the
same experiment on King Tut’s coffin. King Tut died in 1,325 BC. So, the wood in his
coffin should be about 3,325 years old. The normalized 14C ratio should be 0.668846.
0.667846 and 0.669846. This would yield dates between 3,312 and 3,337 years old.
That is an error of 12 years, but it is only and error of up to 0.4% of the correct value.
The absolute error (12 years) is larger than the absolute error for Abe’s casket (8.6
years), but when you are talking about 3,325 years, what is 12 years, more or less? So
we see why carbon 14 may work very well for dating things that died a few thousand
years ago though not so well for things that died recently.
As might be expected though, the same problems in dating young samples plague
the accurate dating of very old samples. When the time since death gets very large, the
slope of the radioactive decay curve gets very flat. This results in very large errors. For
example, imagine a piece of wood from a tree that was cut down 50,000 years ago. Its
0.003362) yields ages ranging between 47,082 and 54,551 years. That is an error of up
to 2,918 years on the young side (which is 5.8%) and 4,551 years on the old side (which
is +9.1%). Remember that the ratio of 14C to 12C is about 0.6% today. If you multiply
0.6% by 0.002, you are trying to measure the amount of 14C when it is only 0.0012% of
the total sample. So, even a small amount of contamination will corrupt the results in a
very significant way. That’s why 50,000 years is the generally quoted as the practical
limit for 14C dating generally mentioned in the scientific literature. Anything thought to be
So, we can see that 14C is very limited for the dating of anything considered to be
even close to the supposed ages of lets say, "millions of years". But, what about those
creatures that lived less than 50,000 years ago? How do they get 14C inside of
themselves and them stop getting 14C inside of themselves when they die?
As long as a plant is alive, it takes carbon dioxide from the air and water from the
ground and converts them into sugar. Since about 0.6% of the carbon in the carbon
dioxide it breathes is 14C, about 0.6% of the carbon atoms in the sugar it builds will be
14
C. Animals eat plants to get the sugar they need to survive. Since 0.6% of the carbon
they get from sugar is 14C, about 0.6% of the carbon in their muscles, bones, fat, etc.
will be 14C. When a plant or animal dies, no new carbon atoms are acquired. For
example, the wooden boards used to make King Tut’s coffin are not acquiring any more
carbon of any kind today. But the 14C in those boards is slowly decaying into nitrogen
(14N). So, when a scientist takes a sample of King Tut’s coffin and measures the ratio of
14
C to 12C, the ratio will be lower than it was when the wood was alive because about
33% of the 14C atoms in it have turned into 14N. Obviously then, if the original ratio is
known and the current ratio is known, the time involved can be easily calculated based
"The troubles of the radiocarbon dating method are undeniably deep and serious.
assumptions have been strongly challenged.... It should be no surprise, then, that fully
half of the dates are rejected. The wonder is, surely, that the remaining half comes out
to be accepted. There are gross discrepancies, the chronology is uneven and relative,
and the accepted dates are actually selected dates." (Robert E. Lee, Anthropological Journal
of Canada, Vol. 19, no. 3, 1981, p.9)
What happens if the ratio of 14C as compared to 12C in the atmosphere fluctuates
over time? If this were to happen, in a significant way, might this not be a very big
problem for accurate dating? The assumption we have to make when computing 14C
dates is that the ratio of 14C to 12C is essentially the same today as it was when the
organic material we are dating died. Certainly this is the assumption that scientists must
make, but is this a valid assumption? Is there evidence that may undermine the validity
of this assumption?
“Throughout the conference emphasis was placed on the fact that laboratories do
not measure ages, they measure sample activities. The connection between activity
and age is made through a set of assumptions... one of the main assumptions of C14
dating is that the atmospheric radiocarbon level has held steady over the age range to
which the method applies.” (Report on 14th Conference, 145 International Scientists, Science, Vol.
150, p. 1490.)
14
One really interesting problem is that the ratio of C to 12C is not in equilibrium at
all but is increasing fairly rapidly and is known to have fluctuated significantly throughout
history - perhaps due to various long term weather changes, huge geologic events, or
other catastrophic changes affecting the biosphere. This changing ratio is the reason
why carbon 14 dates are not determined by directly looking at the ratio of 14C to 12C.
Surprisingly enough, this is not how carbon 14 dating is done at all. What has to be
done in order to get "accurate" carbon 14 dates is that the ratio of 14C to 12C must be
"calibrated" or compared to the 14C to 12C ratios in organic samples of known historical
ages - like King Tut's coffin. So how, exactly, is this calibration done?
Scientists have counted thousands of tiny tree rings from very long-lived trees called the
bristlecone pines. Then, assuming that these trees only produce one ring per year, they
determined how old the trees were when they died (In reality a tree may in fact produce
correlating the youngest rings with rings of living trees, they determined the year when
the trees died and, presumably, knew how long it had been since each tree-ring died.
Interestingly enough though, when carbon 14 dating was performed on the oldest rings,
the "age" was significantly different when compared to the number of rings.
For example, say that a very old living tree has 2,500 rings. It seems at least
reasonable then that this tree is around 2,500 years old and that the innermost rings are
the oldest rings - right? Since the innermost rings died 2,500 years ago, the ratio of 14C
to 12C detected in these innermost rings, as compared to the current ratio of 14C to 12C in
today's atmosphere, should give a very direct "age" of these rings that is very near
2,500 years - right? Wrong! The carbon 14 "age" will not match the tree ring "age" very
well at all.
So now what? Well, fudge factors (which are called “calibration” factors) are used
to “correct” the carbon 14 date. Is it all starting to sound a little less solid now? Many
scientists are fond of claiming that all the various dating methods "agree" with each
other. Well, of course they do if they are all "calibrated" so that they have to agree with
each other. The fact of the matter is though that even the most reliable dating methods,
such as tree ring dating and carbon 14 dating, do not agree with each other in an
independent way and must therefore be calibrated with each other in order to make any
sense. Of course, the process of calibration itself adds just one more level uncertainty
to the date calculation. But, this uncertainty might not be too terribly significant
occurring materials that exhibit annual growth phenomena (e.g., tree rings, lake and
marine varves, etc.) are carbon 14 dated as precisely as possible over age ranges that
can (ideally) be dated absolutely via other historical methods. The resulting calibration
curve shows the relation between conventional 14C dates and calendar ages, its trends
and "wiggles" reflecting the variation of the 14C to 12C ratio in the atmosphere over time.
Once generated, the calibration curves (or more accurately, their underlying data sets)
enable the conversion of a date in radiocarbon years to a calendar age range or ranges.
But, what happens it if turns out that these calibration data sets are significantly in
error?
fairly good estimate at least, is count the rings. The first scientist to really start doing this
Douglass was an American astronomer who is now generally credited with being the
between tree ring patterns and sun spot cycles, but his findings and conclusions were
initially doubted by most scientists of his day. Later Edmund Schulman (1908-1958),
from the University of Arizona, took up the notion of tree ring dating and in the process
made Bristlecone pines famous. Schulman studies these very old tree for over 30 years
around 4,767 rings, making it the oldest living thing on Earth). This "gap" between the
living and the dead wood was first breached by A.E. Douglass while testing prehistoric
beams in the ruins near Show Low, Arizona. After this gap was breached, Ferguson was
eventually able to construct a continuous tree ring record reaching as far back as 8,680
years before present (B.P.). Then, during the 1980s, Ferguson was able to extend this
continuous sequence back to about 11,300 years B.P., using radiocarbon dating to help
theory. All one has to do is find matches in the pattern of the tree rings found in the
living trees as well as the dead trees. This overlap is used to create a sequence that
links up different pieces of wood to make a longer sequence. This method is what was
used to create the Bristlecone pine sequence. Similar tree ring chronologies and dates
have since been obtained for European oak and pine tree sequences. Such sequences
have also been used to correct or "calibrate" radiocarbon dates. In this light it is
interesting to note that radiocarbon dates have also been used to calibrate tree ring
dates.
A Few Minor Problems
Certain studies have shown that occasionally Bristlecone pines do not produce a
ring for a given year and, more commonly, produce an extra ring during some years.
Lammerts (1983) found extra rings after studying the development of Bristlecone
20% because of this problem alone.23 Publications and online articles from the
Dendrochronology Department of the University of Arizona also show that the science of
is required to judge between true and false rings and true and false pattern matches
between different pieces of wood. For estimating the ages of trees that are still living,
this doesn't seem to be a significant problem, but when it comes to matching up wood
recognized that tree rings tend to "auto correlate" or actually cross-match with each
other in several places within a tree-ring sequence. What he did to prove this was quite
between AD 1482 and 1668 and demonstrated that it could cross-match in multiple
places with the Pacific Northwest Douglas Fir Master Growth-ring Sequence to give
analysis of the correspondence between two wood samples. This statistical assessment
is done by computer which assigns high t-values (3 and above) to good wiggle-matches
and low t-values (below 3) to those with poor correspondence between the ring
patterns. Amazingly, using such t-value analysis, Yamaguchi found 113 different
matches having a confidence level of greater than 99.9%. For example, Yamaguchi
demonstrated that his log could cross-match with other tree-ring sequences to give t-
values of around 5 at AD 1504 (for the low end of the ring age), 7 at AD 1647 and 4.5 at
AD 1763. Six of these matches were non-overlapping.11 That means that this particular
piece of wood could be dated to be any one of those six vastly different ages to within a
sequences, such as the Garry Bog 2 (GB2) and Southwark sequences, which connect
the Belfast absolute chronology (i.e. the AD sequence) to the 'floating' Belfast long
chronology (i.e. the BC sequence), and ultimately used to re-date the South German
chronology, have t-values of around 4. These t-values are considerably lower than those
experiment. Thus, one would be justified in asking if the crucial cross-links which
connect up the floating sequences of the Belfast and German chronologies are based
noted by several, such as Lasken, this problem prompts a second very basic question.
correspondences at the same historical dates when the climates (and in particular the
dendrochronology, although possibly helpful for the dating of certain relative events, is
Anatolia
in the Ancient Near East. Hence this master dendrochronology has great importance.
modern Turkey. A master dendrochronology for Gordion (39.7 °N, 32.0 °E), in central
Anatolia, was first developed in the 1970s. This master dendrochronology, however,
does not extend continuously from the present to the past. The master has been
anchored in time—i.e. dated—largely via radiocarbon (originally, the master was dated
via archaeo-history). In what follows, much of the work that has been done in Anatolian
tree-ring matching is reviewed. The conclusions are disturbing, and have implications
detailing false matches from Tille Höyük at right. Also notice the alignment of the Tille
Höyük sequence with the Gordion master sequence (figure above) and with a
completely random sequence. Which one has a closer match? It all seems rather
Consider what happens when computers aren't used to judge the statistical value
of a "match". A "visual match" (see figure below) was published in 1998 (Wiener, 1998,
p. 314) dealing with wood from a ancient shipwreck that was dated against the Gordion
Master via visual matching alone. This match was published by both Kuniholm and
Manning. In 1999, a letter was sent to various e-mail lists, and also to the principal
investigator in Anatolian tree-ring studies, pointing out some of the problems already
listed (especially the statistical aspects) and concluding that there was no tree-ring
match for the shipwreck wood [James, 1999]. Two years later, in the next major paper in
Anatolian tree-ring studies, the tree-ring date for the shipwreck was acknowledged to be
Consider that perhaps desire plays more of a part than actual detached science
Another problem is that wood with less than about 100 rings is notoriously poor
when it comes to statistical matches with tree ring comparisons. It is most interesting
then that the Bronze Age gateway at the Tille Höyük (mentioned above) was
constructed with the use of many trees with few rings. Of the many specimens that were
available, 26 were matched against each other to form a master sequence. The
problem is that among the 26 specimens in this master chronology, 6 had fewer than 40
rings and 21 specimens had fewer than 60 rings. Only two had more than 100 rings
and their overlap comprised only 33 rings. Despite this master being much acclaimed,
"The central conclusion is clear: Anatolian tree-ring studies are very untrustworthy
and the problems with the work should be plain to anyone who has familiarity with the
field. This is a serious matter. Consider that the work has been published in respected
research journals and been ongoing for many years. How could this have happened?"20
Changing climatic conditions also seems to play havoc with the reliability of tree
ring matching. "For example, master dendrochronologies for Scotland and Northern
dendrochronologies for Exeter and Nantwich (both in England, about 275 km apart)
hardly at all during AD 930–1060 (t-scores indicate 60% confidence—i.e. roughly the
same as flipping a coin) [Hillam,1980]. This second example, in particular, illustrates the
measured living trees on two sites in Nevada, both on the same side of the same
mountain. One site was just 130 meters higher in elevation than the other, near the tree
line. The ring widths of the trees from the two sites showed no general correlation
whatsoever. Hillam (1980) also compared master dendrochronologies from two sites at
York, England, with a master dendrochronology from Exeter, also in England. One York
site showed an Exeter t-score wiggle-match of only 0.5 while the second York site
returned a t-score of 3.5. Why such a marked difference? What does this say about the
this circle consists of 55 inverted oak trees. A 168-year ring chronology was created and
this chronology was compared with not one, but several master tree ring chronologies.
The highest . . . correlation was against the East Anglia chronology (t-3.98; higher t-
values are more significant), giving an end date for the site chronology of 2050 BC. It
also produced lower correlations against East Anglia ending at 2454 BC (t-3.17) and
2019 BC (t-3.14). Running the ring pattern against the Irish master gave correlations of
t-3.39 at 2050 BC, but only t-0.96 at 2454 BC and t-1.7 at 2019 BC."24
chosen? In the same article, the authors go on to note that radiocarbon dating of these
same trees show a statistical accuracy of agreement of only 26.7%. The authors explain
that, "Interlaboratory offsets, errors and regional variation in the radiocarbon content of
chronologies."24 If this is true, exactly how "precise" can one be when producing
subjected to the normal rigors of scientific investigation. In this line, consider the follow
"In almost all branches of science, other than tree-ring studies, there is a check on
the validity of published research: other researchers can, and often will, independently
laboratory, comes to some interesting conclusion, and publishes this, then another
scientist will replicate the experiment, in another laboratory, and if the conclusion is not
The result is (i) a scientist who publishes bogus research will be caught (at least if the
research has importance and is not extremely expensive to replicate) and (ii) because
all scientists know this, bogus science is rare. Tree-ring studies do not have this check,
because the wood that forms the basis of a tree-ring study is irreplaceable: no other
Additionally, tree-ring investigators typically publish little more than conclusions. This
is true everywhere, not just for Anatolia. Moreover, there is little competition among tree-
typically do not have access to data from other regions. The result is a system in which
investigators can claim any plausible results and yet are accountable to no one." 20
Kuniholm himself made the following observations about the state of the "science"
"I, for one, was quite surprised to learn that dendrochronological data … is
vitiated if there are no data attached and therefore available for use by others…. We
the science of dendrochronology, published in a Letter to the Editor in the New York
does not constitute an annual ring, statistical manipulation of data to fulfill subjective
expectations, and discarding of perfectly good data sets when they contradict other data
sets that have already been accepted. Such massaging of data cannot by any stretch of
I personally find it most interesting that tree-ring specialists do not and historically
Ferguson. For example, while Ferguson was still alive, he never allowed anyone to
analyze his original data or the basis for the many suppositions that went into the
establishment of his chronology. So, Ferguson's chronologies were not subjected to the
credible. Surprisingly, modern dendrochronologists are not all that much better about
problems. For example, there seems to be close agreement between the standard
decay curve of carbon 14 and the dendro-calibration for the last 2,500 years. However,
around 500 B.C. the two curves begin to diverge so that by 4,000 years before present
(BP) the gap is 250 years and by 7,000 BP the gap is 630 years. In addition, consider
the question that if carbon 14 dating is calibrated by tree ring analysis could carbon 14
be used to validate tree ring analysis? This would be a form of circular reasoning –
right? And yet this very thing is done all the time. Whenever there is a discrepancy in
match. Sometimes this "correct" match is not the best statistical match, but it is chosen
anyway because it has the best agreement with the established paradigm of the day. 22
thousand years. Most of the problem with these methods is that there is no standard
rate at which layers form; be they lake varves, ice-core layering, coral colonies, tree
rings etc. None of these is consistent. Many lake varves can form even in one day, not
to mention one year. Many snowstorms or warm and cold spells can happen in a given
season and make many layers, or few layers per year. Not only is carbon 14 dating
limited in its theorectical usefulness any farther back in time than 50,000 years,3 but its
This is possibly do to the fact that the 14C atmospheric concentration (relative to 12C) is
rising and is not the same as it was only a few thousand years ago.
Now, suppose there had been a major atmospheric disturbance, such as the one
described in the flood "myths" of many diverse cultures about 5,000 years ago. If true,
might such a global catastrophe be expected to alter the 14C to 12C ratio just a little bit?
Consider, for argument's sake, what would happen to the carbon 14 dating
this earth sometime in the recent past. What would happen to the 14C to 12C ratio? It
would be reduced - right? This reduction in the 14C to 12C ratio would give an increased
apparent age to start out with, relative to our present day 14C to 12C ratio.
Now, what happens if the geologic column and the fossil record really are records
of truly catastrophic processes? As it turns out, there are around 39 trillion metric tons of
carbon in the biosphere. However, there are around 6,820 trillion metric tons of carbon
currently buried in the form of coal, oil, and fossils. This is about 175 times the amount
of organic matter than we have living today. Also, some of the buried carbonates could
have been part of the biosphere at some point in time. Sedimentary carbonates are a
huge block of carbon to consider, as much as 20,000 trillion metric tons of sedimentary
What if these huge coal and oil beds, not to mention the huge quantities of calcium
carbonate, were buried rapidly in some catastrophic calamity? Wouldn't this mean that
all of this organic material was all living at or near the same time and that the carbon
used to make this organic material was also part of the living biosphere at about the
same time? If true, the amount of carbon 12 in and available to the biosphere was
significantly greater in the past than it is today. In fact, without even considering the
carbon in the vast quantities of calcium carbonate, there is enough carbon 12 buried in
the fossil coal, oil, and other fossils to reduce the apparent ratio of 14C to 12C by about 7
half-lives.17
Unless the production of carbon 14 was equally greater in the past (either via
would dramatically lower the ratio of 14C vs. 12C (equivalent to about 7 half lives).
Obviously then, this would completely throw off the whole basis of carbon 14 dating
going farther back in time beyond such a catastrophic event or closely spaced events.
Certainly then, carbon 14 could not be used to rule out the recent occurrence of such a
global catastrophe.
Given such a global catastrophe that removed huge quantities of carbon 12 from
the biosphere, a rapid increase in the 14C to 12C ratio would certainly follow. Consider
that if an animal or plant lived during this time of rapidly increasing carbon 14 levels
(relative to carbon 12) that different portions of the plant or animal would have different
14
C to 12C ratios incorporated into these different parts depending upon the rate of
growth. Those areas of the animal or plant that grow faster would exhibit higher levels
of carbon 14 over time as compared to those parts of the animal or plant that grow more
slowly or have stopped growing altogether (as in the case of tree rings). For example,
hair grows fast, so we might expect to see higher levels of carbon 14 in hair as
compared to slow growing bone, muscle, or brain tissue. In light of this, consider that
different parts of well preserved creatures or other surrounding organic materials have
returned very different carbon 14 dates. For example, the scalp muscle tissue of the
"Fairbanks Creek Musk Ox" was carbon 14 dated to be 24,000 years old while the hair
of this ox was carbon 14 dated at 17,000 years old.17 Also, consider the following
quotation from the journal Science concerning the increasing levels of carbon 14 in
Suess, UCLA, “...presented the latest determinations... as adduced from the current
pine....The carbon14 concentration increases rather steadily during this time… These
results confirm the change in carbon14 concentration.... and indicate that the
There is also what is called a "reservoir effect" where significant variations of the
ratio of present day 14C to 12C are recognized (as compared to the average ratio in the
overall biosphere). Since the oceans have lower levels of carbon 14 compared to the
atmosphere, most living marine creatures date at least several hundred years old. Also,
because of local thermal vents that spew out large quantities of carbon 12, certain
aquatic mosses living in Iceland date as old as 6,000 to 8,000 years via the carbon 14
dating method. And, in Nevada, living snails have apparent carbon 14 ages up to
27,000 years old. Marine shells in Hawaii show younger dates if preserved in volcanic
ash vs. limestone. 17 Also, research has shown the ancient peat reveals an marked
decrease in carbon 14 ratios at lower and lower levels (i.e., decreased carbon 14 with
older age well beyond what would be expected with radioactive decay).17
There is yet another very interesting problem with 14C dating. Significant amounts
years old, to include coal, oil, and even carboniferous portions of fossils belonging to
dinosaurs etc. Of course this would seem to be impossible because of the fact that
carbon 14 in any amount cannot theoretically exist beyond 75,000 to at most 100,000
years. These ancient fossils should have no carbon 14 remaining at all. When tested
for carbon 14 they should yield an "infinite" age but they do not because they do in fact
Such claims for carbon 14 found in organic material dating in the millions of years
are in fact quite common. Coal is supposed to have formed millions of years ago, and
yet all coal has fair amounts of carbon 14. 12 Fossil wood found in ‘Upper Permian’ rock
that is supposedly 250 Ma old still contained significant amounts of carbon 14. 13
Recently, a sample of wood found in rock classified as ‘middle Triassic,’ supposedly
some 230 million years old, gave a carbon 14 date of around 33,720 years.14 The
accompanying checks showed that the 14C date was not due to contamination of
"modern" carbon 14. Of course, despite the great care taken to avoid contamination,
significant levels of carbon 14, when found in fossils supposed to be millions of years
old, are still attributed to contamination, background noise, or even production of carbon
thought that one or all of these processes explain the fact that trace amounts of carbon
14 are expected in all ancient organic material. These effects seems to limit carbon 14
appeared. Normally as in any test with decay counting, background counts must be
made. Usually, fossil carbon is used for the background count since it is assumed that
the fossil carbon is anywhere between 60 and 600 million years old and therefore
cannot possibly have any 14C left. However, as previously noted, fairly high levels of
carbon 14 are in fact present in these samples. R.H. Brown reported in Origins
1988(15), p. 39-43 that "infinite age" samples of fossil carbon are being reported in the
literature as having C-14 ages in the 40,000-year range. The laboratories doing this
research are from Europe, Canada, and the USA (Brown et al. 1983; Jull et al. 1986;
Beukens, Gurfinkel, and Lee 1986; Grootes et al. 1986; and Bonani et al. 1986).
"Contamination from our present Biosphere" was the most widely used
Radiocarbon (Vol. 29, No. 3, 1987) contains two different reports from groups that
attempted to explore the limits of this "contamination". The first group, from Simon
Frazer University in British Columbia (Vogel, Nelson and Southon 1987) measured 43
samples of anthracite (coal) from Pennsylvania, USA, that had been given the best
samples ranged from 0.5 to 20 milligrams. They all yielded around 43,000-year carbon
14 dates, regardless of the sample size. Again this finding was attributed to machine
background and contamination during sample preparation. The second group, from the
University of Toronto in Ontario (Gurfinkel 1987) stated that "One of the major problems
encountered in this study was the apparent presence of 14C contamination in samples
that were assumed dead . . . it could not be assumed that even the oldest samples were
necessarily 14C free" (p. 342). Gurfinkel, went through a meticulous process using
graphite, calcite, limestone and anthracite samples to come up with her conclusions.
And, all she could say is that "infinite age" samples should be expected to have
"contamination" giving dates as recent as 43,000 years, which is similar to what the
Simon Frazer University group obtained. As more and more groups looked at this
problem, it has become common knowledge that there is a wall this side of about
sample was in the detection machine that the machine would still report background
noise corresponding to ages less than 50,000 years. This is not what happens.
According to Schmidt et. al., no counts were detected in 30 minutes giving an age
greater than 90,000 years.18 Geological graphite was also tested and gave an carbon
14 age of almost 70,000 years. Compare this with "infinite age" samples of fossil coal,
oil, bone, ect., that all date less than 50,000 years.17 Certainly background noise cannot
explain such a discrepancy. So, what about other sources of actual contamination?
"Coal from Russia (the "Pennsylvanian)" supposedly 300 million years old,
was dated at 1,680 years." 7
The original article in the journal Radiocarbon includes the following paragraph
describing this sample:
Coal from the cultural layer on the left side of the r. Naryn (Kirgizian SSR), 3 km E of the
mourh of the r. Alabuga (41° 25′ N Lat, 74° 40′ E Long). The sample was found at a
depth of 7.6 m in the form of scattered coals in a loamy rock in deposits of a 26-m
terrace. According to the archaeological estimations the sample dates from the 5 to 7th
centuries A.D. The sample was found by K. V. Kurdyumov (Moscow State Univ.) in
1962. Comment: the find serves as a verification of archaeological data on the peopling
of the Tien Shan.7
What we have here is no more than shorthand or sloppy translation from the Russian!
The coal is nothing more than charcoal from an archaeological deposit. This sample is
even included in the section of the report dealing with archaeological samples, and the
paragraph discusses archaeological data.
The odd use of terms is shown clearly in another radiocarbon date, Mo-353, reported on
page 315 of the same article. It reads “Charcoal from cultural deposits of a fisher site.
The coal was coll. from subturfic humified loam…”
But the term “coal” in place of “charcoal” was enough to fool Ken Ham, as well as
dozens of subsequent creationists who apparently were salivating to find 300 million
year old coal radiocarbon dated to recent times, and who repeated Ham’s false claim
without bothering to check its accuracy.
The interesting question is where Ken Ham managed to find “Pennsylvanian” in that
short paragraph, and where he dug up the date of 300 million years. 5 (Quoted from
Darwin Central: Link)
The original reference [Trautman and Willis, page 200.] in the second case (natural gas)
immediately reveals that both Whitelaw and The Answers Book have, unfortunately,
neglected several very important ">" or "greater than" signs. The "dates" in this case are
given in the original publication as ">30,000" and ">34,000". Thus, these natural gas
samples were not dated to "30,000 to 34,000 years" at all. In fact, the original reference
plainly notes "infinite age as expected". (Aardsma, 1994, page 2.)
The sensitivity of the equipment used to make the radiocarbon measurements on these
natural gas samples was limited to 30,000 to 34,000 years---the equipment was unable
to measure back further. Here again the radiocarbon dates were as expected. (For
additional discussion see the Biblical Chronologist.org: Link)
"Bones of a saber-toothed tiger from the La Brea tar pits (near Los
Angeles), supposedly 100,000 to one million years old, gave dates as
recent as 28,000 years." 8
·
References
1. R. E. Taylor, Major Revisions in the Pleistocene Age Assignments
for North American Human Skeletons by C-14 Accelerator Mass
Spectrometry, American Antiquity , Vol. 50, No. 1, 1985, pp. 136-
140.
2. Melvin A. Cook, Nonequilibrium RadioCarbon Dating
Substantiated, Vol. 2 (Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania: Creation Science
Fellowship, 1986), pp. 59-68.
3. Robert E. Lee, Radiocarbon: Ages in Error, September 1982, pp.
116-117.
4. Velikovsky, 1955, p.287; CRSQ , 1965, 2:4, p.10.
5. Darwin Central, Reference posted on Saturday, June 16th, 2007
at 4:52 PM by Bones in Commentary (Link)
6. Velikovsky, 1955, p.158-159; CRSQ , 1968, 5:2, p.67
7. Vinogradov, A.P.; A.L. Devirts; E.I. Dobinka; and N.G. Markova.
Radiocarbon dating in the Vernadsky Institute I-IV. Radiocarbon,
Vol 8, No. 1, 1966, pp. 292-323.
8. Radiocarbon, vol. 10, 1968.
9. Andrew Snelling, First published in: Creation Ex Nihilo 20(1):24-
27 December 1997 – February 1998.
10. Ferguson CW. 1969. A 7,104-year annual tree ring chronology for
bristlecone pine, Pinus aristata, from the White Mountains,
California. Tree-Ring Bulletin 29(3-4):3-29.
11. Yamaguchi DK.1986. Interpretation of cross correlation between
tree-ring series. Tree-Ring Bulletin 46:47-54.
12. D.C. Lowe, "Problems Associated with the Use of Coal as a
Source of 14C Free Background Material," Radiocarbon, 1989,
31:117-120.
13. Snelling A.A., Stumping Old-age Dogma. Creation, 1998,
20(4):48-50.
14. Snelling A.A., ‘Dating Dilemma,’ Creation, 1999, 21(3):39-41.
15. Vogel, Nelson and Southon, Radiocarbon, Vol. 29, No. 3, 1987
16. Giem PAL. 1997b. Carbon-14 dating methods and experimental
implications. Origins 24:50-64.
17. Mike Brown, ( http://www.creation-science-
prophecy.com/C14c.htm ) June, 2001
18. Schmidt et al. Nucl Instr and Meth 1987;B29:97-9 (Quoted by
Paul A. L. Giem Scientific Theology, La Sierra University Press
Riverside, 1997)
19. Kuniholm, P. -- 1993: Appendix in G. Summers: Tille Huyuk 4, pp.
179-90
20. Douglas J. Keenan, Anatolian tree-ring studies are untrustworthy,
The Limehouse Cut, London E14 6N, United Kingdom;
doug.keenan@informath.org, 16 March 2004 (
http://www.informath.org/ATSU04a.pdf ) See also: Douglas
Keenan, Why Radiocarbon Dates Downwind from the
Mediterranean are too Early, Radiocarbon, Vol 44, Nr 1, 2002, p
225–237 ( http://www.informath.org/14C02a.pdf )
21. Kuniholm P.I. (2002), "Archaeological dendrochronology",
Dendrochronologia 20: 63–68.
22. Allen Roy, C14-Dendrochronology ( allen@infomagic.com ) Sun,
2 May 1999 21:09:50 -0700 (
http://www.asa3.org/archive/asa/199905/0017.html )
23. Lammerts, Walter E. Are the Bristlecone Pine Trees Really So
Old?, Creation Research Society Quarterly, 20:108-115,
September, 1983.
24. NATURE | VOL 402 | 2 DECEMBER 1999 | www.nature.com
25. Rod A. Savidge, Letter to the Editor, New York Times, November
12, 2002; In response to an article by Claudia Dreifus, A Writer
Leaves History Behind to Celebrate Trees: A Conversation with
Tom Pekenham, New York Times, November 12, 2002 ( Link1;
Link 2 )
. Home Page . Truth, the Scientific
Method, and Evolution