Continuing from the last post, there can be no doubt that these assumptions are what has placed the entire
concept of the Radiocarbon time clock in question.
As long as an organism is alive it will
continue to take in C-14; however, when it dies, it will stop. Since C-14 is
radioactive (decays into N-14), the amount of C-14 in a dead organism gets less
and less over time
Carbon-14 is
formed in the atmosphere and is then absorbed by all living things, including
all flora and fauna. When the living thing dies, it stops absorbing carbon-14,
and what carbon-14 exists in the thing at death begins to decay. This decay
rate is precisely known and can be measured. Thus, unfortunately for Dr.
Libby's theory, not only is the rate of formation of radiocarbon known (within
an uncertainty estimated at 25 percent) but also is its rate of decay. And this rate of decay is known with even
greater precision than the rate of formation.
The "half life" of radiocarbon is 5,730 years. This means
that, without further replenishment via cosmic rays, our present radiocarbon
inventory would be reduced to half the present value in 5,730 years, to one
fourth in 8,595 years, to one eighth in 10,027.5 years, and so forth. Without
replenishment it would thus drop to less than one percent in about 40,000
years. This is precisely what happens in
the case of any part of the biosphere that becomes "locked out" of
the carbon cycle by death; and it is this condition that permits radiocarbon to
be used as a time clock.
As
early as 1955, Libby’s own calculations showed that equilibrium had not been
reached and, in fact, a buildup of carbon-14 was still taking place in the
atmosphere. A prominent scientist in this field, Dr. Melvin Cook, pointed out
to Libby that his own calculations actually showed the earth to be roughly
10,000 years old.
That is, since Libby’s calculations showed the
earth not only to be under 30,000 years of age, the figures of carbon-14 buildup
of 0.78 actually shows the earth to be about one-third of that age. But true to
the scientist’s typical colors, Libby rejected the evidence of his own findings
showing his hypothesis was wrong, and rejected the observation of that fact by
a fellow scientist. In defense of his position, Libby stated in his own book Radio Carbon Dating “The agreement seems
to be sufficiently within experimental errors involved, so we have reason for
confidence in the theoretical picture set forth.”
There is presently no way to determine what the C14 level
was before the flood. At the time of the flood we have the evidence recorded in
the fossils that were buried in the flood. Before the flood, all we have is
conjecture. The dotted line is an anemic endeavor to illustrate what could have
happened before the flood since the production of Carbon 14 in the upper
atmosphere could have been much lower before the flood than today
As
a scientist, Libby broke from the scientific method ,which requires that when a
hypothesis is put to the test, it can be confirmed. His hypothesis that equilibrium had been
reached was shown wrong by his own measurements, yet he rejected that and
continued to support his own incorrect hypothesis.
Other
scientists and experts in this field have made their own calculations and
measurements and come up with ratios as low as 0.64, and the overall best value
based on the average of these measurements if 0.71, plus or minus 0.07, which means by all measurements of all scientists involved, the Earth has not reached equilibrium of carbon buildup, thus cannot be as old as 30,000 years of age. In fact, at 0.64, or even 0.71 carbon buildup to loss, the age of the Earth has to be somewhere around 12,000 years old, give or take a thousand years or so.
Though Libby’s own experiments showed
that equilibrium in the atmosphere had not yet been reached, he chose to
ignore that and claim it had been achieved, thus his time clock is based on
erroneous information
Knowledge
of the presence of radiocarbon at the beginning of the cycle is essential to
using the time clock effective. To
determine the age of any object through the Radiocarbon dating method, one must
know how much radiocarbon was present in the biosphere at the time of the death
of the specimen. Since objects being
measured are typically believed to be thousands of years old, it would be
impossible for anyone to know what amount of radiocarbon existed in the
biosphere when the specimen died and the decaying process began. However, that has not stopped the scientists
using the carbon-14 method from making assumptions.
Libby's Crucial Assumption. As has been
pointed out, Libby assumed that the initial radiocarbon content at the time of
death of any specimen, regardless of supposed age, would be the same and that
this amount would be the same as found in the living biosphere today. Yet, this is not correct. Instead, for a specimen that has been dead
for any appreciable length of time, the initial radiocarbon content seems to
have been less than in the living biosphere today because, at an observed rate
of formation greater than the rate of decay, radiocarbon would still be
building up in the earth as a whole.
Putting
it another way, suppose you were in an isolated area where no one else was
located and you ran across a very large candle burning brightly. Taking precise
measurements, you could determine its rate of burn and loss of mass. But how
could you determine how long it had been burning since you have no way of
knowing what size the candle was when it was first lit—nor do you know that it
has always burned at this same brightness, thus exhausting the same level of
wax as at present. While this analogy is flawed, it suggests a similar problem
with trying to determine the amount of carbon that existed at some previous
point in time, hundreds or thousands of years earlier. Nor what atmospheric
problems might have occurred during those millennia. To further complicate the
problem, two enormous events occurred in the past 12,000 years or so—the first
was the creation, and the second was the cataclysmic Flood of Noah’s time. In addition, there was the industrial revolution which poured burned coal into the atmosphere in unprecedented amounts, and
for future measurements, the nuclear testing and blasts of the mid-Twentieth
Century will have an enormous impact on the amount of radiocarbon in the
atmosphere for those decades, especially in the northern hemisphere.
Then,
too, immediately after formation in the atmosphere radiocarbon oxidizes to
carbon dioxide and then distributes itself throughout the atmosphere,
"hydrosphere" (oceans) and "biosphere" (plants and animals)
in the form of carbon dioxide and products of reaction of carbon dioxide with
water, magnesium oxide (to form dolomite), calcium oxide (to form limestone),
and other chemicals. The distribution
throughout the various phases of the "carbon cycle" is well known.
The ratio of carbon-14/carbon-12, for example, is nearly 5% lower in the
biosphere than in the atmosphere owing to the influence of membrane diffusion
because carbon enters the biosphere from the atmosphere through assimilation by
plants. This ratio averages still lower
in the hydrosphere because there is a finite circulation lag in the oceans permitting the average
carbon-14/carbon-12 ratio in the oceans to drop appreciably below that in the
atmosphere.
Measuring Decay. The rate
of formation is 47 (+25) percent greater than the rate of decay based on the most
accurate and recent analysis. The work of Hess, Canfield, and Lingenfelter,
together with the effective carbon inventory, permit one to determine the true
equilibrium value which turns out to be 21.3 radiocarbon decay counts per gram
of ordinary carbon per minute. On the
other hand, extensive measurements of the actual concentration by many
investigators have shown that it is less than 14.5 counts per gram per
minute—Dr. Libby used a value of 15.3 counts per gram per minute, which has
since had to be reduced to the lower value by the more extensive and accurate
studies. The latest determination is
that of Suess which is only 13.5 counts per gram.
Radiocarbon Balance. If Dr.
Libby's equilibrium theory was correct, the ratio would provide unity—that is,
the rate of formation would be the same as the rate of decay; however, the
ratio of the rate of decay to the rate of formation is only about 0.68 or (14.5
instead of 21.3). This difference is so
great, it cannot be attributed to experimental error. Therefore, it can be seen that radiocarbon is out of balance in the earth. Yet,
Dr. Libby himself claimed it would take only 30,000 years for radiocarbon to
come effectively into balance even
all the way from the state of a perfectly clean
or radiocarbon-free earth. This interesting and pertinent fact carries the
powerful implication that the whole atmosphere of the earth is younger than 30,000 years. And when taking the observed value of
0.68, the age of the Earth is as young as 12,500 years!
One
would think, since this information is easily obtained by scientists, that
someone, somewhere, would raise a hand and challenge this carbon-14 dating
method since it is used so much to determine so many important dates of
antiquity. The fact that no one has or does is a sad commentary on the field of
science as a whole.
One
thing, however, is inescapable! The Earth is somewhere around 13,000 years
old—not 4.55 billion, and matches, even through an accurate use of Carbon-14
testing, to agree with the age of the Earth according to the scriptural record.
Those who know little about science should not profess to. The evidence for evolution is so overwhelming that only the ignorant can deny it. I agree that God created the earth, the solar system, and the entire universe. He made it. A baker makes a cake. But does that mean that he placed each and every particle of the cake exactly as they are found in the finished product? Of course not! The baker understands how to put the right ingredients together in the right proportions and under the right circumstances to get what he wants. Likewise, God know what ingredients (elements) to mix together in what proportions, at what place and time and under what conditions (laws of physics and chemistry) in order to create the universe and the world in which we live. The evidence is as vast as the evidence cited by Alma to Korihor (Alma 30:44).
ReplyDeleteWhat is the error(s) in the analysis presented that leads to the conclusion that the author knows "little about science"
DeleteMight I suggest you read my book, "Scientific Fallacies & Other Myths," or the numerous writings of very serious scientists who disagree with evolution, of which there are many.
ReplyDelete