Tuesday, April 6, 2010

Scientific Dating is Misleading

There are seven initial assumptions made about time dating through carbon-14 radiocarbon dating techniques and time clocks, that need to be clearly understood for any accuracy to exist within the clocks. That is, each of these assumptions MUST be accurate and must have ALWAYS existed for any specimen tested and dated. Seven of these fragile assumptions are:

1. Each system has to be a closed system; that is, nothing can contaminate any of the parents or the daughter products while they are going through their decay process—-or the dating will be thrown off. Ideally, in order to do this, each specimen tested needs to have been sealed in a jar with thick lead walls for all its previous existence, supposedly millions of years! However, in actual field conditions, there is no such thing as a closed system. One piece of rock cannot for millions of years be sealed off from other rocks, as well as from water, chemicals, and changing radiations from outer space.

2. Each system must initially have contained none of its daughter products. A piece of uranium 238 must originally have had no lead or other daughter products in it. If it did, this would give a false date reading. However, it is impossible to confirm this. It is impossible to know what was initially in a given piece of radioactive mineral. Was it all of this particular radioactive substance or were some other indeterminate or final daughter products mixed in? We do not know; we cannot know. Men can guess; they can apply their assumptions, come up with some dates, announce the consistent ones, and hide the rest, which is exactly what time dating science does!

3. The process rate must always have been the same. The decay rate must never have changed. However, we have no way of going back into past ages and ascertaining whether that assumption is correct. Every process in nature operates at a rate that is determined by a number of factors. These factors can change or vary with a change in certain conditions. Rates are really statistical averages, not deterministic constants. The most fundamental of the initial assumptions is that all radioactive clocks, including carbon 14, have always had a constant decay rate that is unaffected by external influences—-now and forever in the past. But it is a known fact among scientists that such changes in decay rates can and do occur. Laboratory testing has established that such resetting of specimen clocks does happen. Field evidence reveals that decay rates have indeed varied in the past. The decay rate of any radioactive mineral can be altered if 1) the mineral is bombarded by high energy particles from space (such as neutrinos, cosmic rays, etc.); 2) there is, for a time, a nearby radioactive mineral emitting radiation; 3) physical pressure is brought to bear upon the radioactive mineral; or 4) if certain chemicals are brought in contact with it.

4. The decaying half-life of a specimen has never changed. However, at least one researcher, John Joly of Trinity College, Dublin, spent years studying pleochroic halos emitted by radioactive substances. In his research he found evidence that the long half-life minerals have varied in their decay rate in the past! According to Kovarik of the National Research Council, “this would set aside all possibilities of age calculation by radioactive methods."

5. If any change occurred in past ages in the blanket of atmosphere surrounding our planet, this would greatly affect the clocks in radioactive minerals. Cosmic rays, high-energy mesons, neutrons, electrons, protons, and photons enter our atmosphere continually at near the speed of light, some rays traveling 4600 feet into the ocean depths. The blanket of air covering our world is equivalent to 34 feet of water, or 4 feet thickness of lead. If at some earlier time this blanket of air was more heavily water-saturated, it would produce a major change in the atomic clocks within radioactive minerals. And prior to the time of the Flood, there was a much greater amount of water in the air.

6. The Van Allen radiation belt encircles the globe about 450 miles above Earth and is intensely radioactive. According to Van Allen, high-altitude tests revealed that it emits 3000-4000 times as much radiation as the cosmic rays that continually bombard the earth.” Any change in the Van Allen belt would powerfully affect the transformation time of radioactive minerals. Unfortunately, we know next to nothing about this belt—-what it is, why it is there, or whether it has changed in the past. In fact, the belt was only discovered in 1959. Even small amounts of variation or change in the Van Allen belt would significantly affect radioactive substances.

7. A basic assumption of all radioactive dating methods is that the clock had to start at the beginning; that is, no daughter products were present, only those elements at the top of the radioactive chain were in existence. For example, all the uranium 238 in the world originally had no lead 206 in it, and no lead 206 existed anywhere else. But if either Creation—-or a major worldwide catastrophe (such as the Flood) occurred, everything would begin thereafter with, what scientists call, an "appearance of age." By this it is meant "appearance of maturity." The world would be seen as mature the moment after Creation. Spread before us would be a scene of fully grown plants and flowers. Most trees would have their full height. We would not, instead, see a barren landscape of seeds littering the ground. We would see full-grown chickens, not unhatched eggs. Radioactive minerals would be partially through their cycle of half-lives on the very first day. This factor of initial apparent age would strongly affect our present reading of the radioactive clocks in uranium, thorium, etc.

Thus it cannot be said that radiocarbon dating (carbon-14) is conclusive (or anywhere near accurate) in dating events of the past.

1 comment:

  1. Excellent post about Carbon-14 dating. I met Frank Libby about thirty years ago, the year before he died. We had a brief discussion about his time clock and the bottom line of it was as you stated. He believed his findings were within the accepted realm of experimental error and felt no concern about all the problems surrounding his measurement clock. I thought at the time it was a rather arrogant attitude. There is no question, however, that he was a brilliant man -- just misguided.