Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

CARBON DATING UNDERCUTS EVOLUTION'S LONG AGES
ICR ^ | October, 2003 | John Baumgardner

Posted on 09/25/2003 2:46:02 PM PDT by 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 21500000/5730, 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.


TOPICS: Heated Discussion
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140 ... 441-449 next last
To: HalfFull
"AMS" method improved the sensitivity of the raw measurement of 14C/12C ratio from approximately 1% of the radom value to about 0.0001%, extending the rang of sensitivity from about 40,000 years to 90,000"

This is in the article this new method extends the range to up to 90,000 years.
101 posted on 09/25/2003 4:03:00 PM PDT by MontanaBeth (USA-its enemies are my enemies-foreign or domestic.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro
Most scientists are aware that carbon is a dirt-common and highly reactive element. It gets around.

Maybe so, but we are not talking about a little C14 contamination

From article: 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

102 posted on 09/25/2003 4:04:33 PM PDT by HalfFull
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: f.Christian
Your wagon - chariot is sparking ... you lost the reins on reality (( id - ego )) !

Well, that certainly clears things right up.

103 posted on 09/25/2003 4:05:04 PM PDT by humblegunner (( id - ego )) = Abilty to speak english ... mine @ non-psychosis - human being American!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: goodseedhomeschool (returned)
Kids are losing their faith all the time to what I consider to be a lie (evolution), don't you see why we feel it needs to be defended?

Don't you get it? If you stopped trying to read a handful of chapters, maybe only a few thousand words, and insist that it contradicts decades of research and undoubtedly hundreds of books full of facts, then YOUR KIDS WOULDN'T BE LOSING THEIR FAITH!

People who study evolution aren't taking faith from kids. Creationists are driving them away, because they just don't have the facts on their side.

Once you see that there is no conflict between Genesis and evolution, then the problem dissapears!

104 posted on 09/25/2003 4:05:09 PM PDT by narby
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: goodseedhomeschool (returned)
I would think all the animals were young.

Hmmm. We don't encounter a whole lot of success turning young animals loose into the wild. They need a certain amount of tutoring to be succesful.

Also, have you ever watched that old show that used to come on in the States with Marlin Perkins? He used to send Jim out with the natives to catch this or that species. It didn't look easy. Sometimes, it would take Jim, plus four or five natives to wrestle one snake into submission. How long do you figure it would take Noah with his three sons to round up all those animals.

And complicating this problem- from your own explanation- is the fact that Noah would not only be rounding up animals per se, but taking lion cubs away from their families, bear cubs away from their mums, wolf puppies away from their packs etc. You see what I mean? You go out and try to take a Grizzly cub away from its mother and see what happens. Noah didn't even have a tranquilizer gun (as far as I can tell).

Him and his boys were obviously some hard core animal herders. Able to trek thousands of miles to get the animals they needed and bring them back. I'd reckon if we set whole nations of people doing it today with tranquilizers, planes and what not- this whole operation would take years and years and years. Something just doesn't add up there somehow. Maybe it's just me...

105 posted on 09/25/2003 4:05:45 PM PDT by Prodigal Son
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: Alter Kaker
God made land animals and man on the same day, day 6 of creation
106 posted on 09/25/2003 4:10:02 PM PDT by goodseedhomeschool (returned) (If history has shown us anything, darwinism/evolution is seriously wrong.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: Tac12
boy it sure is nice to see an open minded gent like you expressing you purest thoughts...........phew
107 posted on 09/25/2003 4:10:23 PM PDT by pointsal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: dirtboy
Just a thought.

Put billions of tons of water on top of the meringue pie of the earth's crust and imagine the bulging and sinking that this would cause to the land.

Watch an ocean in less than one year’s time erode 50 yards of beach front, then replace it before next summer.

Erosion and sedimentary processes are mainly results of water. The global flood had lots of water! There is no other explaination for the sedimentary layers we observe in the geologic record.

Don't say this at your local University, you might get a failing grade because you learned (believed) nothing the teacher has taught.
108 posted on 09/25/2003 4:11:29 PM PDT by bondserv
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: narby
I have no need to compromise with man's theology. Man is always having to self correct, God never has to.
109 posted on 09/25/2003 4:11:34 PM PDT by goodseedhomeschool (returned) (If history has shown us anything, darwinism/evolution is seriously wrong.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: humblegunner
Evolution according to you just makes everyone's lies - denials equal ... darwin in wonderland --- sock puppet science !
110 posted on 09/25/2003 4:13:03 PM PDT by f.Christian (evolution vs intelligent design ... science3000 ... designeduniverse.com --- * architecture * !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: bondserv
There is no other explaination for the sedimentary layers we observe in the geologic record.

Oh, really?

111 posted on 09/25/2003 4:13:05 PM PDT by narby
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: Prodigal Son
Actually, they did not need to herd the animals. God called them in and GOD closed the door of the ark. I suppose God had His hand in it the whole way. I have faith in Him.
112 posted on 09/25/2003 4:13:32 PM PDT by goodseedhomeschool (returned) (If history has shown us anything, darwinism/evolution is seriously wrong.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: HalfFull
What is going on behind the unexpanded "usually" in "usually offered no explanation?" My money is that no samples can reasonably be expected to be utterly 14C dead. Again, it's nothing that helps ICR. Things that do not help ICR do not make it into their articles and that's just one example.

ICR is not famous for their pristine scientific scholarship. Next week the age of the earth will be the same plus one week, the interpretations of 14C dating will be the same, ICR will still be a crackpot website, and the ultimate triumph of literal Genesis creationism will be not one bit closer than it was last week.

113 posted on 09/25/2003 4:14:53 PM PDT by VadeRetro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: narby
"The contamination Vade is talking about is rain."


I guess that means carbon dating is useless then, or was there no rain contamination before now?
114 posted on 09/25/2003 4:15:35 PM PDT by MontanaBeth (USA-its enemies are my enemies-foreign or domestic.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: goodseedhomeschool (returned)
I have no need to compromise with man's theology. Man is always having to self correct, God never has to.

So correct yourself. Evolution is not a theology, except to the charlitians trying sell you books. If you want to stop young people from losing their faith when they learn of the facts of evolution, then stop telling them they must choose between evolution and God.

God is plenty strong enough to have created evolution. He just didn't tell you about all those petty details in the few chapters of Genesis that cover that subject.

115 posted on 09/25/2003 4:17:57 PM PDT by narby
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: MontanaBeth
Back to about 50K, the decay curve sticks up out of the noise floor. I'm surprised the two geologists you claim to have worked for didn't mention how carbon dating works and how little relation it bears to the age of the earth.
116 posted on 09/25/2003 4:18:02 PM PDT by VadeRetro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 114 | View Replies]

To: samtheman
This may help:

http://www.cs.colorado.edu/~lindsay/creation/carbon.html

117 posted on 09/25/2003 4:18:05 PM PDT by RippinGood
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: MontanaBeth
I guess that means carbon dating is useless then, or was there no rain contamination before now?

Rain caused carbon to be deposited in rock layers. It is not so much that you can't use carbon dating for relativly recent samples, but it does create a base noise floor (a minimum 14C amount) in all samples.

One of the previous posts from HalfFull quoted the article saying ther should be a zero amount of 14C in very old samples. But this is false.

118 posted on 09/25/2003 4:21:01 PM PDT by narby
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 114 | View Replies]

To: RippinGood
Old samples contain much less C14, so the measured date of older samples is strongly affected by even small amounts of contamination.

Nice link! The above quote is another way of saying, "Noise floor from contamination."

119 posted on 09/25/2003 4:21:36 PM PDT by VadeRetro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]

To: narby
Oh, really?

Don't say this at your local University, you might get a failing grade because you learned (believed) nothing the teacher has taught.

A Modern Day Geological Understanding.

120 posted on 09/25/2003 4:22:19 PM PDT by bondserv
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140 ... 441-449 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson