Carbon-14 (Radiocarbon) dating

1. Carbon-14 (Radiocarbon) dating Christopher Ullman Christian Life College

2. Cosmic rays bombard upper atmosphere........... .....producing fast moving neutrons Carbon-14 Dating These neutrons collide with atmospheric nitrogen atoms.......... .....producing carbon-14 C-14, like ordinary carbon, combines with oxygen to produce carbon dioxide. Vegetation absorbs carbon dioxide during photosynthesis. Loss by decay Since animals feed on vegetation It is added to their bodies. At present About 1 in 1 trillion atoms = C-14. Loss by decay After death this ratio will slowly decrease, since while C-14 continues to decay, it is not replenished by feeding. The amount of C-14 in a dead animal shows how long it Has been dead (if one can be sure of the amount of C-14 in it when it died)

3. One part of the Vollosovitch mammoth carbon dated at 29,500 years and another part at 44,000. Troy L Pewe, Quanternary Stratigraphic Nomenclature in Unglaciated Central Alaska, Geological Survey Professional Paper 862, U.S. Government printing office, 1975, p. 30

4. If a C-14 date supports our theories, we put it in the main text. If it does not entirely contradict them, we put it in a footnote. And if it is completely ‘out of date’, we just drop it. T. Save-Soderbergh and I.U. Olsson (Institute of Egyptology and Institute of Physics respectively, Univ. of Uppsala, Sweden), C-14 dating and Egyptian chronology in Radiocarbon Variations and Absolute Chronology”, Proceedings of the twelfth Nobel Symposium, New York 1970, p. 35

5. The troubles of the radiocarbon dating method are undeniably deep and serious. Despite 35 years of technological refinement and better understanding, the underlying assumptions have been strongly challenged, and warnings are out that radiocarbon may soon find itself in a crisis situation. Continuing use of the method depends on a “fix-it-as-we-go” approach, allowing for contamination here, fractionation there, and calibration whenever possible . . .

6. It should be no surprise, then, that fully half of the dates are rejected. The wonder is, surely, that the remaining half come to be accepted . . . No matter how “useful” it is, though, the radiocarbon method is still not capable of yielding accurate and reliable results. There are gross discrepancies, the chronology is uneven and relative, and the accepted dates are actually selected dates. Robert E. Lee, “Radiocarbon Age in Error,” Anthropological Journal of Canada, Vol. 19, No. 3, pgs. 9, 29.

7. Every sample of coal, oil, wood or bone that has been tested for C-14 content – even if retrieved from rocks supposedly millions of years old – always contains a measurable amount of Carbon-14