It is interesting that all testing laboratories that measure Carbon-14 would like a source of organic material with zero Carbon-14 to use as a blank to check that their lab procedures do not add Carbon-14. The problem is, they cannot find one. If the Earth was indeed 4.55 billion years old, such samples should be quite common.
Another shocking surprise is that no dinosaur bone yet tested has shown an absence of Carbon-14, yet all such bones are said to be millions of years old. In fact, the Triassic, Jurassic and Cretaceous periods all existed in the Mesozoic Era (250 to 65 millions years ago), the last dinosaur supposedly becoming extinct 65 million years ago.
The existence of Carbon-14 is is based, of course, on the fact that if equilibrium existed in the atmosphere (same amount of Carbon-14 entering as decaying and leaving), then after about 50,000 to 60,000 years (about 10 half-lifes), there would be no amount of Carbon-14 in any artifact, i.e., once living object older than 60,000 years. However, though coal is ten times older than the 60,000 year maximum, all coal so far found and measured shows a quantity of Carbon-14 in it.
Which means the coal is younger than 60,000 years old, and based on the amounts of Carbon-14 measured, certainly younger than 30,000 years old.
This is understood by the belief that if there is “X” amount of carbon-14 in the atmosphere, then there is “X” amount of carbon-14 in the material; this equal amounts of increase and decay (decrease) is, in part, based on the belief that the amount of CO2, Carbon-12 and Carbon-14 in the atmosphere have always been the same. However, that has not always been the case. As an example, at the end of the last ice age, there were perhaps a million people in North America, or about one for every 7 square miles. Today, excluding Alaska and Hawaii, there are about 80 people for every square mile of land area in the United States. To sustain this population growth and raise our standard of living, we employ natural resources and technologies that were unknown to our forebears. Is it possible that, because of our numbers and our greater use of resources and technology, humans over time have effected the amounts of CO2, Carbon-12 and Carbon-14 in the atmosphere?
Carbon, of course, has three naturally occurring isotopes: about 99% is carbon-12, 1% is carbon-13 and only a trace amount is carbon-14. The amount of Carbon-14 decays into nitrogen-14 over time, thus any addition or removal of Carbon-14, has an impact on the “balance” or carbon in the atmosphere. This means that any change in the biomass on earth of any significance will alter the amount of carbon, and the balance of that carbon. Consequently, while science claims there was no universal Flood, we know that there was one, as almost every legend, myth, and history of ancient civilizations claim.
Let’s say, as an example, that at artifact being tested in a laboratory is shown to contain one pound of Carbon-14, which results in a testing date of having died 5300 years ago ± 150 years. That means the artifact dates to 3450 to 3150 B.C. However, let’s also say that instead of having “X” amount of Carbon-14 in the atmosphere in its lifetime (such as before the Flood when it is believed that Carbon-14 was far less than today), it was only 2/3 as much as “X.” That means the artifact would date to a much younger age, say 2300 B.C. Or, let’s say the artifact showed a date of 3200 B.C., but lived when there was far more Carbon-14 in the atmosphere, such as after the Flood and the balance between Carbon-14 and Carbon-12 was quite different from lack of plants and trees. That means the amount of Carbon in the atmosphere during its lifetime might have been “X” plus 1/2, dating the artifact to say 1850 years ago, or about 150 A.D.
Obviously, the point is that in making such determinations, the information used, based on Libby’s falsifying that the atmosphere was in equilibrium ("because everyone knew the Earth was millions of years old"), changes a dating sequence by hundreds and thousands of years, depending how far back we go.
It is not that the artifact picks up more Carbon-14 after death (it does not), it is because the base line of the clock setting is off the further back in time from the present we go.
It is the age-old problem of setting inaccurate information into the computer—GIGO, “garbage in, garbage out.” If the program used is set to read that 2+2 equals 5, then it will always use that calculation in any mathematical problem—it is not that the computer is wrong, it will always give accurate information based on the program (2+2=5), but the baseline or program itself is inaccurate, which results in the answers being wrong.
So all these million-dollar computer programs that have been set up on even more expensive equipment, and run (tested) by laboratories who are honest and above-board, which are set up to run against information programmers with wrong or inaccurate basis (the atmosphere is in equilibrium) have built-in to the system, will always give accurate information based on what it has been told to do, i.e., base this test against the program which reads that the atmosphere is in equilibrium (that is, that the Earth is over 60,000 years old).
Of course, some things in radiocarbon dating can be double-checked against non-adjustable criteria that is accepted to be accurate, i.e., Egyptian dynasty dating, tree-ring dating, etc. Well authenticated dates are known only back as far as about 1600 B.C. in Egyptian history, according to John G. Read (Journal of Near Eastern Studies, vol 29, No.1, 1970), thus any radiocarbon dating prior to 1600 B.C. is still quite controversial, and when Carbon-14 dates do not agree with various theories, they are discarded as “anomalies,” replaced with others that agree with already established theories and dogmas.
As for the practice by the researcher, not the lab, is “if the Cardbon-14 date supports the theory, it is put into the main text. If it does not entirely contradict it, it is put in a footnote, but if it is completely in disagreement, it is dropped and discarded.”
(See the next post for the continuing answer to the comment from the previous post and why Carbon-14 testing is not effective in the way it is presently used, evaluated, and dated.)
No comments:
Post a Comment