Why is it so Difficult to Obtain Accurate Dates? - Part VII

Continuing from the previous post on the manner in which C-14 dates are often manipulated by the scientists in order to provide the dates needed to support personal views and paradigms. To better understand this, especially in light of the fallacious claim that the atmosphere is in equilibrium as scientists want us to believe, we can a look at Dr. Kent Hovind’s claims that the atmospheric C-14 is presently only-one-third of the way to equilibrium, though the scientific community has completely rejected his theory.
    First of all, the idea that the Earth’s atmosphere was not in equilibrium was first popularized by Henry Morris, who used some calculations done in 1968 by Melvin A. Cook to get the 10,000-year figure—that is, that the amount of carbon buildup in the atmosphere was such that it showed the Earth to be only about 10,000 years old. In 1968 another creationist, Robert L. Whitelaw, using a greater ratio of carbon-14 production to decay, concluded that only 5000 years had passed since carbon-14 started forming in the atmosphere! In either case, we are talking about an atmosphere far out of equilibrium—so far out that it doesn’t even show a balance of 30,000 years, but much younger.

Unfortunately, many researchers either begin with their own assumptions, or inject them when the results do not agree with their assumptions

Regarding this age, Dr. Kent Hovind, a controversial figure in the Young Earth creationist movement, and an adherent of the Bible’s claim of a young Earth, and author of Unmasking the False Religion of Evolution, claims that the atmospheric C-14 is presently only one-third of the way to an equilibrium value which will be reached in 30,000 years. This nullifies the carbon-14 method as well as demonstrating that the earth is around 10,000 years old.
    To counter this argument, Arthur N. Strahler (Science and Earth History, Prometheus Books, New York, 1987) claims that these measurements were developed before the cycles of C-14 variation we described had been fully documented. The point is that fluctuations in the rate of C-14 production mean that at times the production rate will exceed the decay rate, while at other times the decay rate will be the larger.” However, for this to be of any value, the increase and decrease would have to be exactly the same so a measurement could be maintained and equilibrium maintained.
    Consequently, even if we were to grant that Strahler’s assertions were true, his argument actually, on the face of it, undermines the case for the usefulness of C-14 dating in general, because this requires an equilibrium, which have other sources showing it is not in equilibrium, such as deep earth diamonds. Thus the presence of C-14 in diamonds and coal is now being emphasized, and as a result has shown the lack of equilibrium, it has become a great enemy for the evolutionary concept of an Earth that is billions of years old.
    Eight PhD scientists recently released their findings on the radioisotope evidence for the age of the earth. Called the RATE group (Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth), this team of eight scientists spent eight years on the project. They studied many radioisotopic dating methods including Carbon-14, since diamonds contain carbon. Obviously, since Carbon-14 has a half-life of only 5,730 years, any biological object that is older than twenty Carbon-14 half-lives should not have any detectable Carbon-14 at all. In other words, since carbon 14's half-life is 5,730 years, twenty half-lives would be 114,600 years. Yet deep Earth diamonds show a high amount of carbon that would not exist if the Earth was any appreciable age.

It was Melvin Alonzo Cook (left), a noted American chemist, and best known from his work in the research and development of explosives, including the development of shaped charges and slurry explosives, and based on his work as found in Prehistory and Earth Models, Max Parish, Bel Air California, 1966; and its sequel Scientific Prehistory: A Sequel of Prehistory and Earth Models, Family History Publishers, West Valley City, UT, 1993), that showed where not only was the Earth atmosphere not in equilibrium, the atmosphere was, at most, only about 6000 years old.
    We also need to note that historical dates only go back a few thousand years. In fact, the earliest are 3000 B.C., with the earliest authenticated dates only going back to 1600 B.C. This means that well authenticated dates are only about 3600 years old—1600 B.C.—in Egyptian history, according to John G. Read (J.G. Read, Journal of Near Eastern Studies, Vol.29, No.1, 1970). Thus, the meaning of dates by C-14 prior to 1600 B.C. is still as yet controversial” (Henry Madison Morris, et al., Science and Creation, 1971, p85).
    On this subject, Libby wrote: “The first shock Dr. Arnold and I had was that our advisors informed us that history extended back only 5,000 years…You read books and find statements that such and such a society or archaeological site is [said to be] 20,000 years old. We learned rather abruptly that these numbers, these ancient ages, are not known; in fact, it is about the time of the first dynasty in Egypt that the last [earliest] historical date of any real certainty has been established” (Willard F. Libby, "Radiocarbon Dating," University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1952, p107).
    U.S. Department of Energy gathered 10 coal samples all analyzed by the best carbon lab in the world. The results were that they found no difference in the levels of the Carbon-14 in the coal near the top and the coal near the bottom—this means that all of this material, though found at very different levels of the geologic column actually lived at the same time and died at the same time. Obviously, just additional strong evidence that the entire fossil record has the same age, contrary to the evolutionary views of strata dating.

According to Dr. John Baumgardner (left), one of the lead RATE team members and a geophysicist with expertise in tectonic modeling, analyzed several diamonds of C-14 and was excited to find significant levels of C-14 in diamonds, 100 times the detection threshold. It should be kept in mind that diamonds are formed 100 miles down in the Earth, and should be considered some of the earliest material involved when the Earth was formed, probably dating to the time of creation. At that depth, it would have been impossible to have been contaminated by other elements or processes, in fact, could not be contaminated, and shows the earth is young, only a few thousand years old or the C-14 in the diamonds would have long since decayed—showing that diamonds must date to the original creation of the earth itself a few thousand years ago.
    The measurements also show that all these fossils lived at the same time and were buried at the same time a few thousand years ago, which is an extremely important results and a strong support of the Biblical Flood around 2444 B.C. This Flood naturally would have greatly upset the carbon balance in the atmosphere since it buried a huge amount of carbon, which became coal, oil, etc., lowering the total C-12 in the biosphere (including the atmosphere—plants regrowing after the flood absorb CO2, which is not replaced by the decay of the buried vegetation).
    Total C-14 is also proportionately lowered at this time, but whereas no terrestrial process generates any more C-12, the C-14 is continually being produced, and at a rate which does not depend on carbon levels (it comes from nitrogen). Therefore, the C-14/C-12 ratio in plants, animals and the atmosphere before the flood had to be lower than what it is now.
    One of the first questions this should raise, is why is the same level of C-14 found in deep earth diamonds as well as fossils from top to bottom of the fossil record if the earth was formed billions of years ago and these animals appeared on the scene only a short time ago—doesn’t this support the evidence that the earth is only thousands of years old, not billions?
    It would not be, of course, if the Earth was indeed millions or billions of years old—it would exist (and does) only if the Earth were less than 50,000 years.

The thing we need to keep in mind is that the method of the Earth’s formation along with its atmosphere, geosphere and hydrosphere are set by unchanging factors. As is the biosphere, heat exchange and other forces, such as the weather. As an example, carbon moves between the atmosphere and the biosphere through photosynthesis and cellular respiration. It moves from the biosphere to the lithosphere through decaying organisms and animal waste products. Also, carbon moves from the atmosphere to the hydrosphere through dissolution of organic and inorganic carbon. Finally, carbon moves from the lithosphere to the hydrosphere through erosion.
    These factors are unchanging as is the process of Cosmic Rays of energetic neutrons when they collide with nitrogen-14, turning into Carbon-14. No amount of fudging the issue, the Carbon-14 can then be known within the atmosphere. And today that is about 30% of the 50,000-year cycle, making the Earth less than 30,000 years old. However, do not mistake this to mean that the parts of the Earth used to form it are not much older. In fact, matter cannot be destroyed, merely altered. When the Earth was formed, parts of ancient matter in the forms of the bui8lding blocks of rock needed came from former particles existing in the universe, thus, much of the Earth on an individual basis can be measured to be very old, while the formation of the planet itself is quite young.

The unalterable fact of Carbon-14 atoms is formed on Earth in well-defined manner, cannot be altered. Nor the fact that they are created when cosmic rays from the sun collide with atoms in the atmosphere 
The point is, most carbon-14 dates arrived at through testing do not agree with the theory and as a result, are discarded. "It may come as a shock to some, but fewer than 50 percent of the radiocarbon dates from geological and archaeological samples in northeastern North America have been adopted as “acceptable” by investigators" (J. Gordon Ogden III, "The Use and Abuse of Radiocarbon Dating," Annals of the New York Academy of Science, Vol.288, New York, 1977, pp167-173).
    As can easily be seen, there has been a tendency, if not outright hell-bent effort, to sell the idea of Carbon-14 testing and so-called “time clock” to the non-scientific populace from the very beginning. The fact that this has been achieved is evidenced through the national conscience of Carbon-14 dating as an accurate means to know and place specimens and time frames of the past. However, as pointed out above and in this series, such is not the case, and the system is not only flawed, but continually delivers inaccurate dating and information. Using C-14 dates to determine dates of events in the early Americas and the civilizations that inhabited those areas is not only not recommended but emphatically shown to be in total error.