Radiocarbon dating disproved

Posted by / 26-Sep-2017 06:28

Radiocarbon dating disproved

Figure 19.5, curve C, shows the dipole field strength calculated from measurements of magnetism of lava flows and of artifacts such as pottery and bricks, whose age can be determined.The curve is roughly fitted to mean values determined about every 500 to 1,000 years...Sometimes it slows down to a trickle so that much more water is leaking out the barrel than is coming in; sometimes it goes full blast so that a lot more water is coming into the barrel than is leaking out. Lingenfelter's paper was written in 1963, before the cycles of C-14 variation we described had been fully documented.Thus, the mere fact that the present rate of water coming in exceeds that of the water leaking out cannot be extrapolated back to a starting time. The point is that fluctuations in the rate of C-14 production mean that at times the production rate will exceed the decay rate, while at other times the decay rate will be the larger.When the dipole moment is strong, carbon-14 production is suppressed below normal; when it is weak, carbon-14 production is boosted above normal.What the magnetic field does is to partially shield the earth from cosmic rays which produce carbon-14 high in the atmosphere.Creationists don't want their readers to be distracted with problems like that -- unless the cat is already out of the bag and something has to be said.

The water leaking out the sides of the barrel represents the loss (mainly by radioactive decay) of the atmosphere's supply of carbon-14.

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.

To that end, he quoted some authorities, including Richard Lingenfelter.

Having accomplished that, Morris concluded that the barrel was still in the process of being filled up and that, given the present rate of water coming in and leaking out, the filling process began only 10,000 years ago.

radiocarbon dating disproved-15radiocarbon dating disproved-56radiocarbon dating disproved-77

(Strahler, 1987, p.158) Lingenfelter actually attributed the discrepancy between the production and decay rates to possible variations in the earth's magnetic field, a conclusion which would have ruined Morris's argument.

One thought on “radiocarbon dating disproved”