Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Dating MethodsCarbon-14 and Assumptions
Session 21
Topics (keep it simple)Topics (keep it simple) Carbon-14
How is carbon-14 produced? Where do we find carbon-14? What does the evidence support? The underlying assumption
Radiometric dating (rocks) Three assumptions Conflicting dates How well does the method work? Evidences for a young earth
Carbon-14 How is carbon-14 produced? Where do we find carbon-14? What does the evidence support? The underlying assumption
Radiometric dating (rocks) Three assumptions Conflicting dates How well does the method work? Evidences for a young earth
Since God is the Creator of all things (including science), and His Word is true (John 17:17), the true (correct) age of the earth must agree with His Word.
However, rather than accept the literal biblical account of creation many Christians have accepted the radioisotope dates of billions of years and attempted to fit long ages into the Bible. The implications of doing this are profound and affect many parts of the Bible.
Hermeneutics and the plain reading of Scripture (number with a day, evening and morning, Exodus 20:11)
The Gospel (death before sin) The character of God (God becomes the
author of death and not sin) Genesis 1:31 (God’s “very good”) The Genesis Flood becomes a local flood The words of Jesus (Mark 10:6) The authority of Scripture (when does it
become real?) The NT (Romans 5:12, 8:20-22)
Hermeneutics and the plain reading of Scripture (number with a day, evening and morning, Exodus 20:11)
The Gospel (death before sin) The character of God (God becomes the
author of death and not sin) Genesis 1:31 (God’s “very good”) The Genesis Flood becomes a local flood The words of Jesus (Mark 10:6) The authority of Scripture (when does it
become real?) The NT (Romans 5:12, 8:20-22)
The AtomThe Atom
NucleusNucleus
ElectronElectron
(Protons and Neutrons)
RATE GroupRATE Group
Larry Vardiman, Ph.D. Atmospheric Science Russell Humphreys, Ph.D. Physics Eugene Chaffin, Ph.D. Physics John Baumgardner, Ph.D. Geophysics Donald DeYoung, Ph.D. Physics Steven Austin, Ph.D. Geology Andrew Snelling, Ph.D. Geology Steven Boyd, Ph.D. Hebraic and Cognate
Studies
Larry Vardiman, Ph.D. Atmospheric Science Russell Humphreys, Ph.D. Physics Eugene Chaffin, Ph.D. Physics John Baumgardner, Ph.D. Geophysics Donald DeYoung, Ph.D. Physics Steven Austin, Ph.D. Geology Andrew Snelling, Ph.D. Geology Steven Boyd, Ph.D. Hebraic and Cognate
Studies
Radioisotopes and the Age of The EarthRadioisotopes and the Age of The Earth
How Is Carbon-14 Produced?How Is Carbon-14 Produced?
For further study go to New Answers Book 1, Chapter 7For further study go to New Answers Book 1, Chapter 7
Anything older than about 80,000 years should contain no datable C-14Anything older than about 80,000 years should contain no datable C-14
No Carbon-14
Evidence older than 80,000 years
No Carbon-14
Evidence older than 80,000 years
Carbon-14
Evidence younger than 80,000 years
Carbon-14
Evidence younger than 80,000 years
Paleozoic
Mesozoic
Cenozoic
540 mya540 mya
240 mya240 mya
65 mya65 mya
Fish and invertebrateFish and invertebrate
Age of dinosaursAge of dinosaurs
Age of mammalsAge of mammals
Evolutionary TimescaleEvolutionary Timescale
Carbon-14 and CoalCarbon-14 and Coal
Coal samples from 10 locationsCoal samples from 10 locations
Every sample contained measurable amounts of carbon-14
Every sample contained measurable amounts of carbon-14
Carbon-14 and DiamondsCarbon-14 and Diamonds
12 diamond samples chosen from different locations all contained
measurable amounts of carbon-14
12 diamond samples chosen from different locations all contained
measurable amounts of carbon-14
Carbon-14 (C-14) dating of multiple samples of bone from 8 dinosaurs from Texas, Alaska, Colorado, and Montana revealed that they are only 22,000 to 39,000 years old.
http://newgeology.us/presentation48.html
Dating Dinosaurs - 2012
American Geophysical Union and the Asia Oceania Geosciences Society, Aug, 2012
These results indicate that the entire geologic column cannot be millions of years old. This confirms the Bible and challenges the evolutionary idea of long geologic ages.
These results indicate that the entire geologic column cannot be millions of years old. This confirms the Bible and challenges the evolutionary idea of long geologic ages.
Thousands NOT MillionsThousands
NOT Millions
C-14 ConclusionC-14 Conclusion
The scientific evidence supports the biblical worldview of a young earth
The scientific evidence supports the biblical worldview of a young earth
C-14 A Few More Details
C-14 A Few More Details
Carbon-14 AssumptionCarbon-14 Assumption
The amount of C-14 being produced in the atmosphere is equal to the amount
removed over a period of time.
The amount of C-14 being produced in the atmosphere is equal to the amount
removed over a period of time.
C-14 produced
C-14 removed
EquilibriumEquilibrium
30,000 Years to Equilibrium30,000 Years to Equilibrium
The amount being produced into the atmosphere is equal to the amount being removed through decay (steady state).
Carbon-14 and AgeCarbon-14 and Age
Dr. Willard Libby and beliefDr. Willard Libby and belief
The Nobel Prize in Chemistry, 1960The Nobel Prize in Chemistry, 1960
Over 20% out of equilibriumOver 20% out of equilibrium
The assumption is false
20% faster20% faster
ConclusionConclusion It takes 30,000 years to reach equilibrium. We are not in equilibrium.
It takes 30,000 years to reach equilibrium. We are not in equilibrium.
1. The earth is young (less than 30,000 years.
2. The Bible is correct (a young earth).
For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them,…
More InformationMore Information
Chapter 7Doesn’t Carbon-14 Dating
Disprove the Bible?
Dating Methods – Long Ages
Dating Methods – Long Ages
How old is the earth?How reliable are the dating methods?
6 Days
Things Change Over Time We grow older Food spoils Things wear out Some elements change forms
We grow older Food spoils Things wear out Some elements change forms
Some Elements Change Over TimeUranium changes into lead
Potassium changes into argonCarbon-14 changes into nitrogen
Radioactive Decay
Parent Daughter
What Is Radiometric Dating?
Parent Daughter
1. How long it takes for the parent element to decay into the daughter element
2. There are assumptions involved
2 KEY considerations
Textbooks
“Using radioactive dating, scientists have determined that the Earth is about 4.5 billion years old, ancient enough for all species to have been formed through evolution.”
Biology: Visualizing Life, Holt, Rinehart, Winston, 1998, p.177.
Radiometric dating methods contain assumptions
3 million years old
3 critical thinking questions
Hour Glass ExampleHour Glass Example
Hour Glass ExampleHour Glass Example
Can you calculate how long you were outside?
Assumption 1Assumption 1
Knowledge of initial starting conditions
The starting amount of daughter element is known.
Knowledge of initial starting conditions
The starting amount of daughter element is known.
Assumption 2Assumption 2
The sample was always in a closed environment.
The sample was always in a closed environment.
Assumption 2Assumption 2
“There are significant problems with radioisotope dating in general. The critical closed-system assumption is not realistic – no system can remain unaffected by its environment over millions of years.”
Vernon Cupps (Ph.D. Nuclear Physics), “Radioactive Dating,” Acts and Facts, Feb. 2015.
Assumption 3Assumption 3
The decay rate has always been constant.The decay rate has always been constant.
The Scientific MethodThe Scientific Method
“Thus, the K-Ar model does not meet even the basic criteria of a hypothesis in the scientific method…The potassium-argon dating method – once heralded as a solid scientific method – has proven to be unreliable.”
Vernon Cupps (Ph.D. Nuclear Physics), “The Noble Clock,” Acts and Facts, Dec. 2014.
How Well Does It Work?How Well Does It Work?
“Before using any measurement instrument or technique, it is good practice to calibrate it against some known quantity…So how well does this radiometric dating technique do in determining the ages of rocks of known age?”
Jim Mason (Ph.D. Experimental Nuclear Physics), Evolution’s Achilles’ Heels, “Radiometric Dating,” 2014, p. 196.
Conflicting DatesConflicting Dates
Dated: Potassium-argon: 200,000+Real date __________Dated: Potassium-argon: 200,000+Real date __________
Sunset Crater, Northern ArizonaSunset Crater, Northern Arizona
1065 AD
Lava flows at Mt. Ngauruhoe, New Zealand
Lava flows at Mt. Ngauruhoe, New Zealand
Potassium-argon: 275,000 – 3.5 millionReal dates __________________Potassium-argon: 275,000 – 3.5 millionReal dates __________________
Conflicting DatesConflicting Dates
1949, 1954, 1975
Conflicts in DatesConflicts in Dates
Rocks that were created since the 1980 eruption of Mount St. Helens dated to be to ____________________years old.
Rocks that were created since the 1980 eruption of Mount St. Helens dated to be to ____________________years old.350,000 - 2.8 million
1.07 billion years1.07 billion years
PaleozoicPaleozoic
PrecambrianPrecambrian
Cardenas Basalt (Precambrian)Cardenas Basalt (Precambrian)
Dating recent lava flows in the Grand Canyon
Youngest Rocks1.34 billion
Oldest Rocks1.07 billion
Radioisotope dating methods contain assumptions
Rock of Known Age
Radioisotope Dating
Doesn’t Work
Rock of Unknown Age
Radioisotope Dating Assumed
to Work
How Well Does It Work?How Well Does It Work?
“Since the calculations of age are quite sensitive to these assumptions, and since it is clear that we cannot know if the assumptions are true, and since radiometric dating produces wildly incorrect results for rocks of known age, it is quite reasonable to conclude that radiometric dates are entirely unreliable.”
Jim Mason (Ph.D. Experimental Nuclear Physics), Evolution’s Achilles’ Heels, “Radiometric Dating,” 2014, p. 205.
KB tuff (Lava flow) found in East Africa (dated: 230 myo)
An alleged human ancestor was found nearby the lava flow (dated 2.61 myo)
A dilemma for the evolutionists
1. How old is the lava flow? 230 million
2. The alleged human fossil is dated to be 2.61 myo
3. Which age is correct?
The KB tuff (Lava flow) is re-dated to be 2.61 myo!
A new skull is found nearby and dated 1.82 myo
Another dilemma for the evolutionists
The KB tuff (Lava flow) is re-dated again. The new age is1.82 myo!
Are the dating methods really accepted as exact methods? NO!
How Well Does It Work?How Well Does It Work?
“A radiometric ‘date’ for rock layers near a fossil is accepted only if it fits into the grand evolutionary scheme of things. If this is not the case then either new samples are taken or a different dating method is used. This is a situation where results are ‘interpreted’ in order to obey the evolutionary dogma.”
Brandon Van Der Ventel (Ph.D. Nuclear Physics), Creation Magazine, Vol. 34 No. 4, 2012, p. 19.
Evidences for a Young EarthEvidences for a Young Earth Too much helium in granite rocks Carbon-14 ratio in the atmosphere Carbon-14 in coal and diamonds Sodium in the oceans Rapid disintegration of comets Spiral galaxies Sediments in the ocean Decay of the Earth’s magnetic field Radiohalos for polonium in granites Population statistics Recession of the moon
Too much helium in granite rocks Carbon-14 ratio in the atmosphere Carbon-14 in coal and diamonds Sodium in the oceans Rapid disintegration of comets Spiral galaxies Sediments in the ocean Decay of the Earth’s magnetic field Radiohalos for polonium in granites Population statistics Recession of the moon
ConclusionConclusionAll radiometric dating methods are based
on assumptions. If assumptions are accepted as true,
results can be biased. In textbooks and other journals these
assumptions have not been questioned.When the assumptions were evaluated
they were shown to be faulty.The results support a biblical model of a
young earth.
All radiometric dating methods are based on assumptions.
If assumptions are accepted as true, results can be biased.
In textbooks and other journals these assumptions have not been questioned.
When the assumptions were evaluated they were shown to be faulty.
The results support a biblical model of a young earth.
End Session 21
