Why Carbon Dating Might Be in Danger
This an impossibly large number when compared to the earth's current 7 billion people. Either the population growth calculation is hopelessly wrong, or the theory of human evolution is suspect! This computation appears much more realistic.Radiocarbon Dating
Earth dating via ocean sediments, magnetic field decay, atmospheric helium, short-period comets and other techniques point to a young earth. However, the scientifc accuracy of YE claims are frequently challenged e.
Talk Origins. In order to balance the discussion we should also challenge the currently accepted radiometric dating methods.
If these are suspect then the disputed methods take on more meaning. There are several causes for concern here.
The age of the earth is normally estimated by radiometric dating - which gives an '?old earth'. What are the assumptions and weaknesses of this method? Radiocarbon dating-also known as carbon dating-is a technique used by Despite its usefulness, radiocarbon dating has a number of limitations. First. But how accurate is radiocarbon dating? How does radioactive carbon dating work? What are its limitations? What effect would the declining strength of the.
The K-Ar method dates rocks by measuring the accumulated Ar It is claimed the advantage of this method is that it circumvents the zero date problem i. In other words, all Ar in a rock is assumed to have been produced by in-situ radioactive decay of K within the rock since it formed and there was zero Ar in the rock when it solidified.
Disadvantages of dating: its limitations and disadvantages of dating? Do online Thus, the limitations, advantages carbon dating what is radioactive dating. Although radiocarbon dating is currently used to date peat initiation, various difficulties can be encountered when . 2 - USEFULNESS AND LIMITATIONS. Chronological Methods 8 - Radiocarbon Dating The Limitations of Carbon 14 Dating There are a number of limitations, however. First, the.
However, this primary assumption has been challenged e. This 'zero Ar' problem has also been identified by Snelling who comments for one research project:. Certainly it is known to diffuse easily from deeper rocks under pressure so surface rocks tend to have a higher Ar concentration than would be expected.
This, coupled with the fact that potassium is easily washed out of minerals, suggests this technique can give an artificially high age for the earth and leads some to conclude that:. If we question these techniques, there is an alternative method called isochron dating. The isochron dating method attempts to combat the zero date problem by using ratios of isotopes and samples of different minerals from the same rock. However, it still relies on certain basic assumptions, and in particular on the assumption that the specimen was entirely homogenous when it formed i.
The method also assumes that all mineral samples will have the same initial Sr to Sr ratio, but this is not always the case. So whilst isochron dating can give a straight line, the slope may have no significance [Vardiman et al].
What about the radiometric assumption of constant decay rate? Such an assumption rests on the old evolutionary concept of uniformitarianism. In broad terms this means the observed geological features are the result of slow geological forces of the same kind and intensity as those found today. And for radiometric dating it means that the decay constant of the parent has not changed over earth's history.
Scientific justification for this assumption is found for example in Radiogenic Isotope Geology, A. The overall theme is that of a very old earth. In contrast, Humphreys has proposed an accelerated decay higher decay rate early in earth's history, leading to a younger earth. This idea has been rebutted by those who claim there is no known scientific mechanism to produce such a change, see for example Tim-Thompson: decay rate. Others disagree and say that studies in theoretical physics suggest accelerated nuclear decay can occur e.
Uniformitarianism is also challenged if we invoke the concept of a world-wide flood for which there is much evidence. Vardiman et al claim that this would result in unreliable radioisotopic dating.
They conclude from their research that:. Let's take a deeper look into the theory of accelerated nuclear decay. Classical OE dating radiometric dating is based upon the spontaneous breakdown or decay of atomic nuclei, where a radioactive parent atom decays to a stable daughter atom. The clash between OE dating millions or billions of years and YE dating thousands of years centres on the decay constant K. As discussed, OE dating rests on the evolutionary concept of uniformitarianism and an assumed constant decay rate for all time.
But this is not necessarily so. InAlbrecht and Magueijo proposed a reduction in 'c' over time as a solution to cosmological puzzles. For example, theories in which light is traveling faster in the early periods of the existence of the Universe have been recognised as an alternative to the 'big bang' inflation scenario, see Pedram and Jalalzadeh.
So, rather than 'c' being constant with time, it has been proposed that the product 'hc' where here 'h' is Planks Constant and 'c' is the speed of light in a vacuum should be considered constant, see Setterfield. Even in recent times, hundreds of measurements of 'c' since show a small but statistically significant decrease i.
See also speed measurments and discussion. The Effect of Changes in 'c': As just noted, some in the scientific community now claim that the radioactive decay 'constant' K can be changed i.
In particular, Setterfield has shown that K is strongly related to 'c'. So if the speed of light slows down, then the radioactive decay rate also slows down, link. It is argued like this:.
It follows that radioactive decay rates were much higher in the past. In other words, when 'c' was higher, atomic clocks ticked more rapidly and 'atomic time' ran fast. So standard radiometric dating must be corrected for this early accelerated decay ratereducing millions of years to thousands!
The current scientific argument for an old earth is popular especially in the media and education whilst the concept of a young earth as held by Creationism is given low profile and so seems relatively weak.
For example, non-radiometric dating techniques using ice cores do indeed appear to date the earth well in excess ofyears. But there are several factors in favour of a young earth. These are largely ignored by mainstream science but could be the key to the massive discrepancy when it comes to dating the earth.
At the Fall of man the whole of creation, including the earth, was suddenly subjected to corruption or decay Rom 8. Man suddenly had a limited lifespan Gen 2. Also, at the Flood there were catastrophic geological changes, see for example geological evidence for the flood and scientific evidence.
Some see these physical events as being related to changes in physical laws e. In short, the earth's order is deteriorating with time, and "the earth is wearing out like a garment" Isa This concept seems to be supported by theoretical physics, which suggests that a decrease in the speed of light, c, see Is the Velocity of Light Constant in Time?
Physical changes are also suggested from the biblical accounts of man living to over years prior to the Flood Gen 5followed by an exponential decrease in age after the Flood.
Some suggest this could be from a significant increase in radioisotopes in the atmosphere after the Flood. Could these biblical events and the associated physical changes have caused accelerated radiometric decayand by implication destroy uniformitarianism, the bedrock of radiometric dating? If so, standard radiometric dating must be corrected for an early accelerated decay rate, reducing millions of years to thousands!
These biblically-implied abrupt physical changes in the earth are largely ignored in radiometric dating, which may be the source of the OE and YE discrepancy. These physical changes also affect the assumptions in radiocarbon dating and ice core dating.
For more detail see A Young Earth Model. For many Christians the jury is still out. The OE theory and associated evolutionary theory is well supported by high profile scientific bodies such as The Royal Societyand by the media. But there are serious dissenting scientific voices on evolutionary theoryand conventional earth dating techniquesand a growing Creation Science community make a good case for a Young Earth.
Various dating clocks, such as the earth's decaying magnetic field and population growth suggest a young earth, and the classical radiometric dating assumption of Uniformitarianism has to be questioned given possible change in physical constants.
Also, theologically it seems difficult to accept OE creationism theistic evolution and dismiss YE creationism when the Bible is read literally and when Jesus Himself implied a young earth see biblical earth dating.
The basic question seems to be "where is one's starting point? For all Christians this should be:. U to lead 0. Variation in compactified dimensions could affect coupling constants Consequent variation in coupling constants could cause accelerated decay Changes in potential well depth change the alpha-particle wave function Changes in the alpha-particle wave function change decay half-lives. Additional to these factors could be a multitude of other considerations not strictly properties of the technique itself.
For example, the processes by which the technique is performed and the associated skills and knowledge required to produce accurate determinations will necessarily impact the availability of the technique, but availability and the associated monetary cost is not an intrinsic property of the technique itself.
Strengths and weaknesses of radiocarbon dating
In order to evaluate the technique itself, an idealised situation will be considered, whereby it is assumed that an archaeologist would have equal and otherwise unbiased access to a range of dating techniques, and it remains only to choose the one most appropriate to the situation at hand. Most of the 14 C in the atmosphere originates in the action of cosmic rays on Nitrogen in the upper atmosphere.
This unstable isotope of Carbon then enters the food chain, and in doing so, forms part of all organic matter Bayliss et al. Broadly speaking, anything that was once alive can therefore theoretically have measured the levels of radiocarbon it now contains. It is also possible to obtain radiocarbon determinations from inorganic materials if the process of producing the finished state includes the incorporation of carbon; examples of where this might be possible is the application of lime mortar as carbon dioxide is absorbed by the surface when the mortar hardens Bowman In reality, there are difficulties associated with the processing and measurement of certain materials, which reduces the applicability of this technique.
Owing to the plateaux in the calibration curve see Figure 1 belowsamples with true dates on these plateaux cannot produce dates with any precision, and may return such wide ranges that the technique may not be the best approach to dating material from that time period.
Figure 1:Radiocarbon versus calendar ages for the period 14 C years BP. Source Walker Figure 2. It used to be the case, before mass spectrometry was invented, that a limitation of the applicability of radiocarbon dating was due to the large sample sizes required in order to obtain a statistically-valid count of the beta decay. With Accelerometer Mass Spectrometry, the ratios of the various isotopes of Carbon are measured directly and the amount of 14 C calculated from the ratios, rather than relying on detecting the decay of the radionuclide.
For the high-precision radiometric laboratories which use the decay-detection technique a large sample and a long period of time to perform the count is required Walker Section 2limiting the usefulness to situations where these are not constraints. Whilst some quite precise dates are being produced by radiometric laboratories in Seattle, Groningen, and Belfast, with standard errors of around 20 years Walker Section 2.
The Age of the Earth
Hodgins et al. Figure 2: Changes in chitin chemistry during pre-treatment for 14C dating. Source: Hodgins et al. Errors can obviously also creep in due to contamination, whether in the laboratory, or at the point at which the sample is taken. This is especially a problem with material that has been stored sub-optimally, handled with unclean hands, or treated with organic chemicals for conservation purposes Pohl et al.
Unlike dendrochronology, which relies on multiple correspondences to provide a solid chronology as discussed laterradiocarbon dating has no inbuilt self-test mechanism, so errors of this sort are hard to detect and hard to quantify. Radiocarbon dating is predicated on the assumption that the level of 14 C in the sample at the time it entered the archaeological record is identical to the concentration of 14 C in the atmosphere at the time and that these levels of both biosphere and atmosphere are consistent over the entire globe.
It is now known that this is not the case, and that there are localised reservoir effects which need to be compensated for in the calibration process. These include the upwelling of 14 C-depleted waters from the ocean depths Barrett et al. It is known, too, that isotopic fractionation occurs; the lighter molecules of CO 2 are taken up in preference to the radioactive and heavier isotopes, so a lower percentage of 14 C enters the biosphere in this way than is present in the atmosphere.
The reverse is true for the radioactive carbon ratios in the ocean, where 14 C is taken up in preference to the lighter isotopes Walker Section 2. Inaccuracies derived from these two sources cannot be effectively dealt with by multiple readings, as in the case of inaccuracies introduced by incorrect measurement, and so must be estimated and compensated for Ramsey This essentially means that the original estimated figure of the amount of 14 C in the sample is then subjected to further estimations of factors that might affect the accuracy of that original determination.
As time progresses it is hoped that these estimations may become more sophisticated, but it is perhaps fair to say that Radiocarbon dating is not so much measurement as an exercise in statistical analysis. Parker Pearson gave an example of a radiocarbon determination being incorrectly disregarded as it did not fit with the interpretation of the construction sequence of Stonehenge.
With a re-assessment of the interpretation of the context in which the sampled material was found, the dates have been attributed to their proper feature and the chronology is internally consistent.
One of the problems with the radiocarbon dating of ecofacts, or of small artefacts found within soil, is that of bioturbation. Parker Pearson gives the example of the huge range of dates obtained by Darvill and Wainwright in when trying to produce radiocarbon dates for Stonehenge; the date determinations indicated that the sarsen circle dated to AD as a result of disturbances within the soil by both people and animals. The lesson here is that although a sample may be retrieved from a given context, there is every cause to question whether that was in fact the context from which it originated.
The question of residuality, that is, how long artefacts have been in existence before they enter the archaeological record, is also a factor that can affect the accuracy of radiocarbon dates when applied to a given context. For example, as Hamilton argued, there is no way of knowing whether the artefact that has been subjected to radiocarbon dating is an heirloom that has been curated for a given period of time, or whether the deposit itself has been reworked in some way as to render the date invalid when applied to anything other than the sample itself.
This is not necessarily a weakness of radiocarbon dating, more a pitfall of the application of the technique. The implications of this for the accepted chronologies built on radiocarbon-dating of skeletal material, and the understanding of burial practice in prehistory, are profound Smith A further pitfall can be seen in the less precise determinations and the resulting wide date ranges being used to construct chronologies. Nishitaniin a consideration of the chronology of the pottery from Danebury, points out that even with a difference of years between individual samples, at An interesting example of the interpretative use of radiocarbon dating in conjunction with dendrochronologically-pinpointed dating was the suggestion that an increase in the amount of 14 C in wood dating from AD can be attributed to an increase in cosmic rays.
This was suggested to be potentially due to increased solar activity or a nearby supernova Jull Whether this suggested change in cosmic rays would be perceptible in the archaeological record in terms of an impact on human lives, is debatable, however.
Radiocarbon dating technology - Men looking for a man - Women looking for a man. Join the leader in Strengths and weaknesses of radiocarbon dating.
Dendrochronology relies upon strong correlations in patterns of rings to match back to a master chronology. The more rings there are the more likely it is that a several sequences of rings will cross-match to the master chronology and provide a correspondence strong enough to be considered a date.
What this means is that the technique requires long-lived species, as at least rings are ideally needed and this limits the applicability in Europe to long-lived Oaks Baillie The distinctness of rings in a sample is another consideration. Some trees are more sensitive than other to environmental disturbance and may miss rings or produce multiple rings in the same year, making it more difficult to find a matching pattern as that environmental disturbance may have only affected the trees in the locality of the sample, whereas the master chronology will not reflect this disturbance.
This means that the optimal species for dendrochronology are those that are both long-lived and relatively insensitive. However, this lack of sensitivity may cause the tree to not produce distinctive patterns: it is the sensitivity to conditions that causes the variability in ring sizes and greater sensitivity will cause greater variation between extremes and therefore more distinct patterns Aitken If these outer rings are not present then although a match may be made to the master chronology based on the pattern of rings, it will only be possible to say that the tree was alive during these years.
Which may be precision enough for most purposes, so the technique may still be applicable. Dendrochronology can be destructive if a sample is extracted from the wood for analysis. This can limit the applicability of the technique to those artefacts where this is permitted. However, it is possible to lift the pattern of rings using modelling clay, avoiding the need for destructive testing Bailliebut presumably potentially leaving a residue.
This essay will consider both the inherent strengths and weaknesses of Radiocarbon dating and Dendrochronology, and also the ways in. Radiocarbon dating, which is also known as carbon dating, is one and its strengths and weaknesses are very well understood at this point. What do you mean? There are no "flaws" per se. The method works completely correctly within its parameters and limitations. There are some caveats: 1.
These considerations, coupled with the biodegradability of the material itself, limit the opportunities for this technique to be applied. Therefore the main weakness of this technique is its limited applicability Baillie The main strength of dendrochronology is its ability to produce absolute dates, sometimes even to the exact season that the wood was felled Baillie if the final ring is present, providing amazing precision. The problem with this is that there is an expectation that if a wood sample is present, then it can produce these absolute dates, but as discussed above, there is a specific set of circumstances that constrain this, and often the sample is undateable.
Samples that are missing the sapwood can still produce dates, but as there is a need to estimate the number of sapwood rings that should be present, the accuracy of the technique is diminished as certainty is replaced by estimation Baillie Whilst the potential for achieving precision is high for a ring-complete sample, the accuracy of the technique is dependent firstly on a correct match being determined, and secondly that the chronology it is being matched to is itself accurate.
The correct match can be assisted with statistical software that can calculate the co-efficient of correlation for a given matching pattern Baillie and therefore provide a quantitative assessment of how good the match is, although Baillie went on to argue that this computer-based matching is best thought of as guidance for the experienced dendrochronologist and not the authoritative definition of a match.
Nevertheless, a high degree of certainty that the sample is a match for that section of the master chronology can be obtained by insisting on high degrees of correlation and multiple matching points for a given sample. With Highly Significant Correlations. Source: Baillie Figure 1.