CARBON DATING UNDERCUTS EVOLUTION'S LONG AGES

ICR ^ | October, 2003 | John Baumgardner

[HalfFull]

Evolutionists generally feel secure even in the face of compelling creationist arguments today because of their utter confidence in the geological time scale. Even if they cannot provide a naturalistic mechanism, they appeal to the "fact of evolution," by which they mean an interpretation of earth history with a succession of different types of plants and animals in a drama spanning hundreds of millions of years.

The Bible, by contrast, paints a radically different picture of our planet's history. In particular, it describes a time when God catastrophically destroyed the earth and essentially all its life. The only consistent way to interpret the geological record in light of this event is to understand that fossil-bearing rocks are the result of a massive global Flood that occurred only a few thousand years ago and lasted but a year. This Biblical interpretation of the rock record implies that the animals and plants preserved as fossils were all contemporaries. This means trilobites, dinosaurs, and mammals all dwelled on the planet simultaneously, and they perished together in this world-destroying cataclysm.

Although creationists have long pointed out the rock formations themselves testify unmistakably to water catastrophism on a global scale, evolutionists generally have ignored this testimony. This is partly due to the legacy of the doctrine of uniformitarianism passed down from one generation of geologists to the next since the time of Charles Lyell in the early nineteenth century. Uniformitarianism assumes that the vast amount of geological change recorded in the rocks is the product of slow and uniform processes operating over an immense span of time, as opposed to a global cataclysm of the type described in the Bible and other ancient texts.

With the discovery of radioactivity about a hundred years ago, evolutionists deeply committed to the uniformitarian outlook believed they finally had proof of the immense antiquity of the earth. In particular, they discovered the very slow nuclear decay rates of elements like Uranium while observing considerable amounts of the daughter products from such decay. They interpreted these discoveries as vindicating both uniformitarianism and evolution, which led to the domination of these beliefs in academic circles around the world throughout the twentieth century.

However, modern technology has produced a major fly in that uniformitarian ointment. A key technical advance, which occurred about 25 years ago, involved the ability to measure the ratio of ¹⁴C atoms to ¹²C atoms with extreme precision in very small samples of carbon, using an ion beam accelerator and a mass spectrometer. Prior to the advent of this accelerator mass spectrometer (AMS) method, the ¹⁴C/¹²C ratio was measured by counting the number of ¹⁴C decays. This earlier method was subject to considerable "noise" from cosmic rays.

The AMS method improved the sensitivity of the raw measurement of the ¹⁴C/¹²C ratio from approximately 1% of the modern value to about 0.001%, extending the theoretical range of sensitivity from about 40,000 years to about 90,000 years. The expectation was that this improvement in precision would make it possible to use this technique to date dramatically older fossil material.¹ The big surprise, however, was that no fossil material could be found anywhere that had as little as 0.001% of the modern value!² Since most of the scientists involved assumed the standard geological time scale was correct, the obvious explanation for the ¹⁴C they were detecting in their samples was contamination from some source of modern carbon with its high level of ¹⁴C. Therefore they mounted a major campaign to discover and eliminate the sources of such contamination. Although they identified and corrected a few relatively minor sources of ¹⁴C contamination, there still remained a significant level of ¹⁴C—typically about 100 times the ultimate sensitivity of the instrument—in samples that should have been utterly "¹⁴C-dead," including many from the deeper levels of the fossil-bearing part of the geological record.²

Let us consider what the AMS measurements imply from a quantitative standpoint. The ratio of ¹⁴C atoms to ¹²C atoms decreases by a factor of 2 every 5730 years. After 20 half-lives or 114,700 years (assuming hypothetically that earth history goes back that far), the ¹⁴C/¹²C ratio is decreased by a factor of 2²⁰, or about 1,000,000. After 1.5 million years, the ratio is diminished by a factor of 2^1500000/5730, or about 10⁷⁹. This means that if one started with an amount of pure ¹⁴C equal to the mass of the entire observable universe, after 1.5 million years there should not be a single atom of ¹⁴C remaining! Routinely finding ¹⁴C/¹²C ratios on the order of 0.1-0.5% of the modern value—a hundred times or more above the AMS detection threshold—in samples supposedly tens to hundreds of millions of years old is therefore a huge anomaly for the uniformitarian framework.

This earnest effort to understand this "contamination problem" therefore generated scores of peer-reviewed papers in the standard radiocarbon literature during the last 20 years.² Most of these papers acknowledge that most of the ¹⁴C in the samples studied appear to be intrinsic to the samples themselves, and they usually offer no explanation for its origin. The reality of significant levels of ¹⁴C in a wide variety of fossil sources from throughout the geological record has thus been established in the secular scientific literature by scientists who assume the standard geological time scale is valid and have no special desire for this result!

In view of the profound significance of these AMS ¹⁴C measurements, the ICR Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth (RATE) team has undertaken its own AMS ¹⁴C analyses of such fossil material.² The first set of samples consisted of ten coals obtained from the U. S. Department of Energy Coal Sample Bank maintained at the Pennsylvania State University. The ten samples include three coals from the Eocene part of the geological record, three from the Cretaceous, and four from the Pennsylvanian. These samples were analyzed by one of the foremost AMS laboratories in the world. Figure 1 below shows in histogram form the results of these analyses.

These values fall squarely within the range already established in the peer-reviewed radiocarbon literature. When we average our results over each geological interval, we obtain remarkably similar values of 0.26 percent modern carbon (pmc) for Eocene, 0.21 pmc for Cretaceous, and 0.27 pmc for Pennsylvanian. Although the number of samples is small, we observe little difference in ¹⁴C level as a function of position in the geological record. This is consistent with the young-earth view that the entire macrofossil record up to the upper Cenozoic is the product of the Genesis Flood and therefore such fossils should share a common ¹⁴C age.

Percent Modern Carbon

Applying the uniformitarian approach of extrapolating ¹⁴C decay into the indefinite past translates the measured ¹⁴C/¹²C ratios into ages that are on the order of 50,000 years (2^-50000/5730 = 0.0024 = 0.24 pmc). However, uniformitarian assumptions are inappropriate when one considers that the Genesis Flood removed vast amounts of living biomass from exchange with the atmosphere—organic material that now forms the earth's vast coal, oil, and oil shale deposits. A conservative estimate for the pre-Flood biomass is 100 times that of today. If one takes as a rough estimate for the total ¹⁴C in the biosphere before the cataclysm as 40% of what exists today and assumes a relatively uniform ¹⁴C level throughout the pre-Flood atmosphere and biomass, then we might expect a ¹⁴C/¹²C ratio of about 0.4% of today's value in the plants and animals at the onset of the Flood. With this more realistic pre-Flood ¹⁴C/¹²C ratio, we find that a value of 0.24 pmc corresponds to an age of only 4200 years (0.004 x 2^-4200/5730 = 0.0024 = 0.24 pmc). Even though these estimates are rough, they illustrate the crucial importance of accounting for effects of the Flood cataclysm when translating a ¹⁴C/¹²C ratio into an actual age.

Percent Modern Carbon

Some readers at this point may be asking, how does one then account for the tens of millions and hundreds of millions of years that other radioisotope methods yield for the fossil record? Most of the other RATE projects address this important issue. Equally as persuasive as the ¹⁴C data is evidence from RATE measurements of the diffusion rate of Helium in zircon crystals that demonstrates the rate of nuclear decay of Uranium into Lead and Helium has been dramatically higher in the past and the uniformitarian assumption of a constant rate of decay is wrong.³ Another RATE project documents the existence of abundant Polonium radiohalos in granitic rocks that crystallized during the Flood and further demonstrates that the uniformitarian assumption of constant decay rates is incorrect.⁴ Another RATE project provides clues for why the ¹⁴C decay rate apparently was minimally affected during episodes of rapid decay of isotopes with long half-lives.⁵

The bottom line of this research is that the case is now extremely compelling that the fossil record was produced just a few thousand years ago by the global Flood cataclysm. The evidence that reveals that macroevolution as an explanation for the origin of life on earth can therefore no longer be rationally defended.

[balrog666]

Does that mean my skepticism regarding the Greek and Norse gods is based on faith? Is my disbelief in the teachings of Jim Jones based on faith?

Well said. Too bad getting them to understand anything rational is like nailing Jello to a wall.

[bondserv]

This article came from one of those creation science web sites, but its not science. Its closer to the methods used by the inquisition than to science. They start out with a belief, then go about looking for evidence to prove it. That's how it was proved that people were witches so they could burn them at the stake. When someone starts out trying to prove something they already believe, they will ALWAYS SUCCEED no matter how stupid or wrong their belief is. Because they pick and choose the evidence they want to use.

Take some time to read this website. You will be enlightened by the fact that you have perfectly described modern science.

[VadeRetro]

This link, and links therefrom, lead to some fun analyses of the real-world consequences of the Flood model John Baumgardner proposes. Boiling oceans are part of it. Funny the Genesis account fails to mention that little difficulty.

What they don’t tell you here is that the 10^28 J they admit to is already more than enough energy to vaporize all the water in all the earth’s oceans and convert the entire atmosphere to high pressure steam. There are about 1.4x10^24 grams of water in the oceans of the world (1.4 Billion Cubic Kilometers according to Britannica). It takes about 420 J to heat a gram of water from 0 to 100 C and another 2260 to boil it at room temperature. Thus it takes about 3.8 x 10^27 J to heat the oceans to boiling and boil them at room temperature. This is less than half of the energy supposedly released. It will actually take a little more energy to completely boil the oceans for two reasons. The atmosphere is hydrostatic so the air pressure will increase thus the boiling temperature will increase, however, as the pressure increases the heat of vaporization goes down so the total heat required is not a great deal more. Second as the oceans boil down they will become saturated salts solutions which will require higher temperature to boil. The final result will still be to convert the atmosphere to high-pressure steam at a temperature above the critical point of water(374 C).

[VadeRetro]

Exactly right! Note, however, that telling the Emperor he's naked does not stop him from prancing around in his imaginary finery. Appearances must be mainained.

[js1138]

Well I happen to accept the existence of God, but I do not believe any human has a full and complete definition of God, including those who think they have an inerrant transcript of conversations with God.

[VadeRetro]

I notice on that page an article on Neanderthals which tends to buttress the Multi-Regional theory, currently out of favor against a growing tide of evidence that the competing Out-of-Africa theory describes at least the main outline of events better. What's funny is that I'm in sympathy with the viewpoint that Neanderthals may have hybridized with later arrivals in their regions and thus may have contributed to our ancestry. The possibility cannot be excluded unless and until nuclear DNA studies are done and shoot it down once and for all. The mtDNA studies trumpeted as achieving this are inconclusive because mtDNA is almost purely matrilineal.

So, have I gone creationist? Not exactly. The heckling bozo who compiles that page picked that find because it contradicts a current trend. People like Ahban who argue with me about the skull series below defend to the death the statement that Neanderthals are not the ancestors of humans.

Why? Because then they can say, "That table is FRAUD! It has NEANDERTHALS in it and NEANDERTHALS ARE NOT HUMAN ANCESTORS!!!"

So, your C-E/H site compiler has come down on the side of someone whose study helps me; he is heckling mainstream opinion that helps Ahban in his fervent desire to wish away hard evidence. It doesn't matter. The guy's got a monthly edition to get out and he needs material. The people he's going to reach aren't doing a lot of critical thinking anyway.

[VadeRetro]

Your name taken in vain in a discussion of previous questions. Meant to ping you.

[Last Visible Dog]

Well I happen to accept the existence of God, but I do not believe any human has a full and complete definition of God, including those who think they have an inerrant transcript of conversations with God.

Sounds reasonable to me.

[Last Visible Dog]

Well said. Too bad getting them to understand anything rational is like nailing Jello to a wall.

Well said? They were quesitons not statments or positions. I wish you evolutionists would spend more time actually debating and less time doing victory dances.

[Last Visible Dog]

This article came from one of those creation science web sites, but its not science. Its closer to the methods used by the inquisition than to science. They start out with a belief, then go about looking for evidence to prove it.

There is nothing in the article to support your position. It looks like you started out with a belief and you presented it without providing any evidence to prove it. Welcome to the Inquisition.

[RippinGood]

arggghhh ....

I meant to send that info to message #1 as it concisely discusses some of the issues brought up in the original article.

RG

[HalfFull]

So you have provided a nice model of ICR-style scholarship. Just take what's good. Whatever you do, don't say how much data you left behind on the discard heap.

Your side, however, just takes what they think is bad, automatically begin calling respected researchers names because they cannot refute the this study. We have caught on to your game.

In this particular accusation (unrelated article, with multiple authors of unknown contributions) , you automatically assume the worst without even knowing all the facts. There are many possible explanations of why his nane is no longer on the article...of course you and prof just call him names...typical.

Of course, real facts of this particular thread (intrinsic C14 in fossils) remains unrefuted, in spite of all the smoke you and Mr. Prof are blowing.

[LisaAnne]

There is nothing in the article to support your position. It looks like you started out with a belief and you presented it without providing any evidence to prove it. Welcome to the Inquisition

This article came from one of those creation science web sites, but its not science

No wonder you have a difficult time following logic. Try reading the whole sentence in context.

*hitting the ignore button*

[VadeRetro]

Your side, however, just takes what they think is bad, automatically begin calling respected researchers names because they cannot refute the this study.

Caught out in a pathetic flim-flam, you hurl accusations.

The old-earth study of which Baumgardner is listed as a co-author in every case but one requires no refutation of which I am aware. His YEC model is a joke.

[VadeRetro]

Out for a few hours. Life beckons.

[Last Visible Dog]

This article came from one of those creation science web sites, but its not science

Says you. Are planning on providing any supporting evidence for this claim or are we supposed to just take your word on it, Ms. Inquisitor

No wonder you have a difficult time following logic. Try reading the whole sentence in context.

Maybe you should not be so intellectually lazy, a common malady among orthodox Darwinists. Now you are making more unsupported and baseless accusations. I understand exactly what you said - you said in summery "based on the web site is comes for it has to be invalid" - that is the logic used by bigots and it has not basis in science.

Maybe you should spend more time explaining and supporting your position and less time posting insults and doing victory dances.

[Last Visible Dog]

*hitting the ignore button*

A smart thing to do for people that arrive unarmed to an intellectual debate.

[balrog666]

Well said? They were quesitons not statments or positions. I wish you evolutionists would spend more time actually debating and less time doing victory dances.

You mean you're too stupid to understand the analogy with your hypocritical statements? Somehow that doesn't surprise me.

[bondserv]

Why? Because then they can say, "That table is FRAUD! It has NEANDERTHALS in it and NEANDERTHALS ARE NOT HUMAN ANCESTORS!!!"

Neanderthals may be a crossbreed between Unholy Angels and man.

Gen 6:4
4 There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God (Angels) came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown. (emphasis added)

Duet 1:28
28 Whither shall we go up? our brethren have discouraged our heart, saying, The people is greater and taller than we; the cities are great and walled up to heaven; and moreover we have seen the sons of the Anakims there.

Duet 2:10-11
10 The Emims dwelt therein in times past, a people great, and many, and tall, as the Anakims; 11 Which also were accounted giants, as the Anakims; but the Moabites call them Emims.

1 Sam 17:4
4 And there went out a champion out of the camp of the Philistines, named Goliath, of Gath, whose height was six cubits and a span. (11' 9" Tall)(emphasis added)

1 Sam 17:26
26 And David spake to the men that stood by him, saying, What shall be done to the man that killeth this Philistine, and taketh away the reproach from Israel? for who is this uncircumcised Philistine, that he should defy the armies of the living God?

You have got to like David. Statements like that last one dubbed him "a man after God's own heart". And you think creationists are fighters for God.

[balrog666]

Neanderthals may be a crossbreed between Unholy Angels and man.

Gee, why not unicorns and cocker spaniels?