Even so, the missing rings are a far more serious problem than any double rings. Other species of trees corroborate the work that Ferguson did with bristlecone pines.
- Want to add to the discussion?.
- Why do creationists keep saying carbon dating is debunked. : atheism!
- best opening lines for dating apps.
- Search form.
- delete my free dating account!
- Answers to Creationist Attacks on Carbon-14 Dating!
- Accessibility Navigation?
Before his work, the tree-ring sequence of the sequoias had been worked out back to BC. The archaeological ring sequence had been worked out back to 59 BC. The limber pine sequence had been worked out back to 25 BC. The radiocarbon dates and tree-ring dates of these other trees agree with those Ferguson got from the bristlecone pine.
- Answers to Creationist Attacks on Carbon Dating | NCSE!
- dating in pretoria east!
- A Close Look at Dr. Hovind's List of Young-Earth Arguments and Other Claims!
- im scared of online dating!
But even if he had had no other trees with which to work except the bristlecone pines, that evidence alone would have allowed him to determine the tree-ring chronology back to BC. See Renfrew for more details. So, creationists who complain about double rings in their attempts to disprove C dating are actually grasping at straws. If the Flood of Noah occurred around BC, as some creationists claim, then all the bristlecone pines would have to be less than five thousand years old.
This would mean that eighty-two hundred years worth of tree rings had to form in five thousand years, which would mean that one-third of all the bristlecone pine rings would have to be extra rings. Creationists are forced into accepting such outlandish conclusions as these in order to jam the facts of nature into the time frame upon which their "scientific" creation model is based.
Barnes has claimed that the earth's magnetic field is decaying exponentially with a half-life of fourteen hundred years. Not only does he consider this proof that the earth can be no older than ten thousand years but he also points out that a greater magnetic strength in the past would reduce C dates. Now if the magnetic field several thousand years ago was indeed many times stronger than it is today, there would have been less cosmic radiation entering the atmosphere back then and less C would have been produced.
Therefore, any C dates taken from objects of that time period would be too high. How do you answer him? Like Cook, Barnes looks at only part of the evidence. What he ignores is the great body of archaeological and geological data showing that the strength of the magnetic field has been fluctuating up and down for thousands of years and that it has reversed polarity many times in the geological past.
So, when Barnes extrapolates ten thousand years into the past, he concludes that the magnetic field was nineteen times stronger in BC than it is today, when, actually, it was only half as intense then as now. This means that radiocarbon ages of objects from that time period will be too young, just as we saw from the bristlecone pine evidence. But how does one know that the magnetic field has fluctuated and reversed polarity? Aren't these just excuses scientists give in order to neutralize Barnes's claims?
The evidence for fluctuations and reversals of the magnetic field is quite solid. Bucha, a Czech geophysicist, has used archaeological artifacts made of baked clay to determine the strength of the earth's magnetic field when they were manufactured.
He found that the earth's magnetic field was 1. See Bailey, Renfrew, and Encyclopedia Britannica for details. In other words, it rose in intensity from 0.
Even before the bristlecone pine calibration of C dating was worked out by Ferguson, Bucha predicted that this change in the magnetic field would make radiocarbon dates too young. This idea [that the fluctuating magnetic field affects influx of cosmic rays, which in turn affects C formation rates] has been taken up by the Czech geophysicist, V.
How Good are those Young-Earth Arguments: Radiocarbon Dating
Bucha, who has been able to determine, using samples of baked clay from archeological sites, what the intensity of the earth's magnetic field was at the time in question. Even before the tree-ring calibration data were available to them, he and the archeologist, Evzen Neustupny, were able to suggest how much this would affect the radiocarbon dates. There is a good correlation between the strength of the earth's magnetic field as determined by Bucha and the deviation of the atmospheric radiocarbon concentration from its normal value as indicated by the tree-ring radiocarbon work.
As for the question of polarity reversals, plate tectonics can teach us much. It is a fact that new oceanic crust continually forms at the mid-oceanic ridges and spreads away from those ridges in opposite directions. When lava at the ridges hardens, it keeps a trace of the magnetism of the earth's magnetic field. Therefore, every time the magnetic field reverses itself, bands of paleomagnetism of reversed polarity show up on the ocean floor alternated with bands of normal polarity.
These bands are thousands of kilometers long, they vary in width, they lie parallel, and the bands on either side of any given ridge form mirror images of each other. Thus it can be demonstrated that the magnetic field of the earth has reversed itself dozens of times throughout earth history. Barnes, writing in , ought to have known better than to quote the gropings and guesses of authors of the early sixties in an effort to debunk magnetic reversals. Before plate tectonics and continental drift became established in the mid-sixties, the known evidence for magnetic reversals was rather scanty, and geophysicists often tried to invent ingenious mechanisms with which to account for this evidence rather than believe in magnetic reversals.
However, by , sea floor spreading and magnetic reversals had been documented to the satisfaction of almost the entire scientific community. Yet, instead of seriously attempting to rebut them with up-to-date evidence, Barnes merely quoted the old guesses of authors who wrote before the facts were known. But, in spite of Barnes, paleomagnetism on the sea floor conclusively proves that the magnetic field of the earth oscillates in waves and even reverses itself on occasion. It has not been decaying exponentially as Barnes maintains.
When we know the age of a sample through archaeology or historical sources, the C method as corrected by bristlecone pines agrees with the age within the known margin of error.
For instance, Egyptian artifacts can be dated both historically and by radiocarbon, and the results agree. At first, archaeologists used to complain that the C method must be wrong, because it conflicted with well-established archaeological dates; but, as Renfrew has detailed, the archaeological dates were often based on false assumptions. One such assumption was that the megalith builders of western Europe learned the idea of megaliths from the Near-Eastern civilizations.
As a result, archaeologists believed that the Western megalith-building cultures had to be younger than the Near Eastern civilizations. Many archaeologists were skeptical when Ferguson's calibration with bristlecone pines was first published, because, according to his method, radiocarbon dates of the Western megaliths showed them to be much older than their Near-Eastern counterparts.
However, as Renfrew demonstrated, the similarities between these Eastern and Western cultures are so superficial that. So, in the end, external evidence reconciles with and often confirms even controversial C dates. One of the most striking examples of different dating methods confirming each other is Stonehenge. C dates show that Stonehenge was gradually built over the period from BC to BC, long before the Druids, who claimed Stonehenge as their creation, came to England.
Hawkins calculated with a computer what the heavens were like back in the second millennium BC, accounting for the precession of the equinoxes, and found that Stonehenge had many significant alignments with various extreme positions of the sun and moon for example, the hellstone marked the point where the sun rose on the first day of summer. Stonehenge fits the heavens as they were almost four thousand years ago, not as they are today, thereby cross-verifying the C dates.
What specifically does C dating show that creates problems for the creation model? C dates show that the last glaciation started to subside around twenty thousand years ago. But the young-earth creationists at ICR and elsewhere insist that, if an ice age occurred, it must have come and gone far less than ten thousand years ago, sometime after Noah's flood. Therefore, the only way creationists can hang on to their chronology is to poke all the holes they can into radiocarbon dating.
However, as we have seen, it has survived their most ardent attacks. Origin and Destiny of the Earth's Magnetic Field. Prehistory and Earth Models. Max Parrish and Co. Fictitious Results with Mollusk Shells. Critique of Radiometric Dating. Geological Evolution of North America, 3rd Edition. He has followed the creation-evolution controversy for over a decade.
Copyright by Christopher Gregory Weber. National Center for Science Education, Inc. Skip to main content. They seem to think it is a game where if you win an argument, even through deceit, it means you are on the side of truth. Child logic basically, and that is where a lot of our frustration comes from, it is like dealing with uneducated children, and the older they are, the more frustrating it can be. Then we take a fossil that is supposed to be millions of years old, and the test comes back that it's only 50, years old.
Obviously, this whole thing is fake. On their face, their claims indicate a failure to understand what C dating is and what sort of information it reveals. C can not be used to date "fossils". Fossils are rock in the shape of something that was once living.
Welcome to Reddit,
The original material has been replaced by minerals. C dating can only be used to date the remains of living material wood, bone, etc. So, when they claim that they "dated a fossil" or that they got an answer of "a million years" you know they are not actually talking about C Though they are claiming that these tests were all carbon dating, in fact if you read their source material, what the tests are all radiometric dating.
Carbon dating is one form of radiometric dating, but there are many others. A Creationist website wants to trick people who don't have enough information to understand what is happening so they take two objects and do specific radiometric tests on them. Object one is a piece of wood from a tree that died in Object two is a bit of lava from an eruption that took place a million years ago.