Why is it so Difficult to Obtain Accurate Dates?-PtIII

Continued from the previous post regarding the fallacy of an ancient Earth and how artifacts found can be dated by archaeologists and paleontologists to be far older than they are, which then skews the results, giving an inaccurate date of events and time, thus leading to an inaccurate idea of the location of the Land of Promise in the Americas.
    The element Carbon, as stated earlier, is in all living things, and is the basic building block for the construction of organic material. The normal molar mass of Carbon is around 12, however there are a few Carbon atoms that have a molar mass of about 13, and even fewer that have a molar mass of about 14. These atoms have one or two more neutrons in the nucleus than most Carbon atoms.

Table of Carbon-14 Decay. Gray area gets into the realm of very questionable results

Since Carbon-14is manufactured is not a stable element, it is radioactive and decays over time. It is this decaying process that allows for the measurement of time. But it needs to be kept in mind that Carbon-14 dating is limited to a few thousand years of measurement time—about 60,000 years or so under the most positive and unchangeable circumstances throughout its life. This is because in order to measure the age of a biological artifact, the object has to still have detectable amounts of Carbon-14 within its system.

The three isotopes of carbon. The nuclei of C-14 atoms are unstable due to their size and randomly eject a portion of one of their neutrons out of their atoms, which results in different atoms, with seven protons and seven neutrons in their nuclei, and seven orbiting electrons, called Nitrogen-14

This means that in living things, although C-14 atoms are constantly changing back to N-14, they are still exchanging carbon with their surroundings while living, so the mixture remains about the same as in the atmosphere. However, as soon as a plant or animal dies, the C-14 atoms which decay are no longer replaced, so the amount of C-14 in that once-living thing decreases as time goes on. In other words, the C-14/C-12 ratio gets smaller. So, we have a “clock” which starts ticking the moment something dies.
    As an example, the rate of decay of C-14 is such that half of an amount will convert back to N-14 in 5,730 years (plus or minus 40 years). This is the “half-life.” So, in two half-lives, or 11,460 years, only one-quarter of that in living organisms at present, then it has a theoretical age of 11,460 years. Anything over about 50,000 years old, should theoretically have no detectable C-14 left. That is why radiocarbon dating cannot give millions of years. In fact, if a sample contains C-14 it is good evidence that it is not millions of years old, not even 100,000 years, but somewhere in the 50,000 year or less area. As an example, if something measure 1% of C-14 remaining (99% disintegrated), and with a half-life of 5,730 years, plus or minus 30 years, the oldest it could be is somewhere around 50,000 years.
    In other words, nothing through C-14 dating can be determined to be a specific age beyond that time, only that it is older than 50,000 years if there is no detectable carbon within in. Conversely, this means that so-called millions of years old bones, say from dinosaurs, would have no Carbon-14 detected. However, it is a well-known fact that all dinosaur bones tested show small amounts of detectable Carbon-14. Take, as an example, the one sent to the University of Arizona in Tucson. In a letter dated August 10, 1990, and signed by Austin Long, Professor of Geosciences, “This letter reports the results of our ¹⁴C analysis of the bone samples that you submitted in June of this year:” A-Number 5809, Sample A, Conventional Date: 9890 +- 60 years; Bone B was 16,120 years +- 230 years. How did they get any date at all from an Allosaurus bone considered to be 150 to 155 million years old, supposedly so old no Carbon-14 could even exist in it?
    Let’s take a different look at this by way of an example, like the candle scenario in the previous post. Let’s say you are along in the mountains and run across an abandoned cabin in which you need to live out the winter. One of the essential needs is for water and the only water available is what is left in a 100-gallon water tank in the cabin. Now, this tank is rated to lose 10% of its water content to evaporation per month.

Level of water entering the tank is the same as the amount of water exiting the tank making the tank in equilibrium

 

No matter how long you run this tank, keeping it at a steady flow in and out to maintain the 80 gallons, considering there is no additional evaporation or outflow, the tank will be in what is called equilibrium. That is the amount of water going in is constant as the water escaping, thus the level of water is constant and remains the same so the tank is in equilibrium, in which the water flow in and the water flow out remains the same. The tank will remain in equilibrium as long as nothing interferes with the amount of water entering or the amount of water exiting.
    Now, let’s say you run across this tank and it has 50 gallons left inside. After some testing and calculation, you determine the above figures are correct and that the tank had been shut off for the past 30 months. Since your survival depends on this tank being right, you double- and triple-check your figures.
    The tank is down 30 gallons, at 1 gallon of evaporation per month, meaning you have 50 gallons left: 15 gallons per month usage, plus one gallon per month evaporation or 16 gallons, in three months, that would be 48 gallons used, leaving a 2-gallon buffer before the water is all gone.
Again, we have a problem with these calculations since we are assuming certain facts:
1.  We don’t know when the tank was shut off’
2. We don’t know if there is a leak somewhere we haven’t detected
3. We don’t know if any water was used during the past 30 months;
4. We don’t know if any water was added during that time;
5. We don’t know if the temperature increased or decreased, changing the level of evaporation.
    In short, like with the candle, we are merely—guessing!
    Since no one was around during those 30 months, we do not know if the tank was changed in any way, or if the numbers we measured are representative. If the tank was used, altered, added to or leaked from—though all now undetectable and unknown—would render our figures likely inaccurate and obviously useless.

Atmosphere is in Equilibrium when the amount of carbon is entering as escaping the atmosphere 

Now, when it comes to the real thing, that of equilibrium in the atmosphere to verify that living matter will acquire an equal amount of C-14 while living, and the comparable correct amount of C-14 will decay after death, like the importance of equilibrium in the water tank, it becomes very important to know the facts involved—that is, is the amount of Carbon-14 entering Earth’s atmosphere being the same amount of Carbon-14 decaying out of the atmosphere. If it is, then the C-14 in the atmosphere is in equilibrium and the time clock is correctly operating. But if it is not in equilibrium—if more is entering than is decaying—the Earth is not in equilibrium and is less than 30,000 years old.
    Perhaps even far less.
    The important thing to know at this point, is if the input of C-14 into the atmosphere the same, more, or less, than is decaying. Therein lies the value of the Libby Carbon-14 Time Clock.
    Surprisingly enough, the answer is a little complex and not a simple one. First of all, when Libby ran his tests, he found by his own measurements and results, that the atmosphere was not in equilibrium. This should have stopped his progress immediately with his development and begin a lengthy measurement and re-measurement of the process. However, it did not. Libby, by his own admission, within his own autobiography, stated that “Everyone knows the Earth is older than millions of years” and went ahead as though his experiments showed an equilibrium state, which his results did not verify.
    Subsequent tests have shown now for some time that the Earth’s atmosphere is not in equilibrium. While equilibrium is required for the C-14 time clock to work correctly, the rebuttals to C-14 balance or equilibrium has been shown to result in other things than lack of Carbon in the atmosphere, but rather that a fluctuation exists.

Left: Arthur Newell Strahler; Center: Václav Bucha; Right: Evžen Neustupný

The point is that fluctuations in the rate of C-14 production, according to A. N. Strahler, a professor at Columbia University and author of Planet Earth: Its physical systems through geologic time, means that at times the production rate will exceed the decay rate, while at other times the decay rate will exceed the production rate (Arthur Newell Strahler, Science and Earth History: The Evolution/Creation Controversy, John Wiley, New York, 1987, p158).
    In addition, the idea (that the fluctuating magnetic field affects influx of cosmic rays, which in turn affects C-14 formation rates) has been taken up by the Czech geophysicist, Václav Bucha, of the Institute of Geophysics of the Czech Academy of Sciences, has been able to determine, using samples of baked clay from archeological sites, what the intensity of the earth's magnetic field was at the time in question. Even before the tree-ring calibration data were available to them, he and the archeologist, Evžen Neustupný, were able to suggest how much this would affect the radiocarbon dates (Colin Renfrew Colin and Paul Bahn, Archaeology: Theories, Methods and Practice, Thames & Hudson, London, 2004, pp76,144-145).
(See the next post, “Why is it so Difficult to Obtain Accurate Dates?-PtIV,” for an understanding of the need for equilibrium in the atmosphere of C-12 andC-14, and how dates are often manipulated by scientists to obtain the desired results)