How accurate are Carbon-14 and other radioactive dating methods?
P eople who ask about carbon-14 ( 14 C) dating usually want to know about the radiometric[1] dating methods that are claimed to give millions and billions of years—carbon dating can only give thousands of years. People wonder how millions of years could be squeezed into the biblical account of history .
Clearly, such huge time periods cannot be fitted into the Bible without compromising what the Bible says about the goodness of God and the origin of sin, death and suffering — the reason Jesus came into the world (See Six Days? Honestly! ).
Christians. by definition, take the statements of Jesus Christ seriously. He said,
This only makes sense with a time-line beginning with the creation week thousands of years ago. It makes no sense at all if man appeared at the end of billions of years.
We will deal with carbon dating first and then with the other dating methods.
How the carbon clock works
Carbon has unique properties that are essential for life on Earth. Familiar to us as the black substance in charred wood, as diamonds, and the graphite in “lead” pencils, carbon comes in several forms, or isotopes. One rare form has atoms that are 14 times as heavy as hydrogen atoms: carbon-14, or 14 C, or radiocarbon.
Carbon-14 is made when cosmic rays knock neutrons out of atomic nuclei in the upper atmosphere. These displaced neutrons, now moving fast, hit ordinary nitrogen ( 14 N) at lower altitudes, converting it into 14 C. Unlike common carbon ( 12 C), 14 C is unstable and slowly decays, changing it back to nitrogen and releasing energy. This instability makes it radioactive.
Ordinary carbon ( 12 C)is found in the carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) in the air, which is taken up by plants, which in turn are eaten by animals. So a bone, or a leaf or a tree, or even a piece of wooden furniture, contains carbon. When the 14 C has been formed, like ordinary carbon ( 12 C), it combines with oxygen to give carbon dioxide ( 14 CO 2 ), and so it also gets cycled through the cells of plants and animals.
We can take a sample of air, count how many 12 C atoms there are for every 14 C atom, and calculate the 14 C/ 12 C ratio. Because 14 C is so well mixed up with 12 C, we expect to find that this ratio is the same if we sample a leaf from a tree, or a part of your body.
In living things, although 14 C atoms are constantly changing back to 14 N, they are still exchanging carbon with their surroundings, so the mixture remains about the same as in the atmosphere. However, as soon as a plant or animal dies, the 14 C atoms which decay are no longer replaced, so the amount of 14 C in that once-living thing decreases as time goes on. In other words, the 14 C/ 12 C ratio gets smaller. So, we have a “clock” which starts ticking the moment something dies.
Obviously, this works only for things which were once living. It cannot be used to date volcanic rocks, for example.
The rate of decay of 14 C is such that half of an amount will convert back to 14 N in 5,730 years (plus or minus 40 years). This is the “half-life.” So, in two half-lives, or 11,460 years, only one-quarter of that in living organisms at present, then it has a theoretical age of 11,460 years. Anything over about 50,000 years old, should theoretically have no detectable 14 C left. That is why radiocarbon dating cannot give millions of years. In fact, if a sample contains 14 C, it is good evidence that it is not millions of years old.
However, things are not quite so simple. First, plants discriminate against carbon dioxide containing 14 C. That is, they take up less than would be expected and so they test older than they really are. Furthermore, different types of plants discriminate differently. This also has to be corrected for.[2]
Second, the ratio of 14 C/ 12 C in the atmosphere has not been constant—for example, it was higher before the industrial era when the massive burning of fossil fuels released a lot of carbon dioxide that was depleted in 14 C. This would make things which died at that time appear older in terms of carbon dating. Then there was a rise in 14 CO 2 with the advent of atmospheric testing of atomic bombs in the 1950s.[3] This would make things carbon-dated from that time appear younger than their true age.
Measurement of 14 C in historically dated objects (e. g. seeds in the graves of historically dated tombs) enables the level of 14 C in the atmosphere at that time to be estimated, and so partial calibration of the “clock” is possible. Accordingly, carbon dating carefully applied to items from historical times can be useful. However, even with such historical calibration, archaeologists do not regard 14 C dates as absolute because of frequent anomalies. They rely more on dating methods that link into historical records.
Outside the range of recorded history, calibration of the 14 C "clock is not possible.[4]
Other factors affecting carbon dating
The amount of cosmic rays penetrating the Earth's atmosphere affects the amount of 14 C produced and therefore dating the system. The amount of cosmic rays reaching the Earth varies with the sun's activity, and with the Earth's passage through magnetic clouds as the solar system travels around the Milky Way galaxy.
The strength of the Earth's magnetic field affects the amount of cosmic rays entering the atmosphere. A stronger magnetic field deflects more cosmic rays away from the Earth. Overall, the energy of the Earth's magnetic field has been decreasing,[5] so more 14 C is being produced now than in the past. This will make old things look older than they really are.
Also, the Genesis flood would have greatly upset the carbon balance. The flood buried a huge amount of carbon, which became coal, oil, etc. lowering the total 12 C in the biosphere (including the atmosphere—plants regrowing after the flood absorb CO 2 . which is not replaced by the decay of the buried vegetation). Total 14 C is also proportionately lowered at this time, but whereas no terrestrial process generates any more 12 C, 14 C is continually being produced, and at a rate which does not depend on carbon levels (it comes from nitrogen). Therefore, the 14 C/ 12 C ratio in plants/animals/the atmosphere before the flood had to be lower than what it is now.
Unless this effect (which is additional to the magnetic field issue just discussed) were corrected for, carbon dating of fossils formed in the flood would give ages much older than the true ages.
Creationist researchers have suggested that dates of 35,000 - 45,000 years should be re-calibrated to the biblical date of the flood.[6] Such a re-calibration makes sense of anomalous data from carbon dating—for example, very discordant “dates” for different parts of a frozen musk ox carcass from Alaska and an inordinately slow rate of accumulation of ground sloth dung pellets in the older layers of a cave where the layers were carbon dated.[7]
Also, volcanoes emit much CO 2 depleted in 14 C. Since the flood was accompanied by much volcanism (see Noah's Flood…. How did animals get from the Ark to isolated places?. and What About Continental Drift? ), fossils formed in the early post-flood period would give radiocarbon ages older than they really are.
In summary, the carbon-14 method, when corrected for the effects of the flood, can give useful results, but needs to be applied carefully. It does not give dates of millions of years and when corrected properly fits well with the biblical flood.
Other radiometric dating methods
There are various other radiometric dating methods used today to give ages of millions or billions of years for rocks. These techniques, unlike carbon dating, mostly use the relative concentrations of parent and daughter products in radioactive decay chains. For example, potassium-40 decays to argon-40; uranium-238 decays to lead-206 via other elements like radium; uranium-235 decays to lead-207; rubidium-87 decays to strontium-87; etc. These techniques are applied to igneous rocks, and are normally seen as giving the time since solidification.
The isotope concentrations can be measured very accurately, but isotope concentrations are not dates. To derive ages from such measurements, unprovable assumptions have to be made such as:
The starting conditions are known (for example, that there was no daughter isotope present at the start, or that we know how much was there).
Decay rates have always been constant.
Systems were closed or isolated so that no parent or daughter isotopes were lost or added.
There are patterns in the isotope data.
There is plenty of evidence that the radioisotope dating systems are not the infallible techniques many think, and that they are not measuring millions of years. However, there are still patterns to be explained. For example, deeper rocks often tend to give older “ages.” Creationists agree that the deeper rocks are generally older, but not by millions of years. Geologist John Woodmorappe, in his devastating critique of radioactive dating,[8] points out that there are other large-scale trends in the rocks that have nothing to do with radioactive decay.
“Bad” dates
When a “date” differs from that expected, researchers readily invent excuses for rejecting the result. The common application of such posterior reasoning shows that radiometric dating has serious problems. Woodmorappe cites hundreds of examples of excuses used to explain “bad” dates.[9]
For example, researchers applied posterior reasoning to the dating of Australopithecus ramidus fossils.[10] Most samples of basalt closest to the fossil-bearing strata give dates of about 23 Ma ( M ega a nnum . million years) by the argon-argon method. The authors decided that was “too old,” according to their beliefs about the place of the fossils in the evolutionary grand scheme of things. So they looked at some basalt further removed from the fossils and selected 17 of 26 samples to get an acceptable maximum age of 4.4 Ma. The other nine samples again gave much older dates but the authors decided they must be contaminated and discarded them. That is how radiometric dating works. It is very much driven by the existing long-age world view that pervades academia today.
A similar story surrounds the dating of the primate skull known as KNM-ER 1470.[11] This started with an initial 212 to 230 Ma, which, according to the fossils . was considered way off the mark (humans “weren't around then"). Various other attempts were made to date the volcanic rocks in the area. Over the years an age of 2.9 Ma was settled upon because of the agreement between several different published studies (although the studies involved selection of “good” from “bad” results, just like Australopithecus ramidus . above).
However, preconceived notions about human evolution could not cope with a skull like 1470 being “that old.” A study of pig fossils in Africa readily convinced most anthropologists that the 1470 skull was much younger. After this was widely accepted, further studies of the rocks brought the radiometric age down to about 1.9 Ma—again several studies “confirmed” this date. Such is the dating game.
Are we suggesting that evolutionists are conspiring to massage the data to get what they want? No, not generally. It is simply that all observations must fit the prevailing paradigm. The paradigm, or belief system, of molecules-to-man evolution over eons of time, is so strongly entrenched it is not questioned—it is a “fact.” So every observation must fit this paradigm. Unconsciously, the researchers, who are supposedly “objective scientists” in the eyes of the public, select the observations to fit the basic belief system.
We must remember that the past is not open to the normal processes of experimental science, that is, repeatable experiments in the present. A scientist cannot do experiments on events that happened in the past. Scientists do not measure the age of rocks, they measure isotope concentrations, and these can be measured extremely accurately. However, the “age” is calculated using assumptions about the past that cannot be proven.
We should remember God's admonition to Job, “Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth?” (Job 38:4 ).
Those involved with unrecorded history gather information in the present and construct stories about the past. The level of proof demanded for such stories seems to be much less than for studies in the empirical sciences, such as physics, chemistry, molecular biology, physiology, etc.
Williams, an expert in the environmental fate of radioactive elements, identified 17 flaws in the isotope dating reported in just three widely respected seminal papers that supposedly established the age of the Earth at 4.6 billion years.[12] John Woodmorappe has produced an incisive critique of these dating methods.[13] He exposes hundreds of myths that have grown up around the techniques. He shows that the few “good” dates left after the “bad” dates are filtered out could easily be explained as fortunate coincidences.
What date would you like?
The forms issued by radioisotope laboratories for submission with samples to be dated commonly ask how old the sample is expected to be. Why? If the techniques were absolutely objective and reliable, such information would not be necessary. Presumably, the laboratories know that anomalous dates are common, so they need some check on whether they have obtained a “good” date.
Testing radiometric dating methods
If the long-age dating techniques were really objective means of finding the ages of rocks, they should work in situations where we know the age. Furthermore, different techniques should consistently agree with one another.
Methods should work reliably on things of known age
There are many examples where the dating methods give “dates” that are wrong for rocks of known age. One example is K-Ar “dating” of five historical andesite lava flows from Mount Nguaruhoe in New Zealand. Although one lava flow occurred in 1949, three in 1954, and one in 1975, the “dates” range from less than 0.27 to 3.5 Ma.[14]
Again, using hindsight, it is argued that “excess” argon from the magma (molten rock) was retained in the rock when it solidified. The secular scientific literature lists many examples of excess argon causing dates of millions of years in rocks of known historical age.[15] This excess appears to have come from the upper mantle, below the Earth's crust. This is consistent with a young world—the argon has had too little time to escape.[16] If excess argon can cause exaggerated dates for rocks of known age, then why should we trust the method for rocks of unknown age?
Other techniques, such as the use of isochrons,[17] make different assumptions about starting conditions, but there is a growing recognition that such “foolproof” techniques can also give “bad” dates. So data are again selected according to what the researcher already believes about the age of the rock.
Geologist Dr. Steve Austin sampled basalt from the base of the Grand Canyon strata and from the lava that spilled over the edge of the canyon. By evolutionary reckoning, the latter should be a billion years younger than the basalt from the bottom. Standard laboratories analyzed the isotopes. The rubidium-strontium isochron technique suggested that the recent lava flow was 270 Ma older than the basalts beneath the Grand Canyon—an impossibility.
Different dating techniques should consistently agree
If the dating methods are an objective and reliable means of determining ages, they should agree. If a chemist were measuring the sugar content of blood, all valid methods for the determination would give the same answer (within the limits of experimental error). However, with radiometric dating, the different techniques often give quite different results.
In the study of the Grand Canyon rocks by Austin, different techniques gave different results.[18] Again, all sorts of reasons can be suggested for the “bad” dates, but this is again posterior reasoning. Techniques that give results that can be dismissed just because they don't agree with what we already believe cannot be considered objective.
In Australia, some wood found the Tertiary basalt was clearly buried in the lava flow that formed the basalt, as can be seen from the charring. The wood was “dated” by radiocarbon ( 14 C) analysis at about 45,000 years old, but the basalt was “dated” by potassium-argon method at 45 million years old![19]
Isotope ratios or uraninite crystals from the Koongarra uranium body in the Northern Territory of Australia gave lead-lead isochron ages of 841 Ma, plus or minus 140 Ma.[20] This contrasts with an age of 1550-1650 Ma based on other isotope ratios,[21] and ages of 275, 61, 0,0,and 0 Ma for thorium/lead ( 232 Th/ 208 Pb) ratios in five uraninite grains. The latter figures are significant because thorium-derived dates should be the more reliable, since thorium is less mobile than the uranium minerals that are the parents of the lead isotopes in lead-lead system.[22] The “zero” ages in this case are consistent with the Bible.
More evidence something is wrong —
14 C in fossils supposedly millions of years old
Carbon Dating in many cases seriously embarrasses evolutionists by giving ages that are much younger than those expected from their model of early history. A specimen older than 50,000 years should have too little 14 C to measure.
Laboratories that measure 14 C would like a source of organic material with zero 14 C to use as a blank to check that their lab procedures do not add 14 C. Coal is an obvious candidate because the youngest coal is supposed to be millions of years old, and most of it is supposed to be tens or hundreds of millions of years old. Such old coal should be devoid of 14 C. It isn't. No source of coal has been found that completely lacks 14 C .
Fossil wood found in “Upper Permian” rock that is supposedly 250 Ma old still contained 14 C.[23] Recently, a sample of wood found in rock classified as “middle Triassic,” supposedly some 230 million years old, gave a 14 C date of 33,720 years, plus or minus 430 years.[24] The accompanying checks showed that the 14 C date was not due to contamination and that the “date” was valid, within the standard (long ages) understanding of this dating system.
It is an unsolved mystery to evolutionists as to why coal has 14 C in it,[25]. or wood supposedly millions of years old still has 14 C present, but it makes perfect sense in a creationist world view.
Many physical evidences contradict the “billions of years”
Of the methods that have been used to estimate the age of the Earth, 90 percent point to an age far less than the billions of years asserted by evolutionists. A few of them follow.
Evidence for a rapid formation of geological strata, as in the biblical flood. Some of the evidences are: lack of erosion between rock layers supposedly separated in age by many millions of years; lack of disturbance of rock strata by biological activity (worms, roots, etc.); lack of soil layers; polystrate fossils (which traverse several rock layers vertically—these could not have stood vertically for eons of time while they slowly got buried); thick layers of “rock” bent without fracturing, indicating that the rock was all soft when bent; and more. For more, see books by geologists Morris[26] and Austin.[27]
Red blood cells and hemoglobin have been found in some (unfossilized!) dinosaur bone. But these could not last more than a few thousand years—certainly not the 65 Ma since the last dinosaurs lived, according to evolutionists.[28]
The Earth's magnetic field has been decaying so fast that it looks like it is less than 10,000 years old. Rapid reversals during the flood year and fluctuations shortly after would have caused the field energy to drop even faster.[29]
Radioactive decay releases helium into the atmosphere, but not much is escaping. The total amount in the atmosphere is 1/2000th of that expected if the universe is really billions of years old. This helium originally escaped from rocks. This happens quite fast, yet so much helium is still in some rocks that it has not had time to escape—certainly not billions of years.[30]
A supernova is an explosion of a massive star—the explosion is so bright that it briefly outshines the rest of the galaxy. The supernova remnants (SNRs) should keep expanding for hundreds of thousands of years, according to physical equations. Yet there are no very old, widely expanded (Stage 3) SNRs, and few moderately old (Stage 1) ones in our galaxy, the Milky Way, or in its satellite galaxies, the Magellanic Clouds. This is just what we would expect for “young” galaxies that have not existed long enough for wide expansion.[31]
The moon is slowly receding for the Earth at about 4 centimeters (1.5 inches) per year, and this rate would have been greater in the past. But even if the moon had started receding from being in contact with the Earth, it would have taken only 1.37 billion years to reach its present distance from the Earth. This gives a maximum age of the moon, not the actual age. This is far too young for evolutionists who claim the moon is 4.6 billion years old. It is also much younger than the radiometric “dates” assigned to moon rocks.[32]
Salt is entering the sea much faster than it is escaping. The sea is not nearly salty enough for this to have been happening for billions of years. Even granting generous assumptions to evolutionists, the sea could not be more than 62 Ma years old—far younger than the billions of years believed by the evolutionists. Again, this indicates a maximum age, not the actual age.[33]
Dr. Russell Humphreys gives other processes inconsistent with billions of years in the pamphlet Evidence for a Young World .[34]
Creationists cannot prove the age of the Earth using a particular scientific method, any more than evolutionists can. They realize that all science is tentative because we do not have all the data, especially when dealing with the past. This is true of both creationist and evolutionist scientific arguments—evolutionists have had to abandon many “proofs” for evolution just as creationists have also had to modify their arguments. The atheistic evolutionist W. B. Provine admitted:
“Most of what I learned of the field [evolutionary biology] in graduate (1964-68) school is either wrong or significantly changed.”[35]
Creationists understand the limitations of dating methods better than evolutionists who claim that they can use processes observed in the present to “prove” that the Earth is billions of years old. In reality, all dating methods, including those that point to a young Earth, rely on unprovable assumptions.
Creationists ultimately date the Earth historically using the chronology of the Bible. This is because they believe that this is an accurate eyewitness account of world history, which bears the evidence within it that it is the Word of God. and therefore totally reliable and error-free .
Then what do the radiometric “dates” mean?
What the do the radiometric dates of millions of years mean, if they are not true ages? To answer this question, it is necessary to scrutinize further the experimental results from the various dating techniques, the interpretations made on the basis of the results and the assumptions underlying those interpretations.
The isochron dating technique was thought to be infallible because it supposedly covered the assumptions about starting conditions and closed systems.
Geologist Dr. Andrew Snelling worked on “dating the Koongarra uranium deposits in the Northern Territory of Australia, primarily using the uranium-thorium-lead (U-Th-Pb) method. He found that even highly weathered soil samples from the area, which are definitely not closed systems, gave apparently valid “isochron” lines with “ages” of up to 1,445 Ma.
Such “false isochrons” are so common that a whole terminology has grown up to describe them, such as apparent isochron, mantle isochron, pseudoisochron, secondary isochron, inherited isochron, erupted isochron, mixing line and mixing isochron. Zheng wrote:
Some of the basic assumptions of the conventional Rb-Sr [rubidium-strontium] isochron method have to be modified and an observed isochron does not certainly define valid age information for a geological system, even if a goodness of fit of the experimental results is obtained in plotting 87 Sr/ 86 Sr. This problem cannot be overlooked, especially in evaluating the numerical time scale. Similar questions can also arise in applying Sm-Nd [samarium-neodymium] and U-Pb [uranium-lead] isochron methods.[37]
Clearly, there are factors other than age responsible for the straight lines obtained from graphing isotope ratios. Again, the only way to know if an isochron is “good” is by comparing the result with what is already believed.
Another currently popular dating method is the uranium-lead concordia technique. This effectively combines the two uranium-lead decay series into one diagram. Results that lie on the concordia curve have the same age according to the two lead series and are called “concordant.” However, the results from zircons (a type of gemstone), for example, generally lie off the concordia curve—they are discordant. Numerous models, or stories, have been developed to explain such data.[38] However, such exercises in story-telling can hardly be considered as objective science that proves an old Earth. Again, the stories are evaluated according to their own success in agreeing with the existing long ages belief system.
Andrew Snelling has suggested that fractionation (sorting) of elements in the molten state in the Earth's mantle could be a significant factor in explaining the ratios of isotope concentrations which are interpreted as ages.
As long ago as 1966, Nobel Prize nominee Melvin Cook. professor of metallurgy at the University of Utah, pointed out evidence that lead isotope ratios, for example, may involve alteration by important factors other than radioactive decay.[39] Cook noted that, in ores from the Katanga mine, for example, there was an abundance of lead-208, a stable isotope, but no Thorium-232 as a source for lead-208. Thorium has a long half-life (decays very slowly) and is not easily moved out of the rock, so if the lead-208 came from thorium decay, some thorium should still be there. The concentrations of lead-206, lead-207, and lead-208 suggest that the lead-208 came about by neutron capture conversion of lead-206 to lead-207 to lead-208. When the isotope concentrations are adjusted for such conversions, the ages calculated are reduced from some 600 Ma to recent. Other ore bodies seemed to show similar evidence. Cook recognized that the current understanding of nuclear physics did not seem to allow for such a conversion under normal conditions, but he presents evidence that such did happen, and even suggests how it could happen.
Anomalies in deep rock crystals
Physicist Dr. Robert Gentry has pointed out that the amount of helium and lead in zircons from deep bores is not consistent with an evolutionary age of 1,500 Ma for the granite rocks in which they are found.[40] The amount of lead may be consistent with current rates of decay over millions of years, but it would have diffused out of the crystals in that time.
Furthermore, the amount of helium in zircons from hot rock is also much more consistent with a young Earth (helium derives from the decay of radioactive elements).
The lead and helium results suggest that rates of radioactive decay may have been much higher in the recent past. Humphreys has suggested that this may have occurred during creation week and the flood. This would make things look much older than they really are when current rates of decay are applied to dating. Whatever caused such elevated rates of decay may also have been responsible for the lead isotope conversions claimed by Cook (above).
Orphan radiohalos
Decaying radioactive particles in solid rock cause spherical zones of damage to the surrounding crystal structure. A speck of radioactive element such as Uranium-238, for example, will leave a sphere of discoloration of characteristically different radius for each element it produces in its decay chain to lead-206.[41] Viewed in cross-section with a microscope, these spheres appear as rings called radiohalos. Dr. Gentry has researched radiohalos for many years, and published his results in leading scientific journals.[42]
Some of the intermediate decay products—such as the polonium isotopes—have very short half-lives (they decay quickly). For example, 218 Po has a half-life of just 3 minutes. Curiously, rings formed by polonium decay are often found embedded in crystals without the parent uranium halos. Now the polonium has to get into the rock before the rock solidifies, but it cannot derive a from a uranium speck in the solid rock, otherwise there would be a uranium halo. Either the polonium was created (primordial, not derived from uranium), or there have been radical changes in decay rates in the past .
Gentry has addressed all attempts to criticize his work.[43] There have been many attempts, because the orphan halos speak of conditions in the past, either at creation or after, perhaps even during the flood, which do not fit with the uniformitarian view of the past, which is the basis of the radiometric dating systems. Whatever process was responsible for the halos could be a key also to understanding radiometric dating.[44]
Conclusion
There are many lines of evidence that the radiometric dates are not the objective evidence for an old Earth that many claim, and that the world is really only thousands of years old. We don't have all the answers, but we do have the sure testimony of the Word of God to the true history of the world.
Footnotes
Also known as isotope or radioisotope dating.
Today, a stable carbon isotope, 13 C. is measured as an indication of the level of discrimination against 14 C.
Radiation from atomic testing, like cosmic rays, causes the conversion of 14 N to 14 C.
Tree ring dating (dendrochronology) has been used in an attempt to extend the calibration of 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, assuming straight-line extrapolation backwards. Then cross-matching of ring patterns is used to calibrate the carbon “clock”—a somewhat circular process which does not give an independent calibration of the carbon dating system.
K. L. McDonald and R. H. Gunst, “An Analysis of the Earth's Magnetic Field from 1835 to 1965,” ESSA Technical Report IER 46-IES . 1965, U. S. Government Printing Office, Washington D. C. p. 14.
B. J. Taylor, “Carbon Dioxide in the Antediluvian Atmosphere,” Creation Research Society Quarterly . 1994, 30(4):193-197.
R. H. Brown, “Correlation of C-14 Age with Real Time,” Creation Research Society Quarterly . 1992, 29:45-47. Musk ox muscle was dated at 24,000 years, but hair was dated at 17,000 years. Corrected dates bring the difference in age approximately within the life span of an ox. With sloth cave dung, standard carbon dates of the lower layers suggested less than 2 pellets per year were produced by the sloths. Correcting the dates increased the number to a more realistic 1.4 per day.
J. Woodmorappe, The Mythology of Modern Dating Methods (San Diego, CA: Institute for Creation Research, 1999).
Ibid.
G. WoldeGabriel et al. “Ecological and Temporal Placement of Early Pliocene Hominids at Aramis, Ethiopia,” Nature . 1994, 371:330-333.
M. Lubenow, “The Pigs Took It All,” Creation . 1995, 17(3):36-38.
M. Lubenow, Bones of Contention (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1993), pp. 247-266.
A. R. Williams, “Long-age Isotope Dating Short on Credibility,” CEN Technical Journal . 1992, 6(1):2-5.
Woodmorappe, The Mythology of Modern Dating Methods .
A. A. Snelling, “The Cause of Anomalous Potassium-argon 'Ages' for Recent Andesite Flows at Mt. Nguaruhoe, New Zealand, and the Implications for Potassium-argon 'Dating,'” Proc. 4th ICC . 1998, pp.503-525.
Footnote 14 lists many instances. For example, six cases were reported by D. Krummenacher, “Isotopic Composition of Argon in Modern Surface Rocks,” Earth and Planetary Science Letters . 1969, 6:47-55. A large excess was reported in D. E. Fisher, “Excess Rare Gases in a Subaerial Basalt in Nigeria,” Nature . 1970, 232:60-61.
Snelling, “The Cause of Anomalous Potassium-argon 'Ages'…,” p. 520.
The isochron technique involves collecting a number of rock samples from different parts of the rock unit being dated. The concentration of a parent radioactive isotope, such as rubidium-87, is graphed against the concentration of a daughter isotope, such as strontium-87, for all the samples. A straight line is drawn through these points, representing the ratio of the parent:daughter, from which a date is calculated. If the line is of good fit and the “age” is acceptable, it is a “good” date. The method involves dividing both the parent and daughter concentrations by the concentration of a similar stable isotope—in this case, strontium-86.
S. A. Austin, editor, Grand Canyon: Monument to Catastrophe (Santee, CA: Institute for Creation Research, 1994), pp. 120-131.
A. A. Snelling, “Radiometric Dating in Conflict,” Creation . 1998, 20(1):24-27.
A. A. Snelling, “The Failure of U-Th-Pb 'Dating' at Koongarra, Australia,” CEN Technical Journal . 1995, 9(1):71-92.
R. Maas, “Nd-Sr Isotope Constraints on the Age and Origin of Unconformity-type Uranium Deposits in the Alligator Rivers Uranium Field, Northern Territory, Australia, Economic Geology . 1989, 84:64-90.
Snelling, “The Failure of U-Th-Pb ‘Dating’…”
A. A. Snelling, “Dating Dilemma,” Creation . 1999, 21(3):39-41.
D. C. Lowe, “Problems Associated with the Use of Coal as a Source of 14 C Free Background Material,” Radiocarbon . 1989, 31:117-120.
J. Morris, The Young Earth (Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 1994).
Austin, Grand Canyon: Monument to Catastrophe .
C. Wieland, “Sensational Dinosaur Blood Report!” Creation . 1997, 19(4):42-43, based on M. Schweitzer and T. Staedter, “The Real Jurassic Park,” Earth . June 1997, pp. 55-57.
D. R. Humphreys, “Reversals of the Earth's Magnetic Field During the Genesis Flood,” Proc. First ICC . Pittsburgh, PA, 1986, 2:113-126.
J. D. Sarfati, “The Earth's Magnetic Field: Evidence That the Earth Is Young,” Creation . 1998, 20(2):15-19.
L. Vardiman, The Age of the Earth's Atmosphere: A Study of the Helium Flux through the Atmosphere (San Diego, CA: Institute for Creation Research, 1990).
J. D. Sarfati, “Blowing Old-Earth Belief Away: Helium Gives Evidence That the Earth is Young,” Creation . 1998, 20(3):19-21.
K. Davies, “Distribution of Supernova Remnants in the Galaxy,” Proc. Third ICC . R. E. Walsh, editor, 1994, pp. 175-184.
D. DeYoung, “The Earth-Moon System,” Proc. Second ICC . 1990, 2:79-84, R. E. Walsh and C. L. Brooks, editors.
J. D. Sarfati, “The Moon: The Light That Rules the Night,” Creation . 1998, 20(4):36-39.
S. A. Austin and D. R. Humphreys, “The Sea's Missing Salt: A Dilemma for Evolutionists,” Proc. Second ICC . 1990, 2:17-33.
J. D. Sarfati, “Salty Seas: Evidence for a Young Earth,” Creation . 1999, 21(1):16-17.
Russell Humphreys, Evidence for a Young World (Answers in Genesis, 1999).
A review of Teaching about Evolution and the Nature of Science (National Academy of Science USA, 1998) by Dr. Will B. Provine, online at http://fp. bio. utk. edu/darwin/NAS_guidebook/provine_1.html, February 18, 1999.
See Woodmorappe, The Mythology of Modern Dating Methods . for one such thorough evaluation.
Y. F. Zheng, “Influence of the Nature of Initial Rb-Sr System on Isochron Validity,” Chemical Geology . 1989, 80:1-16 (p. 14).
E. Jager and J. C. Hunziker, editors, Lectures in Isotope Geology . “U-Th-Pb Dating of Minerals,” by D. Gebauer and M. Grunenfelder (New York: Springer Verlag, 1979), pp. 105-131.
M. A. Cook. Prehistory and Earth Models (London: Max Parrish, 1966).
Only those that undergo alpha decay (releasing a helium nucleus).
Gentry, Creation's Tiny Mystery .
Ibid.
K. P. Wise, letter to the editor, and replies by M. Armitage and R. Gentry, CEN Technical Journal . 1998, 12(3):285-90.
An international team of creationist scientists is actively pursuing a creationist understanding of radioisotope dating. Known as the RATE (Radioisotopes and the Age of The Earth) group, it combines the skills of various physicists and geologists to enable a multi-disciplinary approach to the subject. Interesting insights are likely to come from such a group.
Edited by Don Batten, Ph. D. / Authors: Ken Ham. Jonathan Sarfati, and Carl Wieland, adapted from The Revised & Expanded Answers Book (Master Books, 2000).
Text copyright © 1996, 1999, 2000, Creation Ministries International. All Rights Reserved - except as noted on attached “Usage and Copyright” page that grants ChristianAnswers. Net users generous rights for putting this page to work in their homes, personal witnessing, churches and schools. Illustrations and layout copyright, 1999, 2003, Films for Christ
ChristianAnswers. Net
Christian Answers Network
Radiocarbon dating
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Radiocarbon dating is a method of determining the age of an object by using the properties of radiocarbon. a radioactive isotope of carbon. The method was invented by Willard Libby in the late 1940s and soon became a standard tool for archaeologists. It depends on the fact that radiocarbon, often abbreviated as 14
C. is constantly being created in the atmosphere by the interaction of cosmic rays with atmospheric nitrogen. The resulting radiocarbon combines with atmospheric oxygen to form radioactive carbon dioxide. This is then incorporated into plants by photosynthesis. and animals acquire 14
C by eating the plants. When the animal or plant dies, it stops exchanging carbon with its environment, and from that point the amount of 14
C it contains begins to reduce as the 14
C undergoes radioactive decay. Measuring the amount of 14
C in a sample from a dead plant or animal such as piece of old wood or a fragment of bone provides information that can be used to calculate when the animal or plant died. The oldest dates that can be reliably measured by radiocarbon dating are around 50,000 years ago, though special preparation methods occasionally permit dating of older samples.
While the idea behind radiocarbon dating is straightforward, years of additional work were required to develop the technique to the point where accurate dates could be obtained. Research has been going on since the 1960s to determine what the proportion of 14
C in the atmosphere has been over the past fifty thousand years. The resulting data, in the form of a calibration curve, is now used to convert a given measurement of radiocarbon in a sample into an estimate of the sample's actual calendar age. In addition to this curve, other corrections must be made to account for different proportions of 14
C in different types of organism (fractionation) and different 14
C levels in different parts of the biosphere (reservoir effects).
Measurement of radiocarbon was originally done by beta-counting devices, so called because they counted the amount of beta radiation emitted by decaying 14
C atoms in a sample. More recently, accelerator mass spectrometry has become the method of choice; it can be used with much smaller samples (as small as individual plant seeds), and gives results much more quickly.
The development of radiocarbon dating has had a profound impact on archaeology. In addition to permitting more accurate dating within archaeological sites than did methods previously in use, it also allows comparison of dates of events across great distances. Histories of archaeology often refer to the early impact of the new method as the “radiocarbon revolution”. Occasionally, the method is used for items of popular interest such as the Shroud of Turin. which is claimed to show an image of the body of Jesus Christ. A sample of linen from the shroud was tested in 1988 and found to date from the 1200s or 1300s, casting doubt on its authenticity.
Contents
Background [ edit ]
History [ edit ]
In the early 1930s Willard Libby was a chemistry student at the University of Berkeley. receiving his Ph. D. in 1933. He remained there as an instructor until the end of the decade. In 1939 the Radiation Laboratory at Berkeley began experiments to determine if any of the elements common in organic matter had isotopes with half-lives long enough to be of value in biomedical research. It was soon discovered that 14
C 's half-life was far longer than had been previously thought, and in 1940 this was followed by proof that the interaction of slow neutrons with 14
N was the main pathway by which 14
C was created. It had previously been thought 14
C would be more likely to be created by deuterons interacting with 13
C. At about this time Libby read a paper by W. E. Danforth and S. A. Korff, published in 1939, which predicted the creation of 14
C in the atmosphere by neutrons from cosmic rays which had been slowed down by collisions with molecules of atmospheric gas. It was this paper that first gave Libby the idea that radiocarbon dating might be possible. [ 1 ]
In 1945, Libby moved to the University of Chicago. He published a paper in 1946 in which he proposed that the carbon in living matter might include 14
C as well as non-radioactive carbon. [ 2 ] [ 3 ] Libby and several collaborators proceeded to experiment with methane collected from sewage works in Baltimore, and after isotopically enriching their samples they were able to demonstrate that they contained radioactive 14
C. By contrast, methane created from petroleum had no radiocarbon activity. The results were summarized in a paper in Science in 1947, and the authors commented that their results implied it would be possible to date materials containing carbon of organic origin. [ 2 ] [ 4 ]
Libby and James Arnold proceeded to experiment with samples of wood of known age. For example, two wood samples taken from the tombs of two Egyptian kings, Zoser and Sneferu. independently dated to 2625 BC plus or minus 75 years, were dated by radiocarbon measurement to an average of 2800 BC plus or minus 250 years. These results were published in Science in 1949. [ 5 ] [ 6 ] In 1960, Libby was awarded the Nobel Prize in Chemistry for this work. [ 2 ]
Physical and chemical details [ edit ]
In nature, carbon exists as two stable, nonradioactive isotopes. carbon-12 ( 12
C ), and a radioactive isotope, carbon-14 ( 14
C ), also known as "radiocarbon". The half-life of 14
C (the time it takes for half of a given amount of 14
C to decay ) is about 5,730 years, so its concentration in the atmosphere might be expected to reduce over thousands of years. However, 14
C is constantly being produced in the lower stratosphere and upper troposphere by cosmic rays. which generate neutrons that in turn create 14
C when they strike nitrogen-14 ( 14
N ) atoms. [ 2 ] The 14
C creation process is described by the following nuclear reaction :
Once produced, the 14
C quickly combines with the oxygen in the atmosphere to form carbon dioxide ( CO
2 ). Carbon dioxide produced in this way diffuses in the atmosphere, is dissolved in the ocean, and is taken up by plants via photosynthesis. Animals eat the plants, and ultimately the radiocarbon is distributed throughout the biosphere. The ratio of 14
Principles [ edit ]
During its life, a plant or animal is exchanging carbon with its surroundings, so the carbon it contains will have the same proportion of 14
C as the biosphere and the carbon exchange reservoir. Once it dies, it ceases to acquire 14
C. but the 14
C within its biological material at that time will continue to decay, and so the ratio of 14
C to 12
C in its remains will gradually reduce. Because 14
C decays at a known rate, the proportion of radiocarbon can be used to determine how long it has been since a given sample stopped exchanging carbon—the older the sample, the less 14
C will be left. [ 8 ]
The equation governing the decay of a radioactive isotope is: [ 2 ]
where N 0 is the number of atoms of the isotope in the original sample (at time t = 0, when the organism from which the sample was taken died), and N is the number of atoms left after time t . [ 2 ] ? is a constant that depends on the particular isotope; for a given isotope it is equal to the reciprocal of the mean-life — i. e. the average or expected time a given atom will survive before undergoing radioactive decay. [ 2 ] The mean-life, denoted by ? . of 14
C is 8,267 years, so the equation above can be rewritten as: [ 11 ]
The sample is assumed to have originally had the same 14
C / 12
C ratio as the ratio in the biosphere, and since the size of the sample is known, the total number of atoms in the sample can be calculated, yielding N 0 . the number of 14
C atoms in the original sample. Measurement of N . the number of 14
C atoms currently in the sample, allows the calculation of t . the age of the sample, using the equation above. [ 8 ]
The half-life of a radioactive isotope (the time it takes for half of the sample to decay, usually denoted by t 1/2 ) is a more familiar concept than the mean-life, so although the equations above are expressed in terms of the mean-life, it is more usual to quote the value of 14
C 's half-life than its mean-life. [ note 1 ] The currently accepted value for the half-life of 14
C is 5,730 years. [ 2 ] This means that after 5,730 years, only half of the initial 14
C will have remained; a quarter will have remained after 11,460 years; an eighth after 17,190 years; and so on.
The above calculations make several assumptions, such as that the level of 14
C in the biosphere has remained constant over time. [ 2 ] In fact, the level of 14
C in the biosphere has varied significantly and as a result the values provided by the equation above have to be corrected by using data from other sources in the form of a calibration curve, which is described in more detail below. [ 12 ] For over a decade after Libby's initial work, the accepted value of the half-life for 14
C was 5,568 years; this was improved in the early 1960s to 5,730 years, which meant that many calculated dates in published papers were now incorrect (the error is about 3%). However, it is possible to incorporate a correction for the half-life value into the calibration curve, and so it has become standard practice to quote measured radiocarbon dates in "radiocarbon years", meaning that the dates are calculated using Libby's half-life value and have not been calibrated. [ 13 ] [ note 2 ] This approach has the advantage of maintaining consistency with the early papers, and also avoids the risk of a double correction for the Libby half-life value. [ 15 ]
Carbon exchange reservoir [ edit ]
Simplified version of the carbon exchange reservoir, showing proportions of carbon and relative activity of the 14
The different elements of the carbon exchange reservoir vary in how much carbon they store, and in how long it takes for the 14
C generated by cosmic rays to fully mix with them. [ 2 ] The atmosphere, which is where 14
C is generated, contains about 1.9% of the total carbon in the reservoirs, and the 14
C it contains mixes in less than seven years. [ 16 ] [ 17 ] The ratio of 14
C to 12
C in the atmosphere is taken as the baseline for the other reservoirs: if another reservoir has a lower ratio of 14
C to 12
C. it indicates that the carbon is older and hence that some of the 14
C has decayed. [ 12 ] The ocean surface is an example: it contains 2.4% of the carbon in the exchange reservoir, [ 16 ] but there is only about 95% as much 14
C as would be expected if the ratio were the same as in the atmosphere. [ 2 ] The time it takes for carbon from the atmosphere to mix with the surface ocean is only a few years, [ 18 ] but the surface waters also receive water from the deep ocean, which has over 90% of the carbon in the reservoir. [ 12 ] Water in the deep ocean takes about 1,000 years to circulate back through surface waters, and so the surface waters contain a combination of older water, with depleted 14
C. and water recently at the surface, with 14
C in equilibrium with the atmosphere. [ 12 ]
Creatures living at the ocean surface have the same 14
C ratios as the water they live in, and as a result of the reduced 14
C / 12
C ratio, the radiocarbon age of marine life is typically about 400 years. [ 19 ] [ note 4 ] Organisms on land, however, are in closer equilibrium with the atmosphere and have the same 14
C / 12
C ratio as the atmosphere. [ 2 ] These organisms contain about 1.3% of the carbon in the reservoir; sea organisms have a mass of less than 1% of those on land and are not shown on the diagram. [ 16 ] Accumulated dead organic matter, of both plants and animals, exceeds the mass of the biosphere by a factor of nearly 3, and since this matter is no longer exchanging carbon with its environment, it has a 14
C / 12
Dating considerations [ edit ]
The variation in the 14
C / 12
C ratio in different parts of the carbon exchange reservoir means that a straightforward calculation of the age of a sample based on the amount of 14
C it contains will often give an incorrect result. There are several other possible sources of error that need to be considered. The errors are of four general types:
variations in the 14
C / 12
C ratio in the atmosphere, both geographically and over time;
isotopic fractionation;
variations in the 14
C / 12
C ratio in different parts of the reservoir;
contamination.
Atmospheric variation [ edit ]
In the early years of using the technique, it was understood that it depended on the atmospheric 14
C / 12
C ratio having remained the same over the preceding few thousand years. To verify the accuracy of the method, several artefacts that were datable by other techniques were tested; the results of the testing were in reasonable agreement with the true ages of the objects. However, in 1958, Hessel de Vries was able to demonstrate that the 14
C / 12
C ratio had changed over time by testing wood samples of known ages and showing there was a significant deviation from the expected ratio. This discrepancy, often called the de Vries effect, was resolved by the study of tree rings. [ 20 ] [ 21 ] Comparison of overlapping series of tree rings allowed the construction of a continuous sequence of tree-ring data that spanned 8,000 years. [ 20 ] (Since that time the tree-ring data series has been extended to 13,900 years.) [ 22 ] Carbon-dating the wood from the tree rings themselves provided the check needed on the atmospheric 14
C / 12
C ratio: with a sample of known date, and a measurement of the value of N (the number of atoms of 14
C remaining in the sample), the carbon-dating equation allows the calculation of N 0 – the number of atoms of 14
C in the sample at the time the tree ring was formed – and hence the 14
C / 12
C ratio in the atmosphere at that time. [ 20 ] Armed with the results of carbon-dating the tree rings, it became possible to construct calibration curves designed to correct the errors caused by the variation over time in the 14
C / 12
C ratio. [ 23 ] These curves are described in more detail below .
Atmospheric 14
C. New Zealand [ 24 ] and Austria. [ 25 ] The New Zealand curve is representative of the Southern Hemisphere; the Austrian curve is representative of the Northern Hemisphere. Atmospheric nuclear weapon tests almost doubled the concentration of 14
C in the Northern Hemisphere. [ 9 ] The date that the Partial Test Ban Treaty (PTBT) went into effect is marked on the graph.
Coal and oil began to be burned in large quantities during the 1800s. Both coal and oil are sufficiently old that they contain little detectable 14
C and, as a result, the CO
2 released substantially diluted the atmospheric 14
C / 12
C ratio. Dating an object from the early 20th century hence gives an apparent date older than the true date. For the same reason, 14
C concentrations in the neighbourhood of large cities are lower than the atmospheric average. This fossil fuel effect (also known as the Suess effect, after Hans Suess. who first reported it in 1955) would only amount to a reduction of 0.2% in 14
C activity if the additional carbon from fossil fuels were distributed throughout the carbon exchange reservoir, but because of the long delay in mixing with the deep ocean, the actual effect is a 3% reduction. [ 20 ] [ 26 ]
A much larger effect comes from above-ground nuclear testing, which released large numbers of neutrons and created 14
C. From about 1950 until 1963, when atmospheric nuclear testing was banned, it is estimated that several tonnes of 14
C were created. If all this extra 14
C had immediately been spread across the entire carbon exchange reservoir, it would have led to an increase in the 14
C / 12
C ratio of only a few per cent, but the immediate effect was to almost double the amount of 14
C in the atmosphere, with the peak level occurring in about 1965. The level has since dropped, as the "bomb carbon" (as it is sometimes called) percolates into the rest of the reservoir. [ 20 ] [ 26 ] [ 27 ]
Isotopic fractionation [ edit ]
Photosynthesis is the primary process by which carbon moves from the atmosphere into living things. In both photosynthetic pathways (C3 and C4 ) 12
C is absorbed slightly more easily than 13
C. which in turn is more easily absorbed than 14
C ratios in plants that differ from the ratios in the atmosphere. This effect is known as isotopic fractionation. [ 28 ] [ 29 ]
To determine the degree of fractionation that takes place in a given plant, the amounts of both 12
C and 13
C isotopes are measured, and the resulting 13
C / 12
C ratio is then compared to a standard ratio known as PDB. [ note 5 ] The 13
C / 12
C ratio is used instead of 14
C / 12
C because the former is much easier to measure, and the latter can be easily derived: the depletion of 13
C relative to 12
C is proportional to the difference in the atomic masses of the two isotopes, so the depletion for 14
C is twice the depletion of 13
C. [ 12 ] The fractionation of 13
C. known as ? 13 C. is calculated as follows: [ 28 ]
where the ‰ sign indicates parts per thousand. [ 28 ] Because the PDB standard contains an unusually high proportion of 13
C. [ note 6 ] most measured ? 13 C values are negative.
Korean Air Lines Flight 007
Destination
Korean Air Lines Flight 007 (also known as KAL007 and KE007 [ note 2 ] ) was a scheduled Korean Air Lines flight from New York City to Seoul via Anchorage. On September 1, 1983, the airliner serving the flight was shot down by a Soviet Su-15 interceptor near Moneron Island. west of Sakhalin Island, in the Sea of Japan. The interceptor's pilot was Major Gennadi Osipovich. All 269 passengers and crew aboard were killed, including Lawrence McDonald. representative from Georgia in the United States House of Representatives. The aircraft was en route from Anchorage to Seoul when it flew through prohibited Soviet airspace around the time of a U. S. reconnaissance mission.
The Soviet Union initially denied knowledge of the incident, [ 2 ] but later admitted the shootdown, claiming that the aircraft was on a spy mission. [ 3 ] The Politburo said it was a deliberate provocation by the United States [ 4 ] to test the Soviet Union's military preparedness, or even to provoke a war. The White House accused the Soviet Union of obstructing search and rescue operations. [ 5 ] The Soviet military suppressed evidence sought by the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) investigation, such as the flight data recorders. [ 6 ] which were released eight years later after the collapse of the Soviet Union. [ 7 ]
The incident was one of the tensest moments of the Cold War and resulted in an escalation of anti-Soviet sentiment, particularly in the United States. The opposing points of view on the incident were never fully resolved. Consequently, several groups continue to dispute official reports and offer alternative theories of the event. The subsequent release of KAL 007 flight transcripts and flight recorders by the Russian Federation has clarified some details.
As a result of the incident, the United States altered tracking procedures for aircraft departing Alaska. The interface of the autopilot used on airliners was redesigned to make it more ergonomic. [ 8 ] In addition, the event was one of the most important single events that prompted the Reagan administration to allow worldwide access to the United States military's GNSS system, which was classified at the time. Today this system is widely known as GPS .
007 in Jamaica
Send to a Friend via Email
Recipient's Email
This field is required.
Separate multiple addresses with commas. Limited to 10 recipients. We will not share any of the email addresses on this form with third parties.
Not only did Ian Fleming include Jamaica in the plotlines for books like Live and Let Die . Dr. No . Octopussy . and The Man with the Golden Gun . he also lived on the island. Fleming wrote all of his Bond books at his Goldeneye estate, which is now an exclusive clifftop resort in the village of Oracabessa, about 20 minutes drive from Ocho Rios.
No surprise, then, that the first Bond film, "Dr. No," was filmed partly in Jamaica (the working title of the movie was "Commander Jamaica.") Scenes were filmed in Kingston, and the fictional "Crab Key" was where Bond famously meets Honey Ryder (Ursula Andress) on the beach wearing a white bikini and a diver's knife. The iconic scene from the 1962 movie was filmed at Laughing Waters Beach in Ocho Rios and at an undeveloped Dunn's River Falls (almost unrecognizable today). Other Dr. No scenes were filmed at Ocho Rios' Bauxite terminal (familiar to anyone who has made a cruise-ship stop here), the Blue Mountains, and Montego Bay.
The former Sans Souci hotel, now part of the Couples San Souci resort, appeared in the film as well, as did the Morgan's Harbour Hotel in Port Royal.
In 1973's Live and Let Die . the Green Grotto caves in Runaway Bay was the setting for villain Mr. Kananga's lair; a bungalow at the Half Moon Bay Club also appears as Bond's hotel room in the fictional voodoo island of "San Monique." The famous crocodile scene in the film was shot at Jamaica Safari Village, in Falmouth near Montego Bay and now known as Swaby's Swamp Safari.
Tai Lopez
Tai is an aspiring renaissance man.
He is the author of a few books on unrelated subjects, a member of MENSA: the high IQ society, a self made millionaire before the age of 30, a Certified Financial Planner, CHFC, CLU, and most importantly a student of life with a ton of books (5000 plus at the last count).
He wishes no one ever had seen when he was on Bravo's "The Millionaire Matchmaker" - unfortunately his episode is the highest rated yet.
Tai is part of the list of college dropouts (but managed to earn 10 or so credits). He has been an entrepreneur for 18 years and has started 12 multi million dollar companies that are all still running successfully.
Tai is addicted to traveling (51 countries on 6 continents so far) seeking the advice of the world's top minds. He credits 90% of his success to five mentors (three millionaires and two billionaires) who pointed the way.
In his spare time he likes salsa dancing, Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu, and playing classical piano. He lives in the Hollywood Hills and occasionally throws big house parties for friends and the random acquaintances they bring along.
Tai Lopez
Tai is an aspiring renaissance man.
He is the author of a few books on unrelated subjects, a member of MENSA: the high IQ society, a self made millionaire before the age of 30, a Certified Financial Planner, CHFC, CLU, and most importantly a student of life with a ton of books (5000 plus at the last count).
He wishes no one ever had seen when he was on Bravo's "The Millionaire Matchmaker" - unfortunately his episode is the highest rated yet.
Tai is part of the list of college dropouts (but managed to earn 10 or so credits). He has been an entrepreneur for 18 years and has started 12 multi million dollar companies that are all still running successfully.
Tai is addicted to traveling (51 countries on 6 continents so far) seeking the advice of the world's top minds. He credits 90% of his success to five mentors (three millionaires and two billionaires) who pointed the way.
In his spare time he likes salsa dancing, Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu, and playing classical piano. He lives in the Hollywood Hills and occasionally throws big house parties for friends and the random acquaintances they bring along.
No comments:
Post a Comment