Tripping Over Carbon Dating

Introduction

This essay will look closer at the claims of William B. Tripp contained within the article The Problem of Carbon[1] which attempts to discredit the process of carbon dating. The article is hosted on the web site of Young Earth Creationist, Kent Hovind. Therefore, someone within Hovind's organization - Creation Science Evangelism - has made an editorial decision judging the claims made by Tripp are accurate.   By association all parties are culpable for the errors contained within the article.

No biography of William Tripp seems to be available.  He signs his name with the title of "Ph.D, D.Th." from which we can infer his academic background is theology related.

This essay will show the article in question is far from accurate.  Examples will be used to illustrate Tripp does not understand the basics of carbon dating.  Instances will be shown where Tripp stumbles with basic math.  Tripp will be shown to make outlandish claims about the scientific community support for his position.

This essay will not be nit picking over every error of the article.  Many things will be left without comment.  For example, no significance will be placed upon Tripp's constant capitalizing of the word 'Carbon'.  The word 'carbon' is a noun not a pronoun.  This essay will also not dwell on the conspiracy-style arguments presented by Tripp to explain why the science community continues to use carbon dating despite, apparently, knowing it to be false (it has something to do with rebellion against God).

NOTE:  Some examples of carbon dating have been illustrated by a hypothetical counting of small quantities of atoms.  This is used for illustrative purposes only and is not intended to be a representation of the actual process of carbon dating as used within lab conditions.  Additionally, some reported numbers have been rounded for easier comprehension.

Those not familiar with carbon dating could benefit from this brief introduction.

Analysis

In a lengthy introduction Tripp describes his intention of showing a 6,000 year old Earth is possible if only scientists would stop claiming dating methods, such as carbon dating, produce results which conflict with a young age for the Earth.  One third of the way into the article, Tripp begins presenting the "science" behind his argument.

To assume a particular level of Carbon 14 in an organism requires a precise determination of environmental (atmospheric) levels of the same. That is, to presume a particular level in a living thing requires a precise knowledge of the ambient amount of Carbon 14 in the air and environment. Scientists performing radiocarbon dating assume that the amount in the environment has not changed. This is compelling for several reasons, not the least of which is the convenience with which “science” apparently operates; we hear of massive changes in the earth, ice ages, catastrophic events that killed the dinosaurs, etc., but the environment never changed according to the same scientists. [Original emphasis]

There is no assumption the "environment has not changed".  A great deal of effort is undertaken by specialist in radiometric dating to cross-reference C14 dating with objects of known age (eg, archeological) as well as directly measure the ambient quantities of C14 contained within ice cores, tree rings, mud cores, etc. [3] The accusation the ratio of C14/C12 is assumed to be constant is false.  Five minutes with Google will prove this.

The first problem is seen in the very approach in the presumption that must be made in the level of Carbon 14 the organism had while living. Here we have a critical calculation that is based upon an assumption that an organism which lived thousands of years previous, of which there are no modern species to compare, developed a specific level of Carbon 14 from an environment we know nothing about. If for example, the presumption is inaccurate by only 10%, considering that it is the rate of decay that forms the mathematical constant, the inaccuracy of the calculation of age at the upper limit would be tens of thousands of years. [Original italics]

The phrase "no modern species of compare" is puzzling.  Is the author claiming a mammoth has no living comparison (elephant)?  Or a giant Irish Elk (obviously a regular elk)?

The "rate of decay" - the half life - is not determined by the original quantity of C14.  The rate of decay is a mathematical constant because it is observed to be a physical constant under normal conditions.

Additionally, the claim contains a huge mathematical error.  The absolute best case scenario for the upper limit of C14 dating is around 50,000 years (some claim up to 60,000 years). The more common practical limit is around 30,000 years.  Let us assume we expect 1,000,000 atoms of C14 were contained in our sample at time of formation.  And when we measure our sample we find there are 2,400 atoms of C14 remaining.  With some basic math we calculate our sample has passed through 8.7 half-lives which gives a calculated age of 50,000 years.  But let us say we made an error in our assumption of the original amount of C14.  We will assume (as Tripp suggests) there was 10% more C14 - 1,100,000 atoms.  This means that our sample has passed through 8.8 half-lives giving a true age of 50,650 years.  A 10% error of initial C14 produced less than 2% error (650 years) in the date.  How the author calculated "tens of thousands of years" is a mystery.

Not only does the requisite level of assumption and presumption all but invalidate the accuracy of the claims of very old dating, but were there for example, an environmental phenomenon that affected the level of ambient Carbon 14, the results could be skewed exponentially. In fact, several such phenomena did indeed exist, proven by the same science that supports old-age radiocarbon dating! [....] For example, consider that it is essentially accepted that an antediluvian water canopy existed surrounding the earth; ....

Hold the press!  The science community has "essentially accepted" there was (a) a water canopy surrounding the Earth and (b) this no longer exists because of Noah's Flood?  Let us be clear, there is no acceptance by the science community of any type of water canopy and a global flood has even less support (if that is possible).  The water canopy idea is so shaky even Answers in Genesis (perhaps the most influential Young Earth organization at time of writing) classes the canopy argument as "doubtful, hence inadvisable to use" [2]

Since there is no serious argument for the existence of a C14 altering water canopy plus a total absence of any physical trace of an alteration of C14/C12 ratio by such an event (eg. ice cores, tree rings, etc) we can conclude such apologetics debunked.

Or consider the effect a global atmospheric shield of dust created as a result of a meteor impact some scientists believe killed off the dinosaurs—levels of Carbon 14 in the atmosphere must certainly have been different, thereby invalidating the age/date test data.

The proposed K/T boundary demise of the age of the dinosaurs occurred around 65 million years ago.  Carbon dating is only used to a maximum of 50,000 years.  Therefore this meteor impact has no relevance to carbon dating.  Ironically, Tripp himself correctly states the timeframes for carbon dating later in the article so why make such an obviously erroneous claim?

Moreover, it is established fact that the earth’s magnetic field has been in a constant decline in strength, which would have vigorously protected the earth from the same radiation, all but negating the production of Carbon 14 and thereby minimizing the ambient amount available for absorption by living things. 

The "constant decline" of the Earth's magnetic field is now an "established fact"?  Within footnotes the author also claims  "most scientists believe that the rate of decay is such that it would render the field about ten times stronger at the time of the Flood of Noah than it is today".   Not only is this claim of science community support false (like a previous example used above), the "constantly declining magnetic field" argument is only a reincarnation of the claims of Young Earth Creationist, Thomas Barnes

This means that the absolute maximum age radiocarbon could date a specimen to would be around 56,300 years; yet daily society is barraged with reports that some new find was dated in the hundreds of thousands, and even millions of years using Carbon 14. Actually, after the sixth cycle or so, there would not be enough Carbon 14 in the sample to be measured; the upper limit then would be around 30,000 years. [Original emphasis]

Speaking personally I have never seen a press report claiming a new find was carbon dated in such huge time frames and Tripp does not provide any examples. This must be one of the quietest barrages in history.  Ironically, it was Tripp who claimed a meteor impact 65 million years ago could affect C14 dates (see above).

The levels of Carbon 14 in any “old” artifact are extremely low; because of this, it is virtually impossible to prevent the test and measurement equipment from picking up residual or background environmental Carbon 14 not associated with the specimen. Further, most artifacts by their very nature are found in and around various forms of rock, which provide several sources of additional radiation.

Tripp makes an interesting point which is correct when taken in context.  When the residual amounts of C14 are low the level of background radiation can become a factor.  However, this would increase the amount of C14 which would produce (slightly) younger measured ages.  This is the opposite of what Tripp needs to discredit the long ages derived from carbon dating.

......neutrino radiation; Carbon 14 decay is accelerated in the presence of such bombardment, and again the effect would be to cause the specimen to appear much older than it actually is.

Tripp does not mention that, while a neutrino directly striking a single atom may cause decay, the humble neutrino does not interact easily with its environment.

.....a less than 5% reduction in the extant amount of Carbon 14 in the specimen, owing to the “constant” of its half-life will yield a factor of 5 times the actual age. Imagine the effect on science if an artifact dated at 45,000 years is actually only 9,000; the possibilities are staggering.

Yet again we have strange math that appears to make absolutely no sense.  If our hypothetical sample is 45,000 years old it will have passed through 7.9 half-lives.  This means for each 1,000,000 original C14 atoms only 4,300 will remain in the sample today.  As Tripp suggests, let us reduce our remaining quantity of C14 by 5% giving us a remaining sample of 4,085 atoms.  To return to our original 1,000,000 atoms will require 7.9 "reverse" half-lives.  We now multiply 7.9 by 5,730 years to give a "false" date of 45,470 years.  So a 5% error in the sample results in a 1% error (470 years) in the calculated date.

If Tripp's math can turn 45,000 years into 9,000 years the possibilities truly are staggering.

Conclusions

Tripp's first thrust was to make the false claim carbon dating is based upon the assumption atmospheric C14 levels are constant.  It was shown the opposite is true.  Tripp also claimed events millions of years ago can effect carbon dates while later correctly stating carbon dating is only relevant to recent history.

Tripp made multiple false claims of what the science community position is on various issues.  It was falsely claimed the science community suggests decay of the Earth's magnetic field is constant.  It was falsely claimed "most scientists" support a water canopy over the Earth.

Tripp even dug up the minor effects of background radiation while omitting to mention this effect would make a sample artificially younger which contradicts his goal of showing carbon dating produces false old dates.

However, beyond these flaws the major failing of Tripp's argument was the atrocious math.  Tripp made bold claims that small alterations of beginning assumptions or final measured quantities of C14 would produce errors measured in "tens of thousands of years".  A few moments with a pocket calculator showed even Tripp's suggested scenarios produced errors measured in single digit percentages.

Carl Marychurch 2005

[1]  Tripp, William, (2002), The Problem of Carbon http://www.drdino.com/articles.php?spec=79 [December 2005]

[2] Answers in Genesis, Arguments We Think Creationists Should Not Use http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dont_use.asp [December 2005]

[3]  Wikipedia, Radiocarbon dating http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dating#Calibration [December 2005]