Date: 25 Mar 94  17:13:27
   From: Duwayne Anderson
     To: All
Subject: Carbon 14 dating

From: duwaynea@master.cna.tek.com (Duwayne Anderson)
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Redmond, OR, USA



Not long ago, I read a book titled "Meditations At 10,000
Feet, A Scientist in the Mountains, by James Trefil (who, by
the way -- for those keeping score, is a Physicist).
On page 116 he says "People who call themselves creation
scientists frequently seize on controversies like those
surrounding the rate of universal expansion [of the
universe] to argue that the earth was, in fact, created
about the time Bishop Ussher said it was.  At least they
argue that the age of the earth and the universe is to be
measured in thousands, rather than billions, of years.  Such
arguments completely ignore the fact that neither age is
fixed by a single method of calculation or a single number.
Rather, they are fixed by several independent analyses,
which converge on one result.

Dissenters also ignore the fact that even in the most
controversial case, the choice is between a universe a
little less than 10 billion years old and a universe 15
billion years old.  Neither party to the controversy would
continence a universe whose age was measured in millions
(much less in thousands) of years.  In this case, I'm
afraid, the creationists are like someone who overhears an
argument about whether a particular office is on the fifty-
fifth or fifty-sixth floor of the Empire State Building and
concludes that the building is only one story high."

This, I think, is an excellent analogy.  I once engaged a
creationist in an argument about carbon 14 dating.  His
entire argument (if it can be called that) centered on the
idea that, since carbon 14 dating requires calibration, and
since many different things might result in dating errors,
the method is fundamentally flawed, and he was free,
therefore, to conclude that the earth was only 13,000 years
old.  What he failed completely to comprehend was the fact
that many types of dating methods give results that are in
general agreement with carbon 14 dating.

Take, for example, an article in the September issue of
Physics Today (another sample point for those keeping score
about Physics and creationism).  Carbon 14 dating of coral
samples was compared with Uranium-Thorium dating.  "With the
new measurement capabilities, the Caltech group, joined by
Frederic Taylor (University of Texas), validated the U-Th
chronometer by comparing U-Th ages both with radiocarbon
ages and with ages determined by counting annual growth
bands in coral skeletons."  The article goes on to show a
plot comparing the ages of coral determined by U-Th against
Carbon 14.  The ages agree remarkably well until about
10,000 years BP, and are off by only about 5 or 10% clear
back to 30,000 years.  The plot also shows the Carbon 14
measurements plotted against ages determined from tree rings
and varved sediments back to about 10,000 years BP, and all
of the measurements agree very well (to within a few
percent).

Sure, C-14 dating has error associated with it.  Sure, C-14
dating has to be calibrated.  Sure, if you don't do it
right, your C-14 measurements can be way off.  What's the
point?  This is true of just about any measurement.  What
young-earth creationists and believers in Noachian flood
mythology  fail to do (I've never even seen them attempt it)
is show, QUANTITATIVELY how the errors in C-14 dating can
bring the oldest C-14 dates into agreement with their
mythology, and why C-14 dating agrees with other, completely
independent methods, such as counting the growth rings in
coral.

 Disclaimer:

Why do I have to write this?  Everyone knows these are just
my opinions, and that my company would never officially or
unofficially endorse them.

          "Perhaps today's evolutionists will have the
          opportunity to spend eternity trying to prove
          their theories ... while the rest of us console
          ourselves by floating about the heavens in
          ignorant bliss."   Joyce Rencher, creationist.