Radiohiiliajoitukseen liittyy kahdenlaisia ongelmia:
1. C-14:ää löytyy "liian vanhoista" näytteistä.
2. Yleiset luotettavuusongelmat
1. Evolutionistisella sivulla http://www.c14dating.com/k12.html myönnetään " You can work out that after about 50 000 years of time, all the radiocarbon will have gone. Therefore, radiocarbon dating is not able to date anything older than 60 or 70 000 years old." eli noin 50 000 vuoden kuluttua kaiken (mitattavissa olevan) C-14:n olisi pitänyt häipyä (muuttua takaisin N-14:ksi). Kun AMS-menetelmä keksittiin, evolutionisit toivoivat pääsevänsä ajoittamaan jopa 100 000 vuoden ikäisiä näytteitä menetelmän paremmasta herkkyydestä johtuen. Mutta he joutuivat huomaamaan, että kaikissa näytteissä on edelleenkin runsaasti C-14:ää. Sivulla http://www.ldolphin.org/sewell/c14dating.html todetaan "Every test that was made, trying to calibrate their equipment with zero 14C present, failed. Things like natural gas, coal, and even inorganic items like various carbonate rocks contained enough 14C to be dated at between 30,000 and 60,000 years of age. Even diamonds contained measureable 14C. These were all thought (according to the evolutionist geologic scale) to be millions of years old, far too ancient to still contain any carbon-14 at all. Chronologists began a major effort to improve their equipment and their techniques. Many papers have been published, in professional peer-reviewed journals, speculating about what caused this disappointing result. But no satisfactory explanation has been forthcoming. All of the tests seemed to show that the 14C in those very ancient samples was actually part of the sample!". Siis maakaasun, hiilen yms C-14 pitoisuudet osoittavat niiden olevan, evolutionistisessa oletuskonteksissa, 30 - 60 tuhatta vuotta vanhoja. Evolutionistit ovat julkaisseet aiheesta useita artikkeleita omissa peer-review tasoisissa tiedelehdissään, mutta (heitä) tyydyttävää selitystä ei ole löytynyt. Aiheesta lisää tiedostossa http://www.icr.org/research/icc03/pdf/RATE_ICC_Baumgardner.pdf jossa todetaan mm. "Anomalous 14C in fossil material actually has been reported from the earliest days of radiocarbon dating. Whitelaw [46], for example, surveyed all the dates reported in the journal Radiocarbon up to 1970, and he commented that for all of the over 15,000 specimens reported, "All such matter is found datable within 50,000 years as published." The specimens included coal, oil, natural gas, and other allegedly ancient material. The reason these anomalies were not taken seriously is because the older beta-decay counting technique had difficulty distinguishing genuine low levels of 14C in the samples from background counts due to cosmic rays. The AMS method, besides its inherently greater sensitivity, does not have this complication of spurious counts due to cosmic rays. In retrospect, it is likely that many of the beta-counting analyses were indeed truly detecting intrinsic 14C." Sivulla http://www.grisda.org/origins/51006.htm todetaan mm. "The existence of truly residual carbon-14 in material that has been assigned an age greater than 300,000 years would invalidate long-age theories. As noted above, any specimen of greater age than 300,000 years should have less than 1 atom of carbon-14 per gram of carbon. If the entire earth were made of nothing but carbon-14, all but one atom would decay to nitrogen-14 in 1 million years, and that atom would have a greater than 99% chance of also decaying. In 2 million years the weight of the entire known universe in carbon-14 could decay to nitrogen. Thus if there is residual activity in material considered to be 350 million years old, or 2 million years old, or even 300,000 years old, the material in uestion simply is not that old. In view of our previous discussion, it is probably not even 100,000 years old.". Siis vaikka koko maapallo olisi ollut alunperin puhdasta C-14:ää, niin jo miljoonan vuoden kuluttua kaiken C-14:n olisi (yhtä atomia lukuunottatta) pitänyt muuttua typeksi. Näinollen C-14:n löytyminen kohteista, joita evolutionistit väittävät jopa satojen miljoonien vuosien ikäisiksi, on paha ongelma evolutionisteille.
2. Yleiset luotettavuusongelmat liittyvät C-14:n taustalla oleviin lähtöoletuksiin
2.1 Oletus ilmakehän isotooppitasapainosta. C-14:n tuoton (SPR, Specific Production Rate) ja poistuman (SDR, Specific Decay Rate) pitäisi olla yhtäsuuria. Eivät ole. Tämä viittaa siihen, että ilmakehä ei ole vielä saavuttanut tasapainoa
2.2 Oletus, että eliön isotooppisuhde vastaa ilmakehän isotooppisuhdetta. Luultavasti totta, mutta ei varmaa, ja ainakin poikkeustapaukset muodostavat ongelman, koska ei voida tietää, mitä ovat "poikkeustapauksia" ja mitkä "normaaleja".
2.3 Oletus, että eliön kuoleman jälkeen vain C-14:n hajoamien muuttaa isotooppien suhdetta. Ympäristöstä voi todistetusti tulla sekä uutta C-14:ää että uutta C-12:ta, eli tapahtuu kontaminaatiota.
2.4 Oletus, että puoliintumisaika tiedetään ja että se on vakio. Libbyn mittaama puoliintumisaika oli 5568 plusmiinus 30 vuotta (Libby half-life). Uudemmat mittaukset antoivat tulokseksi 5730 plusmiinus 40 vuotta (Cambridge half-life). Kreationistit ovat osoittaneet, että puoliintumisajat eivät välttämättä ole vakioita (kts. linkit L9 ja L10)
2.5 Oletus, että virheet pystytään korjaamaan. 1800-luvun loppupuolelta lähtien fossiilisten polttoaineiden käyttö on vaikuttanut ilmakehän CO2-pitoisuuteen (Suess or Industrial effect). 1950-luvulta lähtien tehtiin ydinasekokeita, jotka vaikuttivat C14:n määrään (Atom bomb effect). Evolutionistien omalla sivulla http://www.c14dating.com/corr.html on käsitelty näitä tarkemmin ja sivulla http://www.c14dating.com/k12.html tehdään mielenkiintoinen myöntö (alleviivaukset lisätty by TJT2): "What is the youngest thing that can be radiocarbon dated? This is a difficult one, because we can date pretty much anything from today or in modern times, but getting an actual date is hard. In the 1950s and 60s, people blew up alot of nuclear bombs, and one thing that happened because of this was that alot of radiocarbon was created in the air artificially. Radiocarbon is a side effect of nuclear bombs. In the early 1960s the amount of radiocarbon produced by bombs was bigger than the amount of radiocarbon naturally present! It sounds bad, and nuclear bombs are not pleasant when they are generated, but for science there have been some spinoffs because we have been able to study the movement of this radiocarbon through the environment and learn alot about how radiocarbon is transported naturally. So this has been beneficial. We can also date things that have happened since 1950 rather well because of the sudden jump in radiocarbon on Earth, so that it is possible to figure out within 2-3 years sometimes, the date of a sample. Generally, we can date things pretty well over the past 1000 years, it becomes difficult from about 1700 AD to 1900 AD because of natural changes in radiocarbon, and since 1950 AD dating is quite possible."
Linkkejä:
L1. The Radiometric Dating Game ©1998 by David Plaisted. Tällä sivulla on käsitelty C-14:n lisäksi muitakin ajoitusmenetelmiä. http://www.trueorigin.org/dating.asp
L2. National Geographic magazine joins the dating game by John Woodmorappe. Vastine NG:n ajoitusartikkeliin. http://www.trueorigin.org/natgeo_jw01.asp
L3. Answers Bookin luku 4, yleistä tietoa ajoituksista. http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/carbon_dating.asp
L4. Hansruedi Stutz lähetti sveitsiläiseen ajoituslaboratorioon Sveitsistä löytämiään näytteitä, joiden ikä evolutionismin mukaan pitäisi olla noin 20 000 000 vuotta. Ajoituksen tulos oli kuitenkin 36440 plusmiinus 330 vuotta. Kontaminaatio näyttää erittäin epätodennäköisestä selitykseltä: "Note from the editor: Although it is never possible to be absolutely certain that contamination and sources of error have been eliminated, a laboratory’s reputation depends on delivering good results. At the time this test was done (1985), the head of this laboratory was on the Board of Editors of the international journal Radiocarbon. Also, the author of the article rang the laboratory in October 1996. The laboratory confirmed that the determination (done in the traditional way, not by the newer AMS method) had included everything possible to eliminate contamination, which included doing what is known as a d13CPDB correction. This is a critical test in regard to the possibility that the wood may have been contaminated by more recent microbes while in the ground or later." http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/1141.asp
L5. Dating Dilemma: Fossil wood in "ancient" sandstone by Andrew Snelling. Australiassa hiekkakivestä, joka on evolutionistien mukaan noin 230 000 000 vuotta vanhaa, löytyi fossiloitunutta puuta. Näyte ajoitettiin AMS-menetelmällä (Geochron Laboratories in Cambridge, Boston, USA) ja tulokseksi saatiin 33720 plusmiinus 430 vuotta. Tässäkään tapauksessa kontaminaatio ei näytä selittävän tulosta (allev. lis.): "Anticipating objections that the minute quantity of detected radiocarbon in this fossil wood might still be due to contamination, the question of contamination by recent microbial and fungal activity, long after the wood was buried, was raised with the staff at this, and another, radiocarbon laboratory. Both labs unhesitatingly replied that there would be no such contamination problem. Modern fungi or bacteria derive their carbon from the organic material they live on and don’t get it from the atmosphere, so they have the same age as their host. Furthermore, the lab procedure followed (as already outlined) would remove the cellular tissues and any waste products from either fungi or bacteria." http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/docs/v21n3_date-dilemma.asp
L6. Geological conflict: Young radiocarbon date for ancient fossil wood challenges fossil dating by Andrew Snelling. Englannissa kalkkikivestä löytyi fossiloitunutta puuta, josta lähetettiin näytteitä sekä USAan että Australiaan. Evolutionistien mukaan kalkkikiven ikä noin 189 000 000 vuotta. Näytteen UK-HB-1 iäksi Geochronin labra sai 24005 plus miinus 600 vuotta, ANSTOn (Antares Mass Spectrometry Laboratory at the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation, Lucas Heights near Sydney, Australia) tulos oli 20700 plusmiinus 1200 vuotta. Muut näytteet antoivat samansuuntaisia tuloksia. Lisäksi sivulla todetaan: "Furthermore, it is somewhat enigmatic that broken pieces of wood from land plants were buried and fossilised in a limestone alongside marine ammonite and belemnite fossils. Uniformitarians consider limestone to have been slowly deposited over countless thousands of years on a shallow ocean floor where wood from trees is not usually found." Huomaa sivun lopussa oleva laatikko Could the radiocarbon be due to contamination? Four reasons why not. http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/docs/v22n2_geology.asp
L7. Much-inflated carbon-14 dates from subfossil trees: a new mechanism. by John Woodmorappe. http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/tj/docs/v15n3_dating.asp
L8. Tree ring dating (dendrochronology) has been used in an attempt to extend the calibration of carbon-14 dating earlier than historical records allow, but this depends on temporal placement of fragments of wood (from long-dead trees) using carbon-14 dating by Don Batten, Ph.D. http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/docs/tree_ring.asp
L9.Billion-fold Acceleration of Radioactivity Demonstrated in Laboratory. http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2001/0321acc_beta_decay.asp
L10. Radioactive decay rate depends on chemical environment by Tas Walker. http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/tj/v14n1_radioact.asp
L11. CARBON DATING UNDERCUTS EVOLUTION'S LONG AGES - IMPACT No. 364 October 2003 by John Baumgardner. http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-364.htm
L12. Perusteellinen selvitys "ylimääräisestä" C-14:stä http://www.icr.org/research/icc03/pdf/RATE_ICC_Baumgardner.pdf