Posted on 07/01/2013 10:48:55 AM PDT by fishtank
Do Young C-14 Results Reflect Contamination? by Jake Hebert, Ph.D. *
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. C-14 is a radioactive variety or “isotope” of carbon that eventually decays into nitrogen. Because this occurs relatively quickly, no C-14 should be detected in any specimen that is more than about 100,000 years old.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. By evolutionary reckoning, such samples should be radiocarbon “dead.”2
Evolutionists were initially able to dismiss these results because of a source of error in the earlier “scintillation” method of detecting C-14. However, a newer technique, acceleration mass spectrometry (AMS), is not subject to this error.
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. 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.3
ICR’s RATE4 creation research project confirmed these earlier results: 10 high-quality coal samples obtained from the U.S. Department of Energy were submitted for testing to one of the world’s most reliable radiocarbon laboratories. C-14 was detected in all 10 samples. The RATE researchers even found preliminary evidence of C-14 in diamond, which is supposedly 1 to 3 billion years old!
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).
However, C-14 lab technicians take great pains to reduce or eliminate sources of contamination. 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. 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.
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. 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!
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. We disagree, but we encourage these skeptics to submit additional dinosaur bones, fossilized wood, coal, and diamond for further AMS testing. We are confident that additional testing will only strengthen the case for a biblically consistent age of the earth.
References
Hebert, J. 2013. Rethinking Carbon-14 Dating: What Does It Really Tell Us about the Age of the Earth? Acts & Facts. 42 (4): 12-14.
Baumgardner, J. 2005. Carbon-14 Evidence for a Recent Global Flood and a Young Earth. In Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth: Results of a Young-Earth Creationist Research Initiative.
Vardiman, L., A. A. Snelling, and E. F. Chaffin, eds. San Diego, CA: Institute for Creation Research and Chino Valley, AZ: Creation Research Society, 587-630.
Giem, P. 2001. Carbon-14 Content of Fossil Carbon. Origins. 51: 6-30.
Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth. See www.icr.org/rate.
* Dr. Hebert is Research Associate at the Institute for Creation Research and received his Ph.D. in Physics from the University of Texas at Dallas.
If you’re doing it right, with the right mindset,
science should lead you closer to the truth, which
actually is define objectively by the Creator.
Actually, from a creation v evolution point of view, 6 or 100 thousand years is irrelevant.
Without the magic fairy dust of BUUUHHHLYUNS of years,
it is impossible that molecules to man happened.
(impossible even with the MFD, but that’s not the point)
Molten is molten, and the “clock” starts when it cools.
My other question is, if the Earth is young, why don't all samples show a high level of C-14? If nothing's that old, why are these results anomalous?
Oh, I’m all about Creation!
I just don’t buy the 6,000 yr. “young earth” version.
Oh hi Tod,
Go ahead and cling to your shrinking options. I will not bother trying to get some sense in you after the Monsanto thread. Need to clean fingernails.
What isotopes? Accuracy within 340,000 years on an isotope with a half-life of 3.4 billion years is +- .01%.
Shrinking options? Tell me how old the Earth is if carbon dating is only 90% as accurate as they thought.
Tod, where did you get that 90% figure, from your hope chest?
Tod, there is a God. And he is even smarter than Tod. So don’t think you are going to argue your way out of your life decisions.
Best clean up the act Tod, rather than represent your self in the Court of God and try to outsmart the Judge.
Jesus is a defense lawyer Tod...
What, no answer? LOL!
Tod, there is a God. And he is even smarter than Tod.
Yes He is. So how old is the Earth?
101 Evidences for a Young Age of the Earth...And the Universe
http://creation.com/age-of-the-earth
Seems there are lots of types of measurements available and they all have the same problem. Do you actually know the ratio of father and daughter elements at inception for any given natural clock?
Probably not exactly. So how old is the Earth?
DNA extracted from bacteria that are supposed to be 425 million years old brings into question that age, because DNA could not last more than thousands of years.
Why can't DNA last more than thousands of years?
Does anyone "actually know" anything they didn't witness in person?
DNA is living code - at least while we’re living. Once you die the required environment to maintain DNA structure is not there and the laws of entropy and decay take over. Just brings up another chink in the armour of evolutionary defense, how old are dinosaurs who still have partial DNA intact along with soft tissue and blood cells? Things that make you go hhhmmmm.
Not that modern day evolutionists wouldn’t like you to doubt how long DNA lasts though...
The majority of the factual and scientific evidence favors young ages - not millions nor billions - even radio isotope decay has issues, assumptions, anomalies and major problems. Many confuse apparent time lapse with actual measured time lapse. Many are also duped by mainstream groupthink, [hint- which ideas generate the best money flow and carnival show].
For me personally I take the Biblical evidence first and foremost as most accurate, authoritative, and trustworthy. It’s not hard to see why others wear blinders to any facts that contradict long ages though [the Bible tells believers so].
At creation, was Adam young or mature?
Making the most of research, study, critical thinking and observations can go a long way esp. since knowledge builds on knowledge so yes you can actually know a lot which you’ve never witnessed. Simple as ‘truth always has a certain ring to it.’
ICR...... worse than Debka
What does your 'critical thinking' tell you about the probability the vast majority of Uranium samples from all over the world being very young, but contaminated with exactly the same ratios of exactly the same daughter elements by chance?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.