Carbon-14
Carbon-14, a quantitatively rare and seemingly insignificant radioactive atom in nature, provides an important key to dating
many historical events even the Genesis Flood. With the introduction of ultrasensitive AMS isotope testing in the 1980s, carbon-14
has revealed serious anomalies in the conventional geological time scale pointing to a much younger earth only thousands not millions
or billions of years old. This article will explore some of the old earth uniformitarian assumptions and the evidence for a young
earth beginning. But before this, a brief overview of carbon-14, its primary natural source and distribution in nature, the dating
methodology, the sensitivity of the testing equipment and the use of procedural blanks to correct for laboratory contamination is
in order.
What is carbon-14?
Carbon has three isotopes: 12C (6 protons and 6 neutrons) and 13C (6 protons and 7 neutrons) both stable
and 14C (6 protons and 8 neutrons) radioactive. These isotopes have almost identical chemical properties. Carbon-14 (14C) has a half-life
of 5,730 +/– 40 years and decays to nitrogen-14 (14N) by beta particle emission. Half-life is the time interval required for
half of the remaining quantity of the isotope to decay. Thus, the amount of the parent isotope remaining after one half-life is 1/2,
after two half-lives is 1/4, after three half-lives is 1/8, etc...
How and where is carbon-14 formed?
Carbon-14 (14C) is produced
naturally in the earth’s upper atmosphere where cosmic rays produce thermal neutrons that interact with atoms of nitrogen-14 (14N)
causing them to lose a proton and gain a neutron. This reaction is the primary source of 14C on earth and “converts about 21
pounds of nitrogen each year into radiocarbon.” [1] Other sources include above ground nuclear testing that produced major
amounts between 1952 and 1980, [2] nuclear power plants, and lightning that produces insignificant amounts compared to cosmic rays.[3]
The atmosphere
The amount of naturally produced 14C in the earth’s atmosphere has varied over time primarily due to changes in
the earth’s magnetic field that deflects most cosmic rays away before they reach the earth’s atmosphere. The amount of atmospheric12C in the ancient past may have been much different based on the immense amount of carbon that has been incorporated into coal, oil,
natural gas, peat, limestone, and marble. Tests indicate that the atmospheric 14C /12C ratio is increasing. Currently, there
is on average one14C atom per 1012 atoms of C in the atmosphere. [4] [5]
Atmospheric carbon quickly oxidizes first to
carbon monoxide (CO) that in turn quickly oxides to carbon dioxide (CO2). The radioactive 14CO2 becomes evenly distributed with
the stable CO2 portion of the atmosphere within weeks. [6]
The biosphere
Living terrestrial plants primarily absorb CO2 from the atmosphere
with approximately the same 14C /12C ratio as the atmosphere through photosynthesis and store it as carbohydrates. The difference
in the 14C /12C ratio is due to isotropic fractionation during photosynthesis whereby 14C is depleted during absorption by approximately
3.6 % from the 14C /12C ratio in the atmosphere. [7] [8]
In addition to the atmospheric CO2 absorbed through photosynthesis, it is
also “generally accepted that plants do take up CO2 through their roots...” [9]
“Hibberd and Quick (2002) provided 14C-labelled carbon
to roots and xylem of two herbaceous species and subsequently found the assimilated label throughout the plants.” [10]
Carbon uptake
through a plant’s roots may significantly affect the 14C /12C ratio throughout the plant if carbonate ions from limestone are present
in the root zone. Limestone is majorly calcium carbonate (CaCO3) crystals with 14C /12C ratios orders of magnitude less than
the current atmosphere.
Animals eat plants and/or other animals whose food chain includes plants. Plants and animals
while they are living are constantly adding new C to their systems in approximately the same isotope ratio as the atmosphere. Some
anomalies occur to isotope ratios for shells (e.g., freshwater clams [11] and snails [12] [13]) that encounter carbonate ions from
limestone. At death, their 12C and 13C levels remain constant while their 14C decays over time to 14N. This means the
longer the time from the animal’s or plant’s death, the smaller their 14C /12C ratio.
Carbon-14 dating
Carbon-14 can only be used in
dating samples of dead plants or animals where organic carbon is still present in measurable quantities in the samples. Occasionally,
a geological non-organic stratum may be dated if an organic inclusion is present or where a non-organic stratum is superimposed over
organic carbon (e.g. wood, charcoal or coal).
The 14C dating method takes advantage of the relationships described
under the preceding section (The biosphere). One or more samples of an organic artefact is/are tested in the laboratory to determine
its present 14C/12C ratio. This ratio is divided by a standard 14C/12C ratio for modern atmospheric carbon and the result is
multiplied by 100 to establish what is called the percent modern carbon (pMC). Having established the artefact’s pMC, its radiocarbon
age may be calculated assuming uniformitarian 14C decay. This radiocarbon age is not the age of the artefact but must be adjusted
by calibration to account for a significantly non-steady state atmospheric 14C/12C ratio, and isotopic fractionation.
Carbon-14 testing
Laboratory
radiocarbon procedures are intended to accurately measure the present percentage of intrinsic 14C in the carbon sample. Procedures
include measures to remove any contamination that may be present when the sample is submitted and to prevent contamination at the
laboratory during sample storing, handling and testing.
Originally, 14C measurements were made by beta emission counting detectors
with “sensitivity of the raw measurement of the 14C/12C ratio” at “approximately 1% of modern carbon value” (1 pMC). [14] Based on
the uniformitarian assumption of a constant atmospheric 14C/12C ratio, 1 pMC is roughly equivalent to 40,000 radiocarbon years. Many
shortcomings of the method were apparent. Background cosmic radiation was a major accuracy concern that could possibly make
samples appear much younger. The need for large samples to increase accuracy meant that certain valuable organic artefacts could not
be tested without severely damaging them. Also, the testing time is long as “in 9 months less than 0.01% of the radiocarbon ions will
decay, so in a reasonable measurement time (typically a few weeks) only a very small portion of the radiocarbon atoms are detected
by this method.” [15]
In the early 1980s the accelerator mass spectrometer (AMS) became the preferred method for 14C measurement as
it counted atoms and therefore was not affected by background radiation. Sample size requirements were reduced by a factor of 1000
over conventional methods. [16] The small sample size makes control of contaminants difficult thus requiring very vigorous pretreatment
to make sure that contaminants “will not lead to substantial errors during the carbon dating process.” [17] Sensitivity was greatly
enhanced to approximately 0.001pMC [18] that equates to about 90,000 radiocarbon years again based on the constant atmospheric 14C/12C
ratio assumption.
AMS “is used to detect very low concentrations of natural isotopic abundances (typically in the range between 10-12
and 10-16) of both radionuclides and stable nuclides.” [19] A 14C concentration of 1x10-16 for organic artefacts is about
0.01 pMC under uniformitarian assumptions.
Procedural blanks presumed to be intrinsically 14C dead are utilized to correct for any
contamination due to handling, storage, and testing. Blanks are stored, handled, pretreated, and tested using the same procedures
as the samples being tested. The test 14C/12C ratio for the blank is then assumed to be contamination identical to that on the
sample being tested; this supposed contamination is then subtracted from the tested sample’s 14C/12C ratio. This sounds reasonable;
however, if the blank is not intrinicly14C dead, the subtraction may make the sample appear much older than its actual age. Common procedural blank materials have been optical grade calcite, marble, anthracite coal, Precambrian graphite, and CO2 from purified
natural gas.
Young Versus Old Earth
AMS testing with its greatly increased sensitivity has led to unforeseen anomalies to the conventional
geological timeline.
“Over the past 20 years the primary radiocarbon journals, Radiocarbon and Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics
Research B, have published a significant number of articles reporting AMS measurements made on samples that, based on their conventional
geological age, should be 14C dead.” [20]
The ICR Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth (RATE) team collected the above data
and decided to have their own AMS testing performed on ten samples of coal from the U.S. Department of Energy Coal Sample Bank maintained
at Pennsylvania State University. Coal in this bank was “gathered by government researchers in such a way as to minimize contamination
and maintained in pristine condition.” [21] The RATE team selected samples from three geological epochs: Eocene (3), Cretaceous (3),
and Pennsylvanian (4). Samples were sent to one of the foremost AMS laboratories in the world for analysis. The average results
after subtracting the laboratory’s contamination correction of 0.077 pMC for its procedural blank were:
Eocene 0.26 pMC
Cretaceous 0.21 pMC
Pennsylvania 0.27 pMC [22]
Although the number of samples is small, the team concluded that these results indicated only a slight difference based
on geological position. They further state that this is consistent with almost simultaneous burial during the Genesis Flood. [23] Using
uniformitarian assumptions, the above results indicate that the samples are about 50,000 radiocarbon years, as compared to millions
of years ago (Mya) based on the conventional geological ages, as follows:
Eocene 55.8 to 33.9 Mya
Cretaceous 145.5 to 65.5 Mya
Pennsylvania 318.1 to
299.0 Mya [24]
The presence of intrinsic 14C in these ten samples that should be 14C dead by the conventional geological timeline of
millions and hundreds of millions of years old is an anomaly tending to indicate a much younger earth. In fact, based on the
uniformitarian assumption of constant decay rate “a lump of 14C as massive as the earth would have all decayed in less than a million
years.” [25]
But the about 50,000 radiocarbon years ago for the Genesis Flood is still many years more than the Biblical chronology
that places the flood at about 4,500 years ago? This is not a problem when the uncertainty of the radiocarbon years is considered.
The pMC is based on the modern atmospheric 14C/12C ratio and that ratio could have been much different before the flood based on
(1) the immense amount of carbon that has been lost to the atmosphere by incorporation into coal, oil, natural gas, peat, limestone, and
marble, and
(2) the amount of 14C in the atmosphere could have been much less before the flood due to a much stronger earth’s
magnetic field.
But what about the long half-life radioactive isotopes on which the conventional geological timeline
was premised? The RATE team believe they have this answer as well through
(1) zircon crystals with an alleged 1.5 - billion years
age based on radioisotope dating recovered from Precambrian granitic rock in New Mexico. [26] Yet, tests indicate they contain huge
concentrations of helium from uranium decay that should have diffused thousands of years ago. [27] [28] [29] This provides strong
evidence for one or more periods of accelerated nuclear decay in the past and a young age for the earth. [30]
(2) the large
number of parentless polonium halos that should not be there due to a very short half-live (3.1 minutes) found in rocks attributed
by creationists to the Genesis Flood “appear to require an extreme amount of accelerated nuclear decay during this period”, [31] and
(3) analysis of the possible sources of 14C present in natural diamonds indicating the likely source as “a recent episode of accelerated
nuclear decay corresponding to, say, 500 million years worth of U decay.” [32]
The results of these investigations tend strongly
to indicate that radioactive decay rates have been greatly accelerated in the past perhaps during creation week or during the Genesis
Flood.
“AMS analyses reveal carbon from fossil remains of living organisms, regardless of their position in the geological record,
consistently contains 14C levels well in excess of the AMS machine threshold, even when extreme pre-treatment methods are applied.”[33]
The interested reader is highly encouraged to read the references in this section which contain a wealth of information on this
and other related topics.
Atmospheric 14C/12C Ratio Calibration
Every scientific theory needs to be critically reviewed and tested
before it can be established tentatively as fact. Initial “(t)ests against sequoia with known dates from their trees rings showed
radiocarbon dating to be reliable and accurate.” [34] Also, the accuracy was tested against other items datable by other techniques
with “reasonable” results.
“As measurements became more precise, however, it gradually became apparent that there were systematic
discrepancies between the dates that were being obtained and those that could be expected from historical evidence [i.e., the traditional
dates]. These differences were most marked in the period before about the mid first millennium B.C., in which radiocarbon dates appear
too recent, by up to several hundred years, by comparison with historical dates. Dates for the earliest comparative material available,
reeds used as bonding between mud brick courses of tombs of Egyptians Dynasty I, about 3,100 B.C., appeared to be as much as 600 years,
or about 12% too young” [35]
“Neither the pre-existing Egyptian chronology nor the new radiocarbon dating method could be assumed to
be accurate, but a third possibility was that the 14C/12C ratio had changed over time." [36]
Originally with the radiocarbon dating
method, it was assumed that the atmosphere’s natural 14C/12C ratio had reached equilibrium prior to the dating limits of 14C. It is
now well known that the atmosphere’s natural 14C/12C ratio has not reached equilibrium and is still changing over time. The atmospheric14C/12C ratio at the time of the organic artifact’s death is critical to the accuracy of the carbon-14 dating method. Therefore,
researchers have attempted to develop calibration curves for atmospheric 14C/12C ratios versus past dates by testing many organic
artifacts (e.g., wood from gates, bones, charcoal) with known historical dates.
Other attempts at calibration include dendrochronology
(tree ring counting), varves (counting lake deposit sedimentary layering), and ice cores (counting ice layers). All these methods
make the same uniformitarian assumption that each tree ring, except for some considered false, or layer represents one year.
Dendrochronology
Dendrochronology is the technique of counting and measuring
tree growth rings to estimate tree age and past climatic changes. If a tree dies with all the growth rings present and the date of
its death is known, the outermost growth ring which is also the youngest growth ring at the time of death has that date. Sequentially
the next growth ring is the next youngest, etc. and the innermost growth ring the oldest. It is generally assumed that each
growth ring represents one year; however, this is not always the case and under certain climatic conditions may be the exception.
“Investigation reveals that growth may cease at any time after it begins and may be reinitiated at almost any time after it ceases;
that the amount of xylem may be limited to a few cells only or may include a layer over the entire aerial plant body; that growth
rhythms are not necessarily geared to an annual cycle; that one or several flushes may be recorded by xylem in one year; that the
growth layers resulting from intra-annual flushes may, and commonly do, possess outer borders indistinguishable from the borders terminating
the annual increment...” [37]
“Trees also add one ring for each rainy season within a year. If the climate of a particular region
is wet year-round, as in the tropics, rings tend to be very thick and almost indistinguishable. If the climate of an area has two
distinct rainy seasons separated by periods of no rain, trees will add two rings per year. Now, here's a problem to consider. How
might one interpret tree rings if an area with bimodal rainfall experiences an anomolous year in which there is only one rainy season?
Clearly, dendrology isn't as easy and clearcut as it might seem at first glance.” [38]
“Recent research on seasonal effects on tree
rings in ... the plantation pine Pinus radiata, has revealed that up to five rings per year can be produced and extra rings are often
indistinguishable, even under the microscope, from annual rings.” [39]
The preceding quotations indicate that the outer borders of
the growth rings from intra-annual flushes can be indistinguishable from annual growth rings. Further, they indicate the number of
growth rings per annum are dependent on the number of rainy seasons per annum. And rainfall varies significantly from location to
location within a region during the year. Summer storms are hit and miss. So, the determination of which growth rings are annual can
be quite subjective lacking the weather history at the tree’s location. Also, there is the issue of supposedly missing growth
rings based on comparisons with other trees of the same species in the same area.
Oldest living trees?
No living tree is claimed to
be over 5,000 years old based on its growth rings. There are some living trees claimed to be much older than this including an aspen
clone named Pando in central Utah and a Norway spruce clone in Sweden named Old Tjikko.
Pando’s age said to be 80,000 years old in
many articles, often with no source given, turns out to be only someone’s guess repeated over and again. “Due to the progressive replacement
of stems and roots, the overall age of an aspen clone cannot be determined from tree rings.” [40] “Aspen trees usually do not live
more than 150 years, though they may persist more than 200 years.” [41] Having such a short life span makes an aspen clone
unsatisfactory for atmospheric 14C/12C ratio calibration.
Old Tjikko is claimed to be 9,550 years old. It is a clonal tree that regenerates
new trunks, branches, and roots rather than an individual tree of great age. Its age was dated not by counting growth rings but by
carbon dating of genetically matched material collected from under the tree. The trunk is estimated as only a few hundred years old.[42] A review by Dr. Gordon L. Mackenthun, General Secretary of the European Champion Tree Forum of the original publications
of the discovers of Old Tjikko, finds and concludes that
“(S)pruces in the Swedish mountains may reach 100-600 years of age but not
nearly 10,000 years. There is neither evidence of genetic continuity between deadwood remains discovered beneath the allegedly 9550-year-old
tree and the living tree itself. Nor is there evidence of a clonal origin of the spruce. On the contrary, it must be assumed that
it reproduces sexually.” [43]
Atmospheric 14C/12C ratio calibration requires organic items of known ages to correlate with their 14C/12C
ratio. The wood found under Old Tjikko provides only 14C/12C ratios.
Extending tree chronologies back in time
Cross-matching is a process
were rings of fragments of dead wood found near a living tree of the same species are matched to rings of the living tree attempting
to extend the chronology. This scheme is not without problems including which rings are annual, auto correlation and the bias of the
person doing the matching. One source of auto correlation may be the trees’ response to an event (e.g. a drought) in one year affecting
the growth ring sequence in subsequent years; if there are similar events in other years, the trees’ response in forming growth ring
sequences will be similar in the following years.
“Yamaguchi recognized that tree rings tend to “auto correlate” or actually
cross-match with each other in several places within a tree-ring sequence...” He took a 290-ring Douglas-fir log and demonstrated
that “it could cross-match with the Pacific Northwest Douglas Fir Master Growth-ring Sequence” in multiple locations. In fact,
six non overlapping matches “could be dated to be any one of ... six vastly different ages to within 99.9% degree of confidence” [44]
Using
cross-matching, dendrochronologists have produced many extended master tree ring chronologies for different kinds of trees in different
environments. The chronologies and 14C/12C calibration curves derived from them are only as good as the assumptions upon which they
are made. The most famous attempt at a tree ring chronology is that of the bristlecone pines (Pinus longaeva) some of which may be
the oldest living trees.
The Bristlecone pines
Bristlecone pines (BCP) are naturally found in the high mountain ranges of the US Southwest
just below the tree line at between 5,600 and 11,200 feet above sea level. [45] The environment there is so hostile because of the
harsh cold, low rainfall and dolomitic soil that only one other type of tree can survive in it. Under these conditions, BCPs grow
very slowly and “examples showing 40 rings per centimeter are very common.” [46]
A living BCP called Methuselah in the White Mountains
of California is said by researchers to have as many as 4,723 rings. [47] Methuselah is not marked to hide its location from souvenir
hunters and some scientists claim that there are older bristlecone pines at secret locations.
As mentioned earlier, are the number
of growth rings a true indication of age? Certain studies have cast doubt on the assertion that BCP produce only one ring per year. A summary of some of the results of those studies are as follows:
Lammerts (1983) found that those BCP saplings “which received a
short (circa 21 days) drought stress period in August of the third growing season showed up having one more growth ring than the control
seedings, that is four growth rings instead of three. Also seedlings which received a two week drought stress period in August
of the fourth growing season showed a similar extra growth ring.” [48]
‘According to certain dendrochronologists, false rings have
a “signature” of a “fuzzy” terminal edge instead of a sharp edge. However, Lammerts did not find the signature in his experimental
plants and argues that false rings formed by the “San Francisco pattern” should not have the signature, as well. Matthews (2006) likewise
found evidence that BCP largely lacked such signatures.” [49]
Matthews (2006) and Woodmorappe (2003a) refer to BCP “trees downslope
in better watered and sheltered locations. These trees may be about the same actual age but have thicker rings that number only
in the hundreds, not thousands, before dying.” [50]
“(R)esearchers have found that in the central area of a stand of BCP trees, where
growing conditions are the best, the trees do not have more than several hundred rings. But at the margins of the stand, where the
soil thins and growing conditions become progressively poorer, the trees with the most rings are found. It seems more probable that
all the trees in the stand are about the same age...” [51]
Some observations regarding the cross-matching of BCP wood fragments are
as follows:
“LaMarche measured living trees on two sites in Nevada, both on the same side of the same mountain.
One site was just 130 meters higher in elevation than the other, near the tree line. The ring widths of the trees from the two sites
showed no general correlation whatsoever.” [52]
“Remains of trees inferred to be exceptionally old (e.g. 8,000 years) do not consistently
appear older than the remains of much younger trees (e.g. 4,000 years). This, at the very least, is consistent with the premise that
the generally accepted difference in age is fictitious.” This researcher further states “crossmatching of the BCP series appears valid.
However, this need not imply the correctness of the long chronologies.” [53]
All BCPs with about 1,500 rings or more develop strip-growth
where “most of the tree has died, but there remains one thin strip of living bark running up the side of the tree providing water
and nutrients to the small portion of the tree’s crown which is still living.” The wood in the barkless portion then erodes away down
to the pith in one or two thousand years. Yet dead fragments used in cross-dating supposedly 7,000 years old lie exposed on the ground
without completely eroding away? [54]
Photographs
(a) NASA
(b) Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons
(c) James St. John, CC BY 2.0, via Wikimedia Commons
(d) Intermountain Forest Service, USDA Region 4 Photography, Public domain,
via Wikimedia Commons
(e) Dcrisr, CC BY-SA 3.0, via Wikimedia Commons
1] Brown, Walt, In the Beginning:
Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood, Special Edition, (Walt Brown: Phoenix, Arizona, 1996), 151
[2] Nuclear weapons testing,
viewed Jul. 22, 2020, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapons_testing
[3] Carbon-14, Wikipedia, viewed Jun. 4, 2020, https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon-14
[4]Carbon-14, viewed Aug. 3, 2020, https://www.radioactivity.eu.com/site/pages/RadioCarbon.htm
[5] Morris, John, The Young Earth, (Master Books: China, 1994, 2007), 63
[6] Carbon-14, Wikipedia, viewed Jun. 4, 2020, https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon-4
[7] Higham, Tom, Isotopic Fractionation, Radiocarbon Laboratory, University of Waikato, New Zealand, 1999, http://www.c14dating.com/frac.html [8] [8] Brown, Walt, Ibid., 10
[9]
Stemmet, M.C., De Bruyn, J.A., and Zeeman, P.B., The Uptake of Carbon Dioxide by Plant Roots, Plant and Soil XVII, No.3, Dec. 1962,
https://www.jstor.org/stable/42931981?seq=1
[10] He, Jie; Austin, Paul; Lee, Sing, “Effects of elevated root zone CO2...”, Journal
of Experimental Botany, Vol. 61, No. 14, 3959-3969, 2010, https://academic.oup.com/jxb/article-pdf/61/14/3959/1400683/erq207.pdf
[11] Aardsma, Gerald A., Myths Regarding Radiocarbon Dating, Mar. 1, 1989, https://www.icr.org/article/myths-regarding-radiocarbon-dating
[12]
Riggs, Alan C., Major Carbon-14 Deficiency in Modern Snail Shells from Southern Nevada Springs, abstract from Science, Vol.
224, Issue 4644, 55-61, Apr. 1984, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1984Sci...224...58R/abstract
[13] Goodfriend Glenn A., Stipp, Jerry J., Limestone and the problem of radiocarbon dating of land-snail shell carbonate, abstract, 1983, https://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/
gsa/geology/article-abstract/11/10/575/187476/Limestone-and-the-problem-of-radiocarbon-dating-of?redirectedFrom=PDF
[14] Baumgardner, John, Carbon Dating Undercuts Evolution's Long Ages, Acts & Facts. 32 (10), 2003, https://www.icr.org/article/117/
[15]Accelerator mass spectrometry (AMS) measurement, University of Oxford, viewed Sep.29, 2020, https://c14.arch.ox.ac.uk/ams.html
[16]Accelerator Mass Spectrometry (AMS) Dating, BETA, https://www.radiocarbon.com/accelerator-mass-spectrometry.htm
[17]
Ibid.
[18] Baumgardner, Ibid.
[19] Hellborg, Ragnar; Skog, Goran, Accelerator mass spectrometry, abstract, May 9, 2008, https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/mas.20172
[20]
Vardiman, L, et al., eds, RATE II: Radioisotopes and the Age of The Earth: Results of a Young-Earth Creationist Research Initiative,
(Vol. II), (San Diego, CA: Institute for Creation Research and the Creation Research Society, 2005), Baumgardner, John, author section
Carbon-14 Evidence for a Recent Global Flood and a Young Earth, 592-594, download, https://www.icr.org/article/carbon-14-evidence-for-recent-global/
[21]
Morris, John, The Young Earth, (Master Books: China, 1994, 2007), 66
[22] Baumgardner, Ibid.
[23] Baumgardner, Ibid.
[24] Geologic time scale - (UCMP), Berkeley, https://ucmp.berkeley.edu/help/timeform.php
[25]
Sarfati, Jonathan, Diamonds, a creationist’s best friend, Apr. 2020, https;//creation.com/diamonds-a-creationists-best-friend
[26]
Humphreys, Russell; Austin, Steven, etal., Helium Diffusion Rates Support Accelerated Nuclear Decay, Answers in Genesis, Feb. 2, 2011,
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/aid/v6/n1/accelerated-nuclear-decay
[27] Ibid.
[28] Ashton, John F., editor, in six
days, (Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 2000), article by Baumgardner, 235
[29] DeYoung, Don, Thousands… Not Billions, (Green Forest,
AR: Master Books, 2005), 78
[30] Humphreys, Ibid.
[31] DeYoung, Ibid., 95
[32] Vardiman et al., Ibid., 619
[33] Ibid., 606
[34] Willard
Libby, Wikipedia, reviewed Oct. 21, 2020, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Willard_Libby
[35] D. Downs, The Chronology of Egypt and Israel,
from Diggings, this quotation available at
https://answersingenesis.org/archaeology/ancient-egypt/doesnt-egyptian-chronology-prove-bible-unreliable/
[36]Radiocarbon dating, Wikipedia, viewed Jul. 13, 2020, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiocarbon_dating
[37] Glock, Waldo S.; Studhalter, R.A.; Agerter, Sharlene R., Classification and Multiplicity of Growth Layers in Branches of Trees, Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections, Vol. 140, No.1, (Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution, 1960), 288
[38] Doolittle, William E., Field Techniques, Dendrochronology, May 13, 2019,
https://www.la.utexas.edu/users/wd/courses/373F/notes/lec20den.html
[39] Batten, Don, Tree ring dating (dendrochronology), Feb. 3, 2006, https://creation.com/tree-ring-dating-dendrochronology
[40] Pando
(tree), Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pando_(tree)
[41] How Aspens Grow, U.S Forest Service, https://www.fs.fed.us/wildflowers/beauty/aspen/grow.shtml
[42]Old Tjikko, Wikipedia, https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/04/080416104320.htm
[43] Mackenthun, G.L., The world’s oldest living
tree discovered in Sweden? A critical review, abstract, 2015, New Journal of Botany, https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/20423489.2015.1123967
[44]
Pitman, Sean, M.D., Carbon-14, Jun. 2004, https://www.detectingdesign.com/carbon14.html
[45] Bristlecone pine, Wikipedia
[46] Morris,
Ibid., 65
[47] Gregg, Daniel, Tree Ring Chronologies Are they Valid? http://www.torahtimes.org/Open%20Directory/tree_ring_bristlecones.htm
[48]
Ibid.
[49] Sanders, R.W., Creationist commentary on and analysis of tree-ring data: A review. In Proceedings of the Eighth International
Conference on Creationism, ed. J.H. Whitmore, (Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania: Creation Science Fellowship), 518 http://creationicc.org/2018_papers/38%20Sanders%20tree%20ring%20review%20final.pdf
[50]
Ibid.
[51] Matthews, Mark, Evidence for multiple ring growth per year in Bristlecone Pines, https://creation.com/evidence-for-multiple-ring-growth-per-year-in-bristlecone-pines,
article from, Journal of Creation 20(3):95-103, Dec. 2006
[52] Pitman, Sean, M.D., Carbon-14, Jun. 2004, https://www.detectingdesign.com/carbon14.html
[53]
Woodmorappe, John, Field studies in the ancient bristlecone pine forest, https://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j17_3/j17_3_119-127.pdf
[54] Matthews, Ibid.
Copyright 2020 All rights reserved.