Hello,
This is a quick look at an AIG article that was supposed to show how two dating methods were in conflict.
Quotes from the article are in Blue.

Dating in Conflict
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/1141.asp

“Mainstream geologists would never think of trying to get a radiocarbon (14C) date for the coalified wood in this Mägenwil sandstone, because anything that old should not be datable by this method.”

Yep, they got that correct. Yet for some reason they seem to be doing it anyway. We will see why they should have stuck to their first thought.

“So anything which really was millions of years old would have no detectable radiocarbon left, and would register as giving an ‘infinite radiocarbon age’.”

Right and Wrong.
Right, Anything which is really millions of years old would not give a correct date because it had too little radiocarbon to get a good reading.
Wrong, It will not register “infinite radiocarbon age.”
Using the traditional method (which would have been used when this sample was taken).

http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/feedback/may01.html
“The "traditional method" of carbon dating is to concentrate the carbon in a sample, convert it to a gas, and then measure the residual radioactivity of the gas. Even though this is done in a specially shielded chamber, some small amount of background radiation will interfere with the counts. Due to this "noise," even a completely "dead" sample will yield a computed age around 20,000 to 30,000 years (give or take, depending on several factors). That is essentially the limit of the "traditional" assessment technique. For this reason, a result in the 30,000-year range by the "traditional" method is understood to mean "an indeterminately old age." “

So as you can see. It would not have read “infinite radiocarbon age” but will report the noise radiation, which will give it a reading in the 30,000 range.

Even ICR agrees. In an article from 1989 they write,

http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-189.htm
"First, any instrument which is built to measure radiocarbon has a limit beyond which it cannot separate the signal due to radiocarbon in the sample from the signal due to background processes within the measuring apparatus. Even a hypothetical sample containing absolutely no radiocarbon will register counts in a radiocarbon counter because of background signals within the counter. In the early days of radiocarbon analysis this limit was often around 20,000 radiocarbon years. Thus, all the researcher was able to say about samples with low levels of radiocarbon was that their age was greater than or equal to 20,000 radiocarbon years (or whatever the sensitivity limit of his apparatus was). Some may have mistaken this to mean that the sample had been dated to 20,000 radiocarbon years."

Better equipment and testing can give a higher range, but as you can see, using the traditional method will always give a reading, no matter what.

“Such dating wouldn’t show the wood’s true age, since creationists have long shown that the huge imbalance of carbon in the world due to the global Flood catastrophe would give artificially old radiocarbon dates, especially those from the early post-Flood era.1”

This is the same flood that Fossilized such fragile things as footprints, right?
I have yet to hear how this “catastrophic” flood, could be powerful enough to distort the Carbon dating Method, Yet be calm enough to fossilize footprints and other fragile things.

“However, if it registered any age at all on the radiocarbon test (and all sources of potential contamination had been eliminated), it would mean that it could not possibly be millions of years old.”

As was shown above, using the traditional method it will always register a date. It is up to the scientist to understand the method well enough to know what that means. So far, it doesn’t seem like the writer of the article understands how C-14 dating works.

“The result: 36,440 years BP ± 330 years.”

So, we can then decide that there is a huge possibility that the background Noise overwhelmed any readings and gave us an incorrect date in the area of 30,000 years. The date should be read as not enough C14 to beat the background noise, suggesting the sample is Older than 36,000 years.
This is why we should use Radiometric dating within is given range, and also understand what readings we will get if it is outside the dating methods range. That way we will get correct readings. Scientists know this, unfortunately creationists don’t seem to.

“in line with what one would expect, based on the true history of the world given in the Bible by the One who made all, and Who alone is infinite in knowledge, wisdom and power. The real age is probably less than four thousand years.”

I found this interesting. This sample is supposed to have been distorted by the flood.
The earliest YEC dates of creation are based on Usshers calculations using genealogies in the Bible. They put creation at around 6000 years ago, and the flood at around 4350 years ago.
If this sample was Less than 4000 years old, it would have missed the flood by at least 350 years.
This is an interesting Error, as it seems to either falsify the claim that it was distorted by the flood. Or falsify the belief, using the bible, that creation was 6000 years ago.
Not to mention that he makes a rather arbitrary assumption of the age, and gives no evidence to support it.

“It seems that long-age believers are left with only three options”

Or we are actually left with a fourth Option. That is that the article only gives half the information, and gets the dating system and facts wrong. Now the question is, Was the writer ignorant of the facts and use of the C-14 dating system? Or, did they purposely give misleading information?

“misplaced faith in the ‘absolute’ ages given by radiometric methods.”

Anyone who understands Radiometric dating would understand that it very rarely gives us “absolute” ages. But it does give us correct ages within the Methods range, when the method is understood and used correctly.
When it is misunderstood and used incorrectly, it will give you bad dates.I wanted to post a basic refutation to this article. As you can see, the only “conflict” is between the writers understandings and reality.

-Ari

Last Update 8/10/03

©03 Ari

Back to Main Page