Radio dating anomalies

That is, they take up less than would be expected and so they test older than they really are. Furthermore, different types of plants discriminate differently. This also has to be corrected for. This would make things which died at that time appear older in terms of carbon dating.

Then there was a rise in 14 CO 2 with the advent of atmospheric testing of atomic bombs in the s. Measurement of 14 C in historically dated objects e. Accordingly, carbon dating carefully applied to items from historical times can be useful. However, even with such historical calibration, archaeologists do not regard 14 C dates as absolute because of frequent anomalies.

They rely more on dating methods that link into historical records.

Outside the range of recorded history, calibration of the 14 C "clock is not possible. The amount of cosmic rays penetrating the Earth's atmosphere affects the amount of 14 C produced and therefore dating the system. The amount of cosmic rays reaching the Earth varies with the sun's activity, and with the Earth's passage through magnetic clouds as the solar system travels around the Milky Way galaxy. The strength of the Earth's magnetic field affects the amount of cosmic rays entering the atmosphere. A stronger magnetic field deflects more cosmic rays away from the Earth.

Overall, the energy of the Earth's magnetic field has been decreasing, [5] so more 14 C is being produced now than in the past. This will make old things look older than they really are. Also, the Genesis flood would have greatly upset the carbon balance. The flood buried a huge amount of carbon, which became coal, oil, etc. Total 14 C is also proportionately lowered at this time, but whereas no terrestrial process generates any more 12 C, 14 C is continually being produced, and at a rate which does not depend on carbon levels it comes from nitrogen.

Unless this effect which is additional to the magnetic field issue just discussed were corrected for, carbon dating of fossils formed in the flood would give ages much older than the true ages. Creationist researchers have suggested that dates of 35, - 45, years should be re-calibrated to the biblical date of the flood. Also, volcanoes emit much CO 2 depleted in 14 C.

Other factors affecting carbon dating

Since the flood was accompanied by much volcanism see Noah's Flood… , How did animals get from the Ark to isolated places? In summary, the carbon method, when corrected for the effects of the flood, can give useful results, but needs to be applied carefully. It does not give dates of millions of years and when corrected properly fits well with the biblical flood.

There are various other radiometric dating methods used today to give ages of millions or billions of years for rocks. These techniques, unlike carbon dating, mostly use the relative concentrations of parent and daughter products in radioactive decay chains. For example, potassium decays to argon; uranium decays to lead via other elements like radium; uranium decays to lead; rubidium decays to strontium; etc.

These techniques are applied to igneous rocks, and are normally seen as giving the time since solidification.

How the carbon clock works

The isotope concentrations can be measured very accurately, but isotope concentrations are not dates. To derive ages from such measurements, unprovable assumptions have to be made such as:. The starting conditions are known for example, that there was no daughter isotope present at the start, or that we know how much was there.

There is plenty of evidence that the radioisotope dating systems are not the infallible techniques many think, and that they are not measuring millions of years. However, there are still patterns to be explained. Geologist John Woodmorappe, in his devastating critique of radioactive dating, [8] points out that there are other large-scale trends in the rocks that have nothing to do with radioactive decay.

The common application of such posterior reasoning shows that radiometric dating has serious problems. For example, researchers applied posterior reasoning to the dating of Australopithecus ramidus fossils. So they looked at some basalt further removed from the fossils and selected 17 of 26 samples to get an acceptable maximum age of 4.

The other nine samples again gave much older dates but the authors decided they must be contaminated and discarded them. That is how radiometric dating works. It is very much driven by the existing long-age world view that pervades academia today. Various other attempts were made to date the volcanic rocks in the area. Over the years an age of 2. After this was widely accepted, further studies of the rocks brought the radiometric age down to about 1.

Such is the dating game. Are we suggesting that evolutionists are conspiring to massage the data to get what they want? It is simply that all observations must fit the prevailing paradigm. We must remember that the past is not open to the normal processes of experimental science, that is, repeatable experiments in the present. A scientist cannot do experiments on events that happened in the past. Scientists do not measure the age of rocks, they measure isotope concentrations, and these can be measured extremely accurately. Those involved with unrecorded history gather information in the present and construct stories about the past.

The level of proof demanded for such stories seems to be much less than for studies in the empirical sciences, such as physics, chemistry, molecular biology, physiology, etc.

Williams, an expert in the environmental fate of radioactive elements, identified 17 flaws in the isotope dating reported in just three widely respected seminal papers that supposedly established the age of the Earth at 4. The forms issued by radioisotope laboratories for submission with samples to be dated commonly ask how old the sample is expected to be. If the techniques were absolutely objective and reliable, such information would not be necessary. If the long-age dating techniques were really objective means of finding the ages of rocks, they should work in situations where we know the age.

Furthermore, different techniques should consistently agree with one another.

The secular scientific literature lists many examples of excess argon causing dates of millions of years in rocks of known historical age. This is consistent with a young world—the argon has had too little time to escape. So data are again selected according to what the researcher already believes about the age of the rock. Steve Austin sampled basalt from the base of the Grand Canyon strata and from the lava that spilled over the edge of the canyon. By evolutionary reckoning, the latter should be a billion years younger than the basalt from the bottom.

Standard laboratories analyzed the isotopes. The rubidium-strontium isochron technique suggested that the recent lava flow was Ma older than the basalts beneath the Grand Canyon—an impossibility. If the dating methods are an objective and reliable means of determining ages, they should agree. If a chemist were measuring the sugar content of blood, all valid methods for the determination would give the same answer within the limits of experimental error. However, with radiometric dating, the different techniques often give quite different results.

In the study of the Grand Canyon rocks by Austin, different techniques gave different results.

Techniques that give results that can be dismissed just because they don't agree with what we already believe cannot be considered objective. In Australia, some wood found the Tertiary basalt was clearly buried in the lava flow that formed the basalt, as can be seen from the charring. Isotope ratios or uraninite crystals from the Koongarra uranium body in the Northern Territory of Australia gave lead-lead isochron ages of Ma, plus or minus Ma.

The latter figures are significant because thorium-derived dates should be the more reliable, since thorium is less mobile than the uranium minerals that are the parents of the lead isotopes in lead-lead system. Carbon Dating in many cases seriously embarrasses evolutionists by giving ages that are much younger than those expected from their model of early history. A specimen older than 50, years should have too little 14 C to measure. Laboratories that measure 14 C would like a source of organic material with zero 14 C to use as a blank to check that their lab procedures do not add 14 C.

Coal is an obvious candidate because the youngest coal is supposed to be millions of years old, and most of it is supposed to be tens or hundreds of millions of years old. It seems reasonable that gas would collect at the top of these chambers, causing artificially high K-Ar radiometric ages there. In addition, with each successive eruption, some gas would escape, reducing the pressure of the gas and reducing the apparent K-Ar radiometric age.

Thus the decreasing K-Ar ages would represent the passage of time, but not necessarily related to their absolute radiometric ages. As a result, lava found in deeper layers, having erupted earlier, would generally appear much older and lava found in higher layers, having erupted later, would appear much younger. This could account for the observed distribution of potassium-argon dates, even if the great sedimantary layers were laid down very recently.

In addition, lava emerging later will tend to be hotter, coming from deeper in the earth and through channels that have already been warmed up.

• Creation Truths - Anomalies in Radiometric Dating!
• ?
• online dating the musical;
• ?
• ?

This lava will take longer to cool down, giving more opportunity for enclosed argon to escape and leading to younger radiometric ages. A discussion of these mechanisms may be found at the Geoscience Research Institute site.