Saturday, April 4, 2015

How Far Back Can We Measure Dates? Part I

As has been pointed out in the previous post, Carbon-14 measurement cannot test back more than five half-lives, i.e., 5,730 years per half life. This means that after 5,730 years, half of the original Carbon-14 in a once living entity would still exist after death. In another 5,730 years, half of that amount would still exist, or one-fourth the original amount. 
Thus, after five half lives of measurement, there would not be sufficient Carbon-14 left (about 1/32nd of the original amount), to be tested for dating by today’s equipment and standards, so measuring beyond 30,000 years would simply not prove worthwhile, and certainly no atoms at all would exist beyond 50,000 years years. Certainly, it can be understood today that no once living thing, no matter its circumstance and condition at death, would possibly contain Carbon-14 after 250,000 years. Despite this understanding, it has proven impossible to find any natural source of carbon below Pleistocene strata that does not contain significant amounts of carbon 14 even though such strata are supposed to be millions or billions of years old (Pleistocene Epoch began about 1.8 million years ago). This means that items found below (older) than Pleistocene contain carbon-14 when that should be impossible; however, conventional carbon-14 laboratories have been aware of this anomaly since the early 1980s, and though they have striven to eliminate it, they are unable to account for it.
Left: Coal and Right: Diamond in situ (natural state) before being mined 
Lately, the world’s best such laboratory which has learned during two decades of low Carbon-14 measurements how not to contaminate specimens externally, confirmed that such observations for coal samples and even for a dozen diamonds (which cannot be contaminated by external means in situ, i.e., in their original location) still contain recent carbon. We are informed that coal was formed in the earth 250 million years ago, yet when tested, it still contained Carbon-14. The same is true with diamonds, which are claimed to have been formed millions and millions of years ago, are still tested and show Carbon-14 in them.
    All of this shows a definite example of an Earth only a few thousand, not millions, let alone billions of years old.
    The other problem with Carbon-14 testing is based upon the assumption, and it is a very big assumption, that is both unmeasurable and unprovable, that Carbon-14 in the atmosphere today—about .0000765%—was the same amount that existed when the object to be tested ceased living. Stated differently, the Carbon-14 testing is based on an assumption that this present amount of carbon has not changed in thousands and even millions of years. In addition, this assumption also assumes that the Earth’s atmosphere is in equilibrium, meaning it has to be older than 60,000 years to have reached an equilibrium state—a state where the atmosphere gains as much new Carbon-14 as it dispels (decays), keeping the atmosphere’s amount equal at all times.
    The fact that this has been tested and proven to be in error has not stopped the Carbon-14 testing process, for this science, pioneered by Libby and using his own statements: 1) We know the earth is millions of years old, so 2) We can ignore the equilibrium problem, continues to claim the atmosphere is in equilibrium when, in fact, it is not. According to R. E. Taylor, et al., (“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), “Radiocarbon is forming today at the rate of 28% to 37% faster than it is decaying,” which only verifies what has been said since right after Libby's discovery--the earth is no in equilibrium, yet radiocarbon continues to test as though it was, giving false and erroneous age measurements.
Cosmic rays enter the atmosphere causing molecules to fly apart, resulting in neutrons colliding into N14 atoms, which convert into C14 atoms. For this atmosphere to be in equilibrium, the amount of new Carbon-14 atoms created must equal the amount of Carbon-14 decaying (leaving) in the atmosphere—so far that has not taken place according to all tests made
    The point is, the developers of radiocarbon dating, assumed that the carbon-12/carbon-14 ratio has stayed the same for at least the last hundred thousand years or so. However, the difference between production and decay rates, and the systematic discrepancy between radiocarbon and tree-ring dates, refute this assumption—the evidence for change being needed on this issue is overwhelming.
Another glaring problem with radiocarbon dating is its reliance on index fossils. That is, fossils are not dated by radiocarbon dating, but by their geologic position (in the column in which they are found). This concept dates back to the very beginning of radiometric dating. This is because since the 1830s, when the Geologic Column was first developed (long before anyone knew of the possibility of radiocarbon dating), the Earth was divided up into geologic layers (the Earth Column). At that time, evolutionists believed the world was billions of years old in order to justify their promotion of evolutionary development and the long time frames needed for such to be justified—after all, their mantra was “Given enough time, anything can happen.”
    These layers were assigned a name (Cenooic, Mesozoic, Paleozoic, Proterozoic, Archaean, Hadean), age (picked out of the air by what scientists thought was taking place in earth history at a given time, and assigned to each name), and index fossil (believed to exist within a certain chronological order). Within a short time, all geology and earth sciences agreed to its existence and widely accepted it, and used it regularly to talk about, discuss, and write about the ancient past.
    One hundred and twenty years later, Willard F. Libby developed radiocarbon dating. The issue at hand was that his measurements had to agree with the already established and entrenched Geologic Column. Thus, when Libby’s testing showed the Earth to be less than 20,000 years old, that the atmosphere had not yet reached the 30,000 year requirement for Carbon-14 equilibrium, he adjusted his findings to agree with the Geologic Column of evolution. His comment was to justify the rejection of his own tests, “Everyone knows the Earth is millions of years old.”
    In fact, according to J. E. O’Rourke, it was widely believed that radiometric dating would not have been feasible if the Geologic Column had not been erected and in place first” (“Pragmatism vs. Materialism in Stratigraphy,” American Journal of Science, vol 276 January 1976, p 54).
Left: William Smith (left), founder of the index fossil technique, what some call “Circular Reasoning”
    William Smith, known as the Father of English geology, in 1790, developed the fossil technique, which is the process of identifying strata based on fossils (certain fossils called index fossils), also referred to as stratigraphy by its proponents and “Circular Reasoning” by its detractors, developed the first geologic map of England and first recognized the significance of strata or rock layering and the importance of fossil markers for correlating strata. Ever since then, fossils have been considered and still are thought to be the best and most accurate method of dating and correlating the rocks in which they occur. However, this leads to the concept of judging the date of rocks by the fossils found in them, and dating the fossils by the rocks in which they are found.
    According to Derek V. Ager, “Apart from very modern examples, which are really archaeology, I can think of no cases of radioactive decay being used to date fossils” (“Fossil Frustrations,” New Scientist, vol 100 November 10, 1983). Thus we find ourselves in a geologic and evolutionary quandary of trying to date rock strata and fossils based upon a concept developed in 1790, 165 years before the development of Libby’s Carbon-14 radiocarbon dating method.
    And unfortunately for those who believe in both concepts, they do not agree with one another!
(See the next post, “How Far Back Can We Measure Dates? Part II,” for more information on these two processes, and specifically on specific examples of Carbon-14 dating vs. Geologic Column dates)

No comments:

Post a Comment