The Father of Radio-Carbon Testing and Scientific Implications Pro & Cons.

This post is an result of another BIA member that copyrighted my comments on Harry Watley's blog.

Since he loves to challenge me and I fail to understand why he continues to do so?

I believe he does it to gain favor with certain females on this web channel!

Okay we start with the "Father of Radio-Carbon Dating" Willard Libby:


Willard F. Libby
AKA Willard Frank Libby
Born: 17-Dec-1908
Birthplace: Grand Valley, CO
Died: 8-Sep-1980
Location of death: Los Angeles, CA
Cause of death: Pneumonia
Gender: Male
Religion: Agnostic
Race or Ethnicity: White
s*xual orientation: Straight
Occupation: Chemist
Nationality: United States
Executive summary: Carbon-14 dating technique
American chemist Willard F. Libby won the Nobel Prize for Chemistry in 1960, for introducing a dating methodology using radioactive carbon-14, a long-lived, natural beta-emitting radioisotope emitted in minute quantities by all living things. Libby's system uses chemical analysis to determine the age of organic materials based on carbon-14 content. To measure carbon-14 in ancient materials, Libby and his team spent about three years, 1946-49, developing extremely sensitive Geiger counters, which needed to be extremely well-shielded to eliminate interference from background radiation. First tested and calibrated with material found in 4,000-year-old Egyptian tombs, carbon-dating has been used on progressively older and older relics, and has become an extremely important tool for anthropologists, archaeologists, geologists, and other earth scientists. Carbon-14 dating is now believed to be accurate for finding the age of materials up to 70,000 years old, with a margin of error of about ten percent.
Libby was the son of farmers, played tackle on his high school football team, and paid his college tuition by working on a California fruit ranch, where his job was to nail together wooden crates of fresh-picked fruit. During World War II he worked under Harold C. Urey on America's then-secret Manhattan Project to develop atomic weapons, and showed that cosmic radiation produces tritium. He remained a lifelong proponent of nuclear bombs, offering advice summarized in a glowing 1955 profile in Time magazine as "Let's build them as big as we can, and build all we can. Then war will become inconceivable."
He also studied hot atom chemistry, isotope tracer work and other tracer techniques, and the use of natural tritium in hydrology and geophysics, and served for several years on the US Atomic Energy Commission, where he advocated peaceful uses for atomic energy. His second wife, nuclear physicist Leona Woods, was the top woman to work on the Manhattan Project. His friends and more daring students called him "Wild Bill".
Father: Ora Edward Stocker (farmer, changed name to Libby, b. 2-Nov-1879)
Mother: Eva May Rivers (farmer, b. 21-Apr-1890, m. 1907)
Brother: Elmer
Brother: Raymond
Sister: Eva
Sister: Evelyn
Wife: Leonor Lucinda Hickey (physical education teacher, b. 2-Apr-1912, m. 1940, div. 1966, d. 20-Jun-1992, two daughters)
Daughter: Janet Eva (twin, b. 1945)
Daughter: Susan Charlotte (twin, b. 1945)
Wife: Leona Woods (nuclear physicist, b. 9-Aug-1919, m. 9-Dec-1966, d. 10-Nov-1986)
Son: Peter Marshall (stepson, b. 1944)
Son: John Marshall (stepson, b. 1949)
High School: Analy High School, Sebastopol, CA (1926)
University: BS Chemistry, University of California at Berkeley (1931)
University: PhD Chemistry, University of California at Berkeley (1933)
Teacher: Chemistry, University of California at Berkeley (1933-41)
Scholar: Chemistry, Princeton University (1941)
Scholar: Manhattan Project, Columbia University
Professor: Chemistry, Fermi Institute for Nuclear Studies, University of Chicago (1945-54)
Professor: Chemistry, University of California at Los Angeles (1959-76)
Administrator: Institute of Geophysics and Planetary Physics, UCLA (1962-76)
Alpha Chi Sigma Chemistry Fraternity 1941
Guggenheim Fellowship 1941
Manhattan Project 1941-45
National Academy of Sciences 1950
Guggenheim Fellowship 1951
Research Corporation Award 1951
Chandler Medal 1954
US Atomic Energy Commission Commissioner, 1954-59
Carnegie Institution for Science Geophysical Laboratory, 1954-59
ACS Award for Nuclear Applications in Chemistry 1956
Elliott Cresson Medal of the Franklin Institute 1957
ACS Willard Gibbs Medal 1958
Albert Einstein Medal 1959
Guggenheim Fellowship 1959-62
Nobel Prize for Chemistry 1960
Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences Foreign Member, 1960
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Editorial Board, 1960-76
Arthur L. Day Medal 1961
Science Editorial Board, 1962-76
Member of the Board of Douglas Aircraft 1963-67
American Chemical Society
Heidelberg Academy of Sciences and Humanities Foreign Member
National Science Foundation
Appears on the cover of:
Time, 15-Aug-1955, captioned "AEC's Willard Libby"
Author of books:
Radiocarbon Dating (1952)
Willard F. Libby: Collected Papers (1981, posthumous)




Here is the scientific explanation of the chemistry analysis of radio-carbon dating techniques:

Carbon 14 Dating of Organic Material
Worked Chemistry Problems
By Anne Marie Helmenstine, Ph.D.


Introduction
In the 1950s W.F. Libby and others (University of Chicago) devised a method of estimating the age of organic material based on the decay rate of carbon-14. Carbon-14 dating can be used on objects ranging from a few hundred years old to 50,000 years old.
Carbon-14 is produced in the atmosphere when neutrons from cosmic radiation react with nitrogen atoms:
147N + 10n → 146C + 11H
Free carbon, including the carbon-14 produced in this reaction, can react to form carbon dioxide, a component of air. Atmospheric carbon dioxide, CO2, has a steady-state concentration of about one atom of carbon-14 per every 1012 atoms of carbon-12. Living plants and animals that eat plants (like people) take in carbon dioxide and have the same 14C/12C ratio as the atmosphere.
However, when a plant or animal dies, it stops intaking carbon as food or air. The radioactive decay of the carbon that is already present starts to change the ratio of 14C/12C. By measuring how much the ratio is lowered, it is possible to make an estimate of how much time has passed since the plant or animal lived. The decay of carbon-14 is:
146C → 147N + 0-1e (half-life is 5720 years)
Example Problem
A scrap of paper taken from the Dead Sea Scrolls was found to have a 14C/12C ratio of 0.795 times that found in plants living today. Estimate the age of the scroll.
Solution
The half-life of carbon-14 is known to be 5720 years. Radioactive decay is a first order rate process, which means the reaction proceeds according to the following equation:
log10 X0/X = kt / 2.30
where X0 is the quantity of radioactive material at time zero, X is the amount remaining after time t, and k is the first order rate constant, which is a characteristic of the isotope undergoing decay. Decay rates are usually expressed in terms of their half-life instead of the first order rate constant, where
k = 0.693 / t1/2
so for this problem:
k = 0.693 / 5720 years = 1.21 x 10-4/year
log X0 / X = [(1.21 x 10-4/year] x t] / 2.30
X = 0.795 X0, so log X0 / X = log 1.000/0.795 = log 1.26 = 0.100
therefore, 0.100 = [(1.21 x 10-4/year) x t] / 2.30
t = 1900 years






Leading Scientists Opinions of the reliability of Radio-Carbon Testing in Humans and Animals:


SCIENTISTS SPEAK ABOUT RADIOCARBON DATING
Carbon 14 (C-14) dating was considered to be a tremendous breakthrough in science when Willard Libby devised it in 1946. But subsequent investigations have revealed it to be wholly inadequate for accurate dating of ancient materials. This is science vs. evolution—a Creation-Evolution Encyclopedia, brought to you by Creation Science Facts.
CONTENTS: Scientists Speak about Radiocarbon Dating
Historical Dates Only Go back a few Thousand Years: The earliest are 3000 B.C., the authenticated ones go back to 1600 B.C.
Most Carbon-14 Dates do not Agree with the Theory: So the evolutionists throw them away.
Inaccurate as it is, C-14 Dates Rarely Produce very old Dates: In spite of its flaws, it is far more accurate than radiodating.
Unfortunately, Radiocarbon Dating Lengthens Dates too Far into the Past: But only the scientific community is told that fact.
One Problem is that Atmospheric Conditions have Changed: Radiocarbon in the atmosphere was different prior to 1600 B.C.
Nutrino and Moisture Levels May Also Have Changed: Only if all the factors producing C-14 in living tissue are unchanged, can past radiodating results be reliable
This material is excerpted from the book, DATING OF TIME IN EVOLUTION.
An asterisk ( * ) by a name indicates that person is not known to be a creationist. Of over 4,000 quotations in the books this Encyclopedia is based on, only 164 statements are by creationists.
You will have a better understanding of the following statements by scientists if you will also read the web page, Dating of Time in Evolution and
an article written by Dr. Jonathon Sarfati entitled "How Old is the Earth?".
HISTORICAL DATES ONLY GO BACK A FEW THOUSAND YEARS
The earliest are 3000 B.C., the authenticated ones go back to 1600 B.C.
"Well authenticated dates are known only back as far as about 1600 B.C. in Egyptian history, according to John G. Read [*J.G. Read, Journal of Near Eastern Studies, Vol, 29, No. 1, 1970]. Thus, the meaning of dates by C-14 prior to 1600 B.C. is still as yet controversial."—H.M. Morris, W.W. Boardman, and R.F. Koontz, Science and Creation (1971), p. 85.
"The first shock Dr. Arnold and I had was that our advisors informed us that history extended back only 5,000 years . . You read books and find statements that such and such a society or archaeological site is [said to be] 20,000 years old. We learned rather abruptly that these numbers, these ancient ages, are not known; in fact, it is about the time of the first dynasty in Egypt that the last [earliest] historical date of any real certainty has been established."—*W.F. Libby, "Radiocarbon Dating," in American Scientist, January 1956, p. 107. [Libby was the one who pioneered the discovery of Carbon !4 dating.]
MOST CARBON-14 DATES DO NOT AGREE WITH THE THEORY
So the evolutionists throw them away.
"It may come as a shock to some, but fewer than 50 percent of the radiocarbon dates from geological and archaeological samples in northeastern North America have been adopted as `acceptable' by investigators."—*J. Ogden III, "The Use and Abuse of Radiocarbon," in Annals of the New York Academy of Science, Vol. 288, 1977, pp. 167-173.
In the Proceedings of the Symposium on Radiocarbon Variations and Absolute Chronology held at Uppsala in 1969, T. Säve-Söderbergh and I. U. Olsson introduce their report with these words:
"C-14 dating was being discussed at a symposium on the prehistory of the Nile Valley. A famous American colleague, Professor Brew, briefly summarized a common attitude among archaeologists towards it, as follows: If a C-14 date supports our theories, we put it in the main text. If it does not entirely contradict them, we put it in a footnote. And if it is completely out of date we just drop it. Few archaeologists who have concerned themselves with absolute chronology are innocent of having sometimes applied this method. . ."
INNACURATE AS IT IS, C-14 DATING RARELY PRODUCES VERY OLD DATES
In spite of its flaws, it is far more accurate than radiodating.
"At 600 B.C., the C-14 activity level is about:10%. Before this, the atmospheric activity is observed to decrease in such a way that, by about 2000 B.C., it is of the order of +50%. Clearly, the trend for older samples to have progressively lower delta % levels is observed. In other words, the whole picture is now consistent with the non-equilibrium model. Before 2160 B.C., there are no suitable [historically dateable] materials for calibration purposes, and so it is not possible to trace the curve back further in time . .
"Conventional C-14 calibration has the effect of `stretching out' radiocarbon time and slowing down, for example, the rate of man's cultural development. By contrast, this revised approach has the effect of `compressing' radiocarbon time,' and speeding up the rate of man's cultural development."—Erich A. von Fange, "Time Upside Down," in Creation Research Society Quarterly, June 1974, p. 22.
"Although it was hailed as the answer to the prehistorian's prayer when it was first announced, there has been increasing disillusion with the [radiocarbon] method because of the chronological uncertainties—in some cases absurdities—that would follow a strict adherence to published C-14 dates . . What bids to become a classic example of `C-14 irresponsibility' is the 6,000 year spread of 11 determinations for Jarmo, a prehistoric village in northeastern Iraq which, on the basis of all archeological evidence, was not occupied for more than 500 consecutive years."—*C.A. Reed, "Animal Domestication in the Prehistoric Near East," in Science, 130 (1959), p. 1630.
"A survey of the 15,000 radiocarbon dates published through the year 1969 in the publication, Radiocarbon, revealed the following significant facts:
"[a] Of the dates of 9,671 specimens of trees, animals, and man, only 1,146 or about 12 percent have radiocarbon ages greater than 12,530 years.
"[b] Only three of the 15,000 reported ages are listed as `infinite.'
"[c] Some samples of coal, oil, and natural gas, all supposedly many millions of years old have radiocarbon ages of less than 50,000 years.
"[d] Deep ocean deposits supposed to contain remains of most primitive life forms are dated within 40,000 years.
"If the earth and life on earth are really as ancient as the theory of evolution requires, a great proportion of radiocarbon ages should be infinite. This is because, with a half-life of only 5,730 years, initial radiocarbon in a fossil decreases in about ten half-lives to a level too low to be measured."—Robert E. Lee, "Radiocarbon: Ages in Error," in Creation Research Society Quarterly, September 1982, pp. 116-117.
UNFORTUNATELY, RADIOCARBON DATING LENGTHENS DATES TOO FAR INTO THE PAST
But only the scientific community is told that fact.
"There are two basic assumptions in the radiocarbon method. One is that the carbon 14 concentration in the carbon dioxide cycle is constant. The other is that the cosmic ray flux has been essentially constant—at least on a scale of centuries."—*J.L. Kulp, "The Carbon 14 Method of Age Determination," in Scientific Monthly, November 1952, p. 261.
"Hair from the Chekurovka mammoth that was found in the Lena River delta region of Russia has a radiocarbon age of 26,000 [years] while the radiocarbon age of peat only eighteen inches above the carcass is 5,610. At normal [present] growth rates, between 500-2,000 solar years would be required for the development of an eighteen-inch peat layer.
"Muscle tissue from beneath the scalp of a mummified musk ox found in frozen muck at Fairbanks Creek, Alaska, has a radiocarbon age of 24,000, while the radiocarbon age of hair from a hind limb of the carcass is 17,200. A life span exceeding 7,000 years for a specimen of this species is doubtful.
"In a gravel deposit at the Union Pacific Mammoth Site near Rawlins, Wyoming, a mammoth skeleton was found together with artifacts that indicate the animal was killed by man. Radiocarbon dating of ivory from the center of the tusks establishes the kill date at approximately 11,300 radiocarbon years ago. Wood fragments from the gravel in which the remains were buried have a radiocarbon age of approximately 5,000 years. The bones would not have survived 6,000 solar years of exposure, nor could they be expected to remain in an articulate relationship during erosion and reburial by natural processes.
"A mastodon skeleton, found at Ferguson Farm near Tupperville, Ontario, provided a radiocarbon age of 8,900 for the collagen fraction of bones and a radiocarbon age of 6,200 for high organic-content mud from within the skull cavities. It is unlikely that this skeleton could have survived exposure for 2,700 solar years before emplacement in peat."—Robert H. Brown, "Radiocarbon Age Measurements Re-examined," in Review and Herald, October 28, 1971, pp. 7-8.
ONE PROBLEM IS THAT ATMOSPHERIC CONDITIONS HAVE CHANGED
Radiocarbon in the atmosphere was markedly different prior to 1600 B.C.
"It was found that the activity of radiocarbon in the atmosphere was going up and down even before the Industrial Revolution [when additional smoke began polluting the air]."—*H. deVries and *H.T. Waterbolk, "Groningen Radiocarbon Dates III," in Science, December 19, 1958, p. 1551.
"Local variation, especially in [marine] shells, can be highly significant . . The most significant problem is that of biological alteration of materials in the soil. This effect grows more serious with age. To produce an error of 50 percent in the age of a 10,000 year old specimen would require the replacement of more than 25 percent of the carbon atoms. For a 40,000 year old sample, the figure is only 5 percent, while an error of 50,000 years can be produced by about 1 percent of modern material. Much more must be done on chemical purification of samples."—*F. Johnson, *J.R. Arnold, and *R.F. Flint, "Radiocarbon Dating," in Science, February 8, 1957, p. 240.
NUTRINO AND MOISTURE LEVELS MAY ALSO HAVE CHANGED
Only if all the factors producing C-14 in living tissue are unchanged, can past radiodating results be reliable
"An earlier increase in neutrino levels] must have had the peculiar characteristic of resetting all our atomic clocks. This would knock our C-14, potassium-argon, and uranium-lead dating measurements into a cocked hat! The age of prehistoric artifacts, the age of the earth, and that of the universe would be thrown into doubt."—*F.B. Jueneman, article in Industrial Research, 14 (1972), p. 15.
"Some geologists question the use of the C-14 method for samples stored under moist conditions. This is a most serious limitation, for who can be sure that a given sample has not been moistened?"—E.A. von Fange, "Time Upside Down," in Creation Research Society Quarterly, June 1974, p. 17.
FOR MORE INFORMATION:
Forward to the next topic in this series: RADIODATING CONFUSION which briefly summarizes 16 basic reasons why non-historical dating methods are not reliable.






Other Misquotes concerning radio-carbon dating to organic matter:


"Coal from Russia (the "Pennsylvanian)" supposedly 300 million years old, was dated at 1,680 years." 7

The original article in the journal Radiocarbon includes the following paragraph describing this sample:
MMo-334. River Naryn, Kirgizia 1680 ± 170. A.D. 270
Coal from the cultural layer on the left side of the r. Naryn (Kirgizian SSR), 3 km E of the mourh of the r. Alabuga (41° 25′ N Lat, 74° 40′ E Long). The sample was found at a depth of 7.6 m in the form of scattered coals in a loamy rock in deposits of a 26-m terrace. According to the archaeological estimations the sample dates from the 5 to 7th centuries A.D. The sample was found by K. V. Kurdyumov (Moscow State Univ.) in 1962. Comment:/i> the find serves as a verification of archaeological data on the peopling of the Tien Shan.7
What we have here is no more than shorthand or sloppy translation from the Russian! The coal is nothing more than charcoal from an archaeological deposit. This sample is even included in the section of the report dealing with archaeological samples, and the paragraph discusses archaeological data.
The odd use of terms is shown clearly in another radiocarbon date, Mo-353, reported on page 315 of the same article. It reads "Charcoal from cultural deposits of a fisher site. The coal was coll. from subturfic humified loam"
But the term "coal" in place of "charcoal" was enough to fool Ken Ham, as well as dozens of subsequent creationists who apparently were salivating to find 300 million year old coal radiocarbon dated to recent times, and who repeated Ham's false claim without bothering to check its accuracy.
The interesting question is where Ken Ham managed to find "Pennsylvanian" in that short paragraph, and where he dug up the date of 300 million years. 5 (Quoted from Darwin Central: Link)

"Natural gas from Alabama and Mississippi (Cretaceous and Eocene, respectively) should have been 50 million to 135 million years old, yet 14C gave dates of 30,000 to 34,000 years, respectively." 7


Dr. Aardsma investigated this claim also, and noted:
The original reference [Trautman and Willis, page 200.] in the second case (natural gas) immediately reveals that both Whitelaw and The Answers Book have, unfortunately, neglected several very important ">" or "greater than" signs. The "dates" in this case are given in the original publication as ">30,000" and ">34,000". Thus, these natural gas samples were not dated to "30,000 to 34,000 years" at all. In fact, the original reference plainly notes "infinite age as expected". (Aardsma, 1994, page 2.)
The sensitivity of the equipment used to make the radiocarbon measurements on these natural gas samples was limited to 30,000 to 34,000 years---the equipment was unable to measure back further. Here again the radiocarbon dates were as expected. (For additional discussion see the Biblical Chronologist.org: Link)


"Bones of a saber-toothed tiger from the La Brea tar pits (near Los Angeles), supposedly 100,000 to one million years old, gave dates as recent as 28,000 years." 8


This is another common creationist mistake. The accepted age for the La Brea Tar Pits is from about 9,000 years to about 50,000 years. The "supposedly 100,000 to one million years" is way off base. (For further discussion see the Free Republic: Link)


"Eleven human skeletons, the earliest known human remains in the western hemisphere [Dated by amino acid dating at ~48,000 years BP] have been dated by the "accelerator mass spectrometer" technique. All eleven were dated at about 5,000 radiocarbon years or less." 1


These skeletons were all originally dated by the amino acid racemization method, which has been shown to be extremely inaccurate. The radiocarbon dates straightened out the dating error in the amino acid racemization method. This is just the opposite of what the article implies. (For further discussion see the Free Republic: Link)



Other Interesting Questions

• Currently Radiocarbon is forming 28-37% faster than it is decaying. 2
• The last major glacial advance in America was believed by most scientists to have occurred about 25,000 years ago. Carbon 14 dates forced a revision down to 11,400 years. The United State Geological Survey carried out studies that gave a 14C date as recent as 3,300 years ago, but no textbook deals with such a puzzling find that falls well within recent history. 6 Here is a remarkable example of 14C difficulties in a book published by Stanford University Press. Six 14C ages were determined from a core in an attempt to date the formation of the Bering Land Bridge. The dates ranged from 4,390 to 15,500 years old.6
• Carbon 14 analysis of oil from Gulf of Mexico deposits showed an age measured in thousands of years - not millions. Data produced by the Petroleum Institute at Victoria, New Zealand, showed that these petroleum deposits were formed 6,000-7,000 years ago even though it is commonly believed that all such petroleum formations took place about 60 to 300 million years ago.4
• In August of 1994, pieces of wood were obtained from an Australian mining company (BHP Australia Coal Pty Ltd, operators of the Crinum Mine). The wood was found while drilling through a basalt layer. The wood was sent to two separate laboratories for 14C testing (Geochron Laboratories in Cambridge, Boston (USA), and the Antares Mass Spectrometry laboratory at the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation (ANSTO), Lucas Heights near Sydney (Australia). Geochron returned a date of 35,000yrs and ANSTO returned a date of 44,000yrs. The Basalt, which was in contact with the wood, was also sent to two laboratories (Geochron and AMDEL) for K-Ar/Ar-Ar dating. The youngest age given among four samples was over 36 million years.9





References
1. R. E. Taylor, Major Revisions in the Pleistocene Age Assignments for North American Human Skeletons by C-14 Accelerator Mass Spectrometry, American Antiquity , Vol. 50, No. 1, 1985, pp. 136-140.
2. Melvin A. Cook, Nonequilibrium RadioCarbon Dating Substantiated, Vol. 2 (Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania: Creation Science Fellowship, 1986), pp. 59-68.
3. Robert E. Lee, Radiocarbon: Ages in Error, September 1982, pp. 116-117.
4. Velikovsky, 1955, p.287; CRSQ , 1965, 2:4, p.10.
5. Darwin Central, Reference posted on Saturday, June 16th, 2007 at 4:52 PM by Bones in Commentary (Link)
6. Velikovsky, 1955, p.158-159; CRSQ , 1968, 5:2, p.67
7. Vinogradov, A.P.; A.L. Devirts; E.I. Dobinka; and N.G. Markova. Radiocarbon dating in the Vernadsky Institute I-IV. Radiocarbon, Vol 8, No. 1, 1966, pp. 292-323.
8. Radiocarbon, vol. 10, 1968.
9. Andrew Snelling, First published in: Creation Ex Nihilo 20(1):24-27 December 1997 – February 1998.
10. Ferguson CW. 1969. A 7,104-year annual tree ring chronology for bristlecone pine, Pinus aristata, from the White Mountains, California. Tree-Ring Bulletin 29(3-4):3-29.
11. Yamaguchi DK.1986. Interpretation of cross correlation between tree-ring series. Tree-Ring Bulletin 46:47-54.
12. D.C. Lowe, "Problems Associated with the Use of Coal as a Source of 14C Free Background Material," Radiocarbon, 1989, 31:117-120.
13. Snelling A.A., Stumping Old-age Dogma. Creation, 1998, 20(4):48-50.
14. Snelling A.A., ‘Dating Dilemma,’ Creation, 1999, 21(3):39-41.
15. Vogel, Nelson and Southon, Radiocarbon, Vol. 29, No. 3, 1987
16. Giem PAL. 1997b. Carbon-14 dating methods and experimental implications. Origins 24:50-64.
17. Mike Brown, ( http://www.creation-science-prophecy.com/C... ) June, 2001
18. Schmidt et al. Nucl Instr and Meth 1987;B29:97-9 (Quoted by Paul A. L. Giem Scientific Theology, La Sierra University Press Riverside, 1997)
19. Kuniholm, P. -- 1993: Appendix in G. Summers: Tille Huyuk 4, pp. 179-90
20. Douglas J. Keenan, Anatolian tree-ring studies are untrustworthy, The Limehouse Cut, London E14 6N, United Kingdom; doug.keenan@informath.org, 16 March 2004 ( http://www.informath.org/ATSU04a.pdf ) See also: Douglas Keenan, Why Radiocarbon Dates Downwind from the Mediterranean are too Early, Radiocarbon, Vol 44, Nr 1, 2002, p 225–237 ( http://www.informath.org/14C02a.pdf )
21. Kuniholm P.I. (2002), "Archaeological dendrochronology", Dendrochronologia 20: 63–68.
22. Allen Roy, C14-Dendrochronology ( allen@infomagic.com ) Sun, 2 May 1999 21:09:50 -0700 ( http://www.asa3.org/archive/asa/199905/001... )
23. Lammerts, Walter E. Are the Bristlecone Pine Trees Really So Old?, Creation Research Society Quarterly, 20:108-115, September, 1983.
24. NATURE | VOL 402 | 2 DECEMBER 1999 | www.nature.com
25. Rod A. Savidge, Letter to the Editor, New York Times, November 12, 2002; In response to an article by Claudia Dreifus, A Writer Leaves History Behind to Celebrate Trees: A Conversation with Tom Pekenham, New York Times, November 12, 2002 ( Link1; Link 2 )
26. Carl Wieland, Radiocarbon in dino bones - International conference result censored, Creation Ministries International, 22 January 2013 (Link)