Page 79 - BV17
P. 79

Radiocarbon Dating: Tool or Magic Wand?                                                    79



               26,000 and 40,000 years B.P. (Guthrie, R. Dale, process has its own limitations. The influence
               Frozen Fauna of the Mammoth Steppe, 1990, of the Earth’s magnetic field can be compen-
               pp. 9-10). Fat and blood samples from the sated to some extent, but the large differences
               Berezovka mammoth were dated at 39,000 years due to geographical locations can only be
               B.P., but the plant and pollen remains found in guessed at. Carbon 14 is not the useful tool it
               its stomach were dated between 6,000 and 7,000 was thought to be, but it is often used as a kind
               years B.P. (Ginenthal, op cit., p. 163). These ex- of magic wand in attempts to provide validity
               amples tend to indicate that older samples can for establishing dates of ancient fossils. And
               give a variety of dates, many of which may have because of the general commitment to using
               little direct correlation to dates obtained by other C14 dates, Charles Ginenthal commented, “I
               methods.       This
               brings to question
               the validity of many
               C14 dates found in
               the literature. When
               the material being
               dated has an un-
               known past history,
               how can the mea-
               sured date be con-
               sidered valid?

                      Contamina-
               tion is a potential
               problem with old
               samples if the con-
               tainers they are kept
               in are made of wood Were radio carbon tests seriously off the mark in dating this lower jaw of an
               or wood products or extinct sloth, a megathere, at 20,000 years old?
               are exposed to the
               air. Carbon 14 can be absorbed by the sample    believe that because radiocarbon dating is the
               and made to appear younger than its normal C14  one, great backbone and support of the super-
               date. How much this effects the real date is ques-  structure of the uniformitarian history of the
               tionable because of the other variables in the sys-  past,...all of this evidence for a distorted ra-
               tem. This brief summary of the C14 dating       tion   of   C14/C12,...will   be   denied”
               problem shows that the assumptions on which     (Ginenthal, op cit., p. 184).
               the process was originally established need to be
               reconsidered. It is not independent of time; it is     A word to the wise is said to be suffi-
               dependent on geographical location; it is species  cient. Let’s hope that there are some wise in-
               dependent; the generation activity is changing,  dividuals  willing  to  acknowledge    the
               and it is subject to contamination.             problem. Old paradigms are hard to replace.

                      There have been a number of “correction
               factors” proposed in attempts to normalize C14
               dating. Tree ring dating has been used, but that






              The Berean Voice September-October 2002
   74   75   76   77   78   79   80   81   82   83   84