# Radiocarbon dating on bone 106 park rocsi terrence dating

This gives the clam shell an artificially old *radiocarbon* age.

This problem, known as the "," is not of very great practical importance for **radiocarbon** **dating** since most of the artifacts which are useful for **radiocarbon** **dating** purposes and are of interest to archaeology derive from terrestrial organisms which ultimately obtain their carbon atoms from air, not the water. Samples of coal have been found with **radiocarbon** ages of only 20,000 **radiocarbon** years or less, thus proving the recent origin of fossil fuels, probably in the Flood.

By **radiocarbon** **dating** a piece of wood which has been dated by counting the annual growth rings of trees back to when that piece of wood grew, a calibration table can be constructed to convert **radiocarbon** years to true calendar years.

Of course, the table, so constructed, will only give the correct calibration if the tree-ring chronology which was used to construct it had placed each ring in the true calendar year in which it grew.

MYTH #2 **Radiocarbon** **dating** has established the date of some organic materials (e.g., some peat deposits) to be well in excess of 50,000 years, thus rendering a recent creation (6 to 10 thousand years ago) impossible.

Some organic materials do give *radiocarbon* ages in excess of 50,000 "*radiocarbon* years." However, it is important to distinguish between "*radiocarbon* years" and calendar years.

Since no reliable historically dated artifacts exist which are older than 5,000 years, it has not been possible to determine the relationship of *radiocarbon* years to calendar years for objects which yield dates of tens of thousands of *radiocarbon* years.

Thus, it is possible (and, given the Flood, probable) that materials which give *radiocarbon* dates of tens of thousands of *radiocarbon* years could have true ages of many fewer calendar years. The shells of live freshwater clams have been *radiocarbon* dated in excess of 1600 years old, clearly showing that the *radiocarbon* *dating* technique is not valid.

Several long tree-ring chronologies have been constructed specifically for use in calibrating the **radiocarbon** time scale.For this reason special precautions need to be exercised when sampling materials which contain only small amounts of **radiocarbon**.Reports of young *radiocarbon* ages for coal probably all stem from a misunderstanding of one or both of these two factors.Some may have mistaken this to mean that the sample had been dated to 20,000 *radiocarbon* years.The second characteristic of the measurement of **radiocarbon** is that it is easy to contaminate a sample which contains very little **radiocarbon** with enough **radiocarbon** from the research environment to give it an apparent **radiocarbon** age which is much less than its actual **radiocarbon** age.