Carbon 14 abundant in Dinosuar Bones

Carbon Dating

Carbon-14 abundant In Dinosaur Bones And Fossils

December 26, 2015

1. Evolutionary Position

Archeologists do not use carbon dating when determining ages on samples such as dinosaur bones, supposed human missing links, or fossils, but, rather, age such samples based on what is called “relative dating” 1. Here, logically, the chronological age of the rock layers assume the lower layers are older than the ones above. The rock layers the fossils are discovered in are called “strata”. The study of strata is called stratigraphy1. By using certain fossils found within the strata called “index fossils” scientists can age the layers where the fossils were found1. Then, with obvious circular reasoning, the fossils are dated by the strata in which they are found (or “indexed”); Likewise, strata are dated by the fossils they contain1.

Carbon dating is based on the decay of an atom (14C), a radioactive isotope of the carbon atom with a known half-life of approximately 5,730 years—meaning half of the14C is gone in the specimen in about 5,730 years. In layman’s terms this means that the elements are unstable in the atom and therefore “decay” (meaning the atom emits radiation by spinning off a neutron), thus forming into Nitrogen-14 (14N). The new atom is a stable “daughter” isotope formed after decay occurs2. The measurement of organic samples can be used to estimate the age of samples somewhat accurately for thousands of years in laboratories. Scientists and archeologists do not debate the presence of 14C in dinosaur bones, dinosaur collagen, or fossils. They just refuse to use or accept the use of this dating method with these organic samples. In spite of the indisputable scientific evidence they will not use this dating method or accept results from this dating method because the results indicate the samples as only being thousands of years old and they “know” these samples are millions of years old3.

2. Primary Argument

Carbon dating, with a half-life of approximately 5,730 years, cannot be present in anything more than tens of thousands of years old, yet is found abundantly in virtually all dinosaur bones and fossils tested2. The presence of 14C in these samples stand in abrupt opposition to evolutionary concepts of eons of years with dinosaur bones and fossils being millions of years old.

3. Other Arguments

  1. All dating methods outside the laboratory or controlled environments are flawed. It must be repeated that all dating methods are flawed whether 14C, radio-argon, ice cores, or even tree rings. When a dating method is carefully observed in a laboratory or field study the results can be measured with good accuracy. However, one must know the beginning quantity, environmental factors, to get these accurate results. It is easy to understand that when one applies this to a sample found in the ground this procedure cannot be completed. We simply cannot measure these samples (taken from sometime in the past under unknown environmental circumstances) and assume the same principles as used in the laboratory setting.
  2. The use of strata (stratigraphy) to date fossils and thereby using the fossils to date strata is circular reasoning and therefore is a logical fallacy.
  3. Carbon dating was invented in 19493 but the idea of the earth being millions (or even billions) of years old was already widely held by scientists as early as the 1800’s. This indicates the commitment to the age of the earth is held above any scientific measurement methodology that stands in opposition to it.
  4. With a 5,730-year half-life 14C only can be measured accurately for (assumed) thousands of years. In fact, there should be virtually no measurable 14C after about 40,000 – 50,000 years3. However, textbooks to this day state that coal3 formed some 250 million years ago and even diamonds3 formed (perhaps even billions of years ago) but both test young ages with 14C present.
  5. The earth’s atmosphere is gaining twenty-one pounds of 14C every year so cannot be used as a mathematical constant when aging samples. It is also losing 14C through decay each year. Therefore, the question arose: how long would it take for the atmosphere to reach a stage of equilibrium? Scientists wanted to figure out how long it would take the atmosphere to reach a point where the construction rate and the destruction rate of 14C was the same. They determined that it would take about 30,000 years to reach this equilibrium state. It has been discovered that the earth has still not reached equilibrium. “Radiocarbon is forming 28-37% faster than it is decaying”3. In the end, the math leaves the earth needing about 20,000 more years to reach equilibrium and therefore being less than 10,000 years old. Clearly 14C has not reached equilibrium and measurements must consider 14C was not a constant in the past.
  6. Assumed ratio of 14C is too large to remain accurate (assumed 1 to 1-trillion decayed) in testing. For these incredibly enormous rations of 1 to 1-trillion to be detected, the instruments scientists use must be extremely sensitive and accurate. This huge ratio is a critical assumption and variable in the dating math. If the measurement is incorrect by even a few atoms, then the dates maybe off by tens of thousands of years. Simply put: the ratio of 1 to 1-trillion is simply too gigantic for use in any accurate scientific method.
  7. Magnetic Field of the Earth is decaying so 14C is not a constant throughout history. The earth has a magnetic field which protects life from harmful radiation from the sun and outer space. This magnetic field is decaying (getting weaker) with each passing year. The stronger the field around the earth, the fewer number of cosmic rays are able to reach the atmosphere. This would result in a smaller production of 14C in the atmosphere in earth’s past. If the production rate of 14C in the atmosphere was less in the past, dates given using the 14C method would incorrectly assume that more 14C had decayed out of a specimen than that which had actually occurred. This would result in giving older dates than the true age. Though complex, simply put, the earth’s magnetic field has always freely decayed and has always lost energy. Therefore, the earth cannot be more than 10,000 years old4 and ages taken in excess of this date using 14C may be inaccurate due to this factor. Scientific research shows that earth’s magnetic field is about 10% weaker than it was when German mathematician Carl Friedrich Gauss started keeping tabs on it in 18455.

4. Conclusion

The presence of 14C in dinosaur bones and fossils are clear scientific evidence that these samples are thousands of years old and not millions of years old as calculated by stratigraphy and circular reasoning of geologic aging. The reason archeologists do not use 14C for dinosaur bones and fossils is simply because they do not get the ages they want. The assume the ages to be millions of years old so they do not date these samples with 14C but they will use it for things they assume to be younger such as Roman artifacts or of ancient civilizations just not dinosaur bones or fossils.

5. General Facts

How 14C gets into the living world: 14C gets produced by the sun and begins by floating in the atmosphere. There it latches onto oxygen becoming carbon dioxide. During photosynthesis plants breathe in carbon dioxide and take the atom in as part of the cellular structure. Animals eat plants and make thus intake these atoms into the cells of their bodies as well. In short, 14C is produced in the atmosphere by the sun, plants breathe it in, and the animals eat the plants or eat the animals that ate the plants3.

6. Resources

1) “Dating Rocks and Fossils Using Geologic Methods”, by Kieran McNulty, Peppe D.J. & Deino, A. L., 2013, Nature Education, http://www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/dating-rocks-and-fossils-using-geologic-methods-107924044

2) “Carbon dating to determine the age of fossil remains”, 2012, University of Arizona, Biology Project, http://www.biology.arizona.edu/biomath/tutorials/Applications/Carbon.html

3) Doesn’t Carbon-14 Dating disprove the bible? By Mike Riddle, Sept 20, 2007, https://answersingenesis.org/geology/carbon-14/doesnt-carbon-14-dating-disprove-the-bible/

4) “The mystery of earth’s magnetic field”, by R. Humphreys, ICR Impact, Feb 1, 1989. icr.org/article/292

Leave Comment