How Far Back Can We Measure Dates? Part XI

Continuing from the previous posts regarding radiocarbon dating techniques and how they have skewed our understanding of the past and its ages, and more specifically on how dendrochronology and radiocarbon dating effect the dating of archaeological sites in Andean South America. 
    In addition to understanding that radiocarbon dating is based on an inaccurate understanding of Carbon-14 in the atmosphere (equilibrium vs. nonequilibrium), as well as dendrochronology based on bridging gaps in a totally subjective manner to build ancient tree-ring chronologies, we cannot forget the fact that after the Flood there was less Carbon 12 in the carbon cycle from the destruction (deforestation) of trees and plant life because of the Flood.

“And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground…and they were destroyed from the earth”
    Thus, with every living substance (everything containing carbon), ceasing to live, the Nitrogen in the air from sunlight (cosmic rays) after the Flood would have been converted to far higher levels of Carbon-14 since there was far less amounts of Carbon-12 being released into the atmosphere in the carbon cycle due to the deforestation and destruction of plant life to offset the Carbon-14 being formed.
    In addition, the atmosphere was also being affected by glaciation, magnetism, pole alignment, and numerous other problems affecting the carbon content in the atmosphere unaccounted for by Carbon-14 testing that is based on that belief that Carbon-14 has always been the same—an assumption even scientists are now agreeing and showing to be inaccurate, since the production of Carbon-14 in the atmosphere today is greater than the rate of disintegration (From 12% in Libby’s tests, to as much as 22 to 37% in more recent tests).
    This should have shown any scientist that the atmosphere has not yet reached equilibrium (making the Earth no older than 30,000 years). With this in mind, then, any date of, say Casma Valley site of Huaynuma in Peru 2200 B.C. (reached under current science testing methods using an atmosphere in equilibrium), would adjust to using a nonequilibrium atmosphere to a much young calendar date, probably within 200 B.C. to 200 A.D.—within the Nephite thousand year period; and this would be true for any dates found of actual buildings within Andean Peru, Mesoamerica or the entire Western Hemisphere, and the world.

The difference in using an equilibrium base as opposed to a nonequilibrium base for dating an ancient site could be many thousands of years; in the former, Casma Valley dates to 2200 B.C., in the laster, it dates to about 200 B.C.
    This all stems from one man’s desire to win acclaim and be accepted by his peers and so disregard his own scientific testing that was 12% off from his measurement base, or like 1200 years off in a 10,000 year period (this percent would increase with age the further back one tried to go). He claimed that was within his margin of error; however, almost any scientist worth his salt would have considered that to be a huge difference in his own testing. Yet, he accepted this error because (in his own words) “everyone knows the Earth is millions of years old,” when indeed his own testing showed it to be under 20,000 years and very close to 10,000 years old (Melvin A. Cook showed a couple of years afterward, using Libby’s own figures, that it would be closer to 7,000 years old (by this is meant the time life on earth has been going on).
    However, you do not win Nobel Prizes by going against “what everyone knows” in the scientific community, no matter how accurate you are. Scientists cherish and hold dearly to their well-established ideas and dogmas, and later ideas are accepted only when they basically tie in and show the dogmas to be correct to start with.
    Then there is the dendrochronology method of creating chronologies by “splicing” together different tree-ring cycles from different trees in order to “extend” a time frame backward.

Nineteen specimens from nine paired trees in an area called Methuselah Walk, showing a portion of a 7104 year Bristlecone pine chronology
    The specimens of which the above is a part comprise the second half (those with the most missing rings, and generally higher mean sensitivity and lower serial correlation) of the data. Another unit is the Schulman Master, composed of 14 trees, which extends from 800 A.D. to 1954. It incorporates specimens from four sites in the White Mountains. And as the Radiocarbon Dating progressed through the 40 individual Bristlecone Pine samples it became apparent that the apexes of the jagged, saw tooth “workshop data set” were primarily caused by the transition from one sample to the next.
    In other words, the whole construction of the tree-ring chronology was extremely suspect because the samples did not blend in smoothly with their neighboring samples. In fact, A. R. 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; and John Woodmorappe produced an incisive critique of these dating methods, exposing hundreds of myths that have grown up around the techniques, showing that the few ‘good’ dates left after the ‘bad’ dates were filtered out could easily be explained as fortunate coincidences.
    It is also very interesting that the forms issued by radioisotope laboratories for submission with samples to be dated commonly ask how old the sample is expected to be; however, if the techniques were absolutely objective and reliable, such information would simply 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 or not.
    As an example, because these dates can swing quite widely, let’s say you send in a specimen that is tested, resulting in three dates, i.e., 3289, 3335, and 4994 (each plus or minus 40 to 60 years). The nature of testing is to disregard the odd number, here being 4994, and accepting the other two, especially seeing as they are both within the plus or minor margin of error. However, if the lab is apprised in the beginning that the sample is expected to be 5000 years old, then chances are the two younger ages would be thrown out and the age of 4994 plus or minus 40 to 60 years would be given—especially when it falls within the expected age and within the margin of error.
    Laboratories know, as well as anyone else, that a scientist is going to use labs that provide the “most accurate” dating, i.e., dates that agree with the studies, beliefs, and work that is and has been done. Scientific people are simply not equipped to work with “maverick” groups, peoples and organizations when their very careers and livelihood depends upon it.

Hollywood can make movies about Indiana Jones, but Thor Heyerdahl and numerous others who have gone opposite to established trends and beliefs are not accepted by the scientific community. Even Charles Darwin, now the “Father of Evolution,” found little acceptance for many years. Today, an article was published in rejection of Creationism that stated: “Creationist’s stand that ‘There is no evidence for evolution, and there is no evidence that evolution has occurred” was rejected because it was “wrong, misleading and irrelevant.”
    When you stand on the wrong side of an accepted “Scientific Belief”—no matter the belief—you will find it very hard to obtain acceptance, which leads to grants, computer time, publishing, jobs, etc.
    Once again, the point is that when we look at published radiocarbon dates (based on Carbon-14 testing, or a combination of Carbon-14 and dendrochronology), those dates show the standard scientific belief of an atmosphere always in equilibrium, of a world that has been the same where no cataclysms such as Creation, Flood, Crucifixion, etc., has ever occurred. Because of that, while the sequence of events can be shown, the dates attached to them are quite inaccurate.
(See the next and last post on this subject, “How Far Back Can We Measure Dates? Part XII,” for the final installment on this subject of dating techniques and their impact on understanding the settlement of the Americas and specifically the Land of Promise—Andean South America)