Saturday, November 17, 2012

One Last Time—Radiocarbon Dating is Inaccurate – Part V

The amount of information available to show that Carbon-14 Radiometric Dating, as developed by Dr. Willard F. Libby, is in error is amazing. Yet, despite all the contrary data, scientists continue to tout and defend the dates achieved through such testing to prove their theories, dates, models, etc.
This is the fifth and final post in this series showing the fallacy of such dating, though numerous other posts listing abundant additional discrepancies and problems could be provided.
We do need to keep in mind that whether we are talking about the astonishingly rapid decay of the earth's magnetic field or about radiometric dating that focuses on various decay rates, there is no reason to believe that the earth is an old one. In fact, must data suggests the earth not only is less than 30,000 years old, but somewhere around 12,000 years in age.
As has been stated, one of the problems is in long term Carbon-14 dating since what existed within any specimen cannot be known since we have no idea what the carbon-14 levels were past a certain point. Promoters of the radiometric dating claim that carbon dating is indeed accurate due to calibration curves allowing scientists to compensate for varying levels of carbon-14 in the atmosphere.
This, of course, sounds fine and dandy; however, no scientist can know how to calibrate such a curve since no data is available for him to know what the levels were at any time prior to the Industrial Revolution—all he can do is guess. It maybe an educated guess, but it is a guess nonetheless. Scientists can doubletalk about such things as calibration curves, compensating for past differences, etc., but without knowing those past differences, nothing is going to be accurate. Take for example the Great Flood. If you believe it happened, there is no way to compensate for it without guessing what impact such a cataclysmic event had on the carbon build up in the atmosphere, or its decomposition. And if you don’t accept it, then you have to assume the atmospheric carbon was not changed at that time. Either way, it is simply a guess based upon one’s view of prehistory.
In 2005, an asteroid as big as an aircraft carrier known as YU55 zipped by Earth and inside the Moon’s orbit, in the closet encounter by such a massive space rock in more than three decades
As for a different example, what if a series of asteroids passed very close to the Earth in times past disrupting the atmospheric content, or that at one time there were a million volcanoes spewing carbon dioxide into the atmosphere within a few years, or that some type of greenhouse gases didn’t exist at a certain time in prehistory, or that there were greater or fewer ice ages, etc., etc., etc. The fact is, no one can know. They can guess, they can use all types of measurements based upon their particular belief system, but they cannot know.
Carbon dioxide is released when magma rises from the depths of the Earth on its way to the surface. A single volcano eruption discharges between 8,000 and 30,000 metric tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere each day
Nor can they know what daughter (secondary) products might have seeped into a specimen over hundreds or thousands of years, or leaked out. Science cannot know how much daughter product existed when the specimen died.
Another way to look at it, is that carbon dioxide is released to the atmosphere by a variety of sources, and over 95% percent of these emissions would occur even if human beings were not present on Earth. For example, the natural decay of organic material in forests and grasslands, such as dead trees, results in the release of about 220 billion tons of carbon dioxide every year. But these natural sources are nearly balanced by physical and biological processes, called natural sinks, which remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. For example, some carbon dioxide dissolves in seawater, and some is removed by plants as they grow. In fact, science claims “As a result of this natural balance, carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere would have changed little if human activities had not added an amount every year.” However, what if there was far more land than seawater on the earth in the past—such as before the Flood. What if there were far more trees and forests on the greater amount of land? This would alter the balance, providing two, three or maybe five times the amount of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere with far less “sinks” to dissolve it. What if there were millions of people and animals living that were wiped out almost overnight at some point in time, leaving the Earth almost unpopulated. What if all the tectonic plates throughout the world were moving, dividing, slamming into one another, subducting and creating folds and high mountains that released trillions upon trillions of tons of volcanic outgasses as the earth was divided?
Does anyone know? Science surely does not. On the other hand, we know all the seas were gathered in one place in the north before the Flood, and the entire area of the present oceans were once all land, and the Earth was divided in a very short period during Peleg’s time. Obviously, all of this would change drastically the amount of atmospheric carbon at given times. Does science understand this? No. Do anti-God people understand this? No. Yet we know from modern-day revelation of the truth of this—and it would have had a considerable effect on measuring Carbon-14 of items figured to be only about 4500 years old.
More than half a trillion tons of carbon have been emitted into the atmosphere due to human activities since the Industrial Revolution. Every ton of carbon put out is using up a ton of that atmospheric capacity and changes the normal buildup of carbon in the atmosphere
Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has risen from a “believed” 280 parts per million before the Industrial Revolution to about 380 ppm today—that is an increase of 100 ppm or about 40%. It should be kept in mind, however, that such measurements only date back to about 50 years ago, when Charles David Keeling developed the method to measure carbon dioxide in the atmosphere in 1958.
The problem is, scientists have a very strong tendency to think they know things in the past even though there is no way for them to know such matters except through guesswork. The fact that they conduct experiments, develop theories, create measurement devices, and spend their professional careers in pursuit of such information, the past does not easily reveal itself, and usually not at all—especially to those who think in terms of evolution instead of seeing and understanding God’s hand in all things.
Take as an example, a geophysical research journal reported that lava which formed in the year 1800-1801 was tested by the potassium-argon dating method and showed an age of 160 million up to 3 billion years in age. Other reports have been published of similar dates for young rocks in Norway, Germany, France, and the Soviet Union (Journal of Geophysical Research, July, 1968; Time, October 1969, pp72-74).
Very simply put, too many things are unknown, requiring too many assumptions, to allow the carbon dating process to be as accurate as many proclaim it to be. Factors as diverse as changes in the earth's magnetic field and changes in the amount of carbon available to organisms in times past could translate into perceivable differences in the carbon ratios in artifacts and remains from ancient times. Even changes in the atmosphere itself could impact this carbon ratio. We know that changes such as these have occurred over time. They are still occurring today in fact. In addition, carbon (C-12) and radioactive carbon (C-14) are independently formed, which means that their ratios to one another could have changed substantially from ancient times to today, either through gradual means or by cataclysmic means. To base our knowledge on the age of the earth and its various constituents on information gleaned from a technique that depends on carbon and radioactive carbon ratios is very simply unrealistic.

No comments:

Post a Comment