Sunday, June 9, 2019

How the Earth Was Formed and When – Part II

Continuing with the previous post regarding the age of the Earth, the problem about rejecting the Flood, and continuing below about the Time Clock and its incorrect setting by which almost all archaeology is today dated.
The wadi in Makhtesh Ramon, Israel, is claimed to be simple time-based erosion; however, it is more like a sudden huge wave of billions of gallons of water rushing through on its way back to the sea after the Flood

It is amazing that, despite so much geologic and linguistic evidence of a world-wide flood, that so many scientists have rejected a diluvial theory and treat the idea of a universal flood as some local anomaly, postulating countless suggestions as to an alternative explanation. The ideas expressed to explain away a universal flood cover from a dam breaking; heavy rainfall; a meteor striking the earth; a comet passing close to earth; rising sea water; ancient observation of inland seashells and fish fossils; undersea earthquake causing a tsunami that flooded coastal lands; flooding of an inland sea, and many others.
    The problem with all such theories is that they are evaluated against known knowledge, or what is believed to be known knowledge. It is like programming a math base into a computer. If you feed it wrong information as its base, such as 1+1=3, it will always give accurate analysis of math problems based on that criteria—a problem like 632+548 would not equal 1,180 (the answer if programmed that 1+1=2), but would give you a correct answer according to its basic math program of 1+1=3), which is 2,950—and it will do it every time tried, as though proving any hypotheses submitted.
    Now, since every math problem presented would be off by .5, or the number one would always be 1.5 in every equation,  the answers over time would always be correct from one another, though far from accurate with correct math. Of course, we understand that principle in math and would know the answer is inaccurate, since we can easily double-check it with simple math.
    However, when it comes to, say, carbon-14, such inaccuracy is not apparent until we learn that the original program was altered by its inventor, Willard Libby. In his case, the scientific world thought that the earth atmosphere had not year reached equilibrium, and when applied to his time clock, it showed that the earth was less than 20,000 years old. Rather than accept his findings and validating his clock, he knew in his belief system that the earth was much older, and therefore set about altering the program of his clock. He did this because, as he stated in his autobiography, “everyone knew the earth was millions of years old.”
    Thus the C14 testing is off somewhat, and has to be adjusted for several reasons when tests do not agree with known dates, which is called “calibration of radiocarbon dates.” In fact, although Libby had pointed out as early as 1955 the possibility that the C14  and C12 ratio might have varied over time, it was not until discrepancies began to accumulate between measured ages and known historical dates for artifacts that it became clear that a correction would need to be applied to radiocarbon ages to obtain correct calendar dates (M.J. Aitken, Science-based Dating in Archaeology, Longman, London, 1990, pp66-67).
A 300-millon year old rock that has a far more modern aluminum gear or screw embedded in it—rather than admit two extremely different time items were found together, archaeologists try to determine how such an ancient civilization could have had an aluminum gear

In addition, when Libby’s first results showed what he considered an error, i.e., dating the Earth as being quite young, he altered the measurement base from a non-equilibrium model, meaning the earth was not old enough to have acquired a balance in atmospheric radiation, which has been determined to take about 30,000 years, to an equilibrium model, meaning the same amount of the Earth’s atmospheric radiation is lost into space as enters from the sun, and therefore in equilibrium. Thus, he reasoned, the earth is over 30,000 years old.
    At the time of Libby’s experiments, it was generally believed that the earth’s atmosphere was not in equilibrium, resulting in his setting his original clock base for non-equilibrium measurement, which gave him a young reading. The reason for this is the way in which the earth's energy equilibrium works—that is, radiation carries energy into space at the same rate the sun adds energy to the earth. Most of the radiation leaves from the atmosphere, not the surface of the earth, since equilibrium determines the temperature of the atmosphere independent of how the heat gets there. All large, dynamic systems keep doing something until an endpoint is reached, which is equilibrium. Things self-adjust until they all balance, which is equilibrium.
    Equilibrium does not mean stable, it means self-adjusting, and for the atmosphere to have had enough time to reach equilibrium, it would have to have been in place at least 30,000 years—anything less would mean the atmosphere was not in equilibrium, making the earth itself less than 30,000 years old.
    And that is exactly what Libby’s time clock showed—the atmosphere was not in equilibrium, had not reached that point, and therefore was less than 30,000 years old.
    The result was the need to verify an earth millions of years old, and to do this, Libby altered his findings and adjusted his program to show the result he claimed was correct. However, following Libby’s experiments and announcement of his clock, the atmospheric radiocarbon was measured in 1968 by Melvin A. Cook of BYU, who found the radiation in the earth’s atmosphere was only about one-third of being balanced, meaning the earth was about 10,000 years old.
    Thus, Libby’s alteration of his clock basis gave a totally inaccurate measurement. Fortunately for him, but to the detriment of all future science, there were few ways at the time to know that it was in error, and the clock gained wide recognition, giving scientists in many fields a method of measuring past dates that had not previously existed. After all, what is science if it cannot be attributed and delinated by numbers, dates, epochs and eras?
The Geologic Column and Time Scale Graphic

However, When Cook’s findings were published, there was an immediate negative reaction within the scientific community. And it has grown remarkably resistant to any change in the clock setting or its results exponentially over the ensuing years until today, any attempt to discuss the above is met with instant negative reaction by the scientific community, and many people in general, since the C14 Time Clock is well established in the public conscience.
    However, their fervor does not change the fact that the understanding of equilibrium was well understood at the time of Libby’s development of the time clock, and the reason why he set it for a non-equilibrium basis. However, when it came up with the information based on that factor, he believed it was wrong and recalibrated his model to an equilibrium basis, because he, like all scientists of his day, knew the Earth was older than 30,000 years.
    Giving computation figures the wrong date to use as a basis used to be called in the early days of computing, GIGO: Garbage In, Garbage Out! That is, if you program a computer to give wrong information, it will do it every time, and thus appear correct and indisputable.
    Of course, evolutionist, geologists, and scientists in general balked at this discrepancy, and enormous effort was underfoot to find a way to deal with the discrepancy, which “creationists” jumped on and claimed the error of the time clock. Naturally, scientists doubled down and have come up with several reasons why Libby’s change was validated. It is still an ongoing debate between “Old Earthers” and “Young Earthers,” and not likely to be resolved any time soon, since both are dedicated to their point of view.
    The point is, science has never had the “end all” understanding it claims to have. If we do not understand that, we are doomed to the erroneous conclusions that follow such ignorance and bull-headed thinking.

No comments:

Post a Comment