CARBON DATING UNDERCUTS EVOLUTION'S LONG AGES

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.

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.

500 years ago, men of science thought they had it all figured out too. They were wrong.

The problem you have is that, while science is always incorporating more observations and revising the picture, by that very process it converges upon an ever-more accurate description of reality. We may never know what is exactly exactly exactly right, but the wrong ideas of the past will be wrong forever. Thus, it is simultaneously true that science will never be "over" and that it's too late for the notion that the earth sits on the back of a giant turtle to make a comeback.

Most of these papers acknowledge that most of the 14C in the samples studied appear to be intrinsic to the samples themselves

Yeah, if it leaches in from groundwater and becomes embeded in the material at the molecular level, then it will be "intrinsic" to the sample. I.e. it was in there before you dug the sample out of the ground. It is not separable or distinguishable like contamination with modern carbon sources from mere admixture, say through failing to properly clean the sample before testing, or from handling it carelessly.

OBVIOUSLY there HAS to be some level of pre-excavation contamination, and it's apt to be ubiquitous. Coal or bones aren't sealed in lucite before they get buried. The only question is at what levels does this "instrinsic" contamination occur, and when can or does it affect dates derived from the C14 analysis. This is why scientists do all these studies and experiments on C14 contamination. But the ICR would have its dupes believe scientists are pursuing these obsessive studies because they're nervously worried about the earth being proved to be 10K years old. LOL!

Like a parapsychologist looking for "E.S.P.", Baumgardner is finding (and significantly only finding) the "phenomena" in the enevitable base-level noise of the system.

True, this is geology, not biology. The true amount of science we have to discard to please the Luddites is really discouraging and quite disguised by the catch-all label of "evolution" they use to cover astronomy, physics, geology, cosmology, paleontology, biology ...

I find closed-minded people far closer to Luddites.

As far as your off-topic question (that has been discussed endlessly), I'm still waiting for that freepmail.

And he said he wouldn't be sending any.

What is it you're trying to hide from the rest of us?

It's absurd to try to pretend that mainstream science does the kind of selective editing of its data that ICR or that Creation-Evolution Headlines site of bondserv's routinely does. Creationists, who do essentially no research of their own, parasitize upon on how science puts all the data out there, allowing the creationists to pick and choose from a sea of contrary data a few things here and there (like the 14C noise floor) to try to spin.

I see with a complete lack of supporting evidence, you just make stuff up. You prove my point. Your statement above is unsupported nonsense.

So you're not going to back this up? I don't blame you; you can't. Creationist research is practically non-existent. 99 percent or more of their citations are mainstream. Their quote salads are full of out-of-context snippets designed to show that evolutionists don't believe in evolution. They let real science do the work, then they pick just the parts they want and try to spin from there.

Sedimentary rocks laid down at the time of the flood. IMHO

But... How did those sedimentary rocks get laid down. And then a thousand feet or so of them be compressed and twisted all out of purportion, then 4000 feet more sedementary rocks be laid down on top of that, and THEN the flood came along and carved the canyon out of the sedements it had laid down?

Sorry. The canyon is millions of years old, and my original point is that when your son hikes it someday, he'll see that all you've taught him about creation was wrong. He'll then likely loose his faith outright, and it will be your fault for teaching him that it either had to be God, or evolution, but not both.

God created the universe. And He created evolution too. And if the devils working in anybody, its in these greedy people making a living telling you otherwise. Because these people are the ones who are setting up people to make the choice between God, and easily observable facts.

The problem you have is that, while science is always incorporating more observations and revising the picture, by that very process it converges upon an ever-more accurate description of reality.

The problem you have is nearly everything you type is based solely on assumption or fantasy. You know nothing about me or what I think so please stop pretending like you do. It seems liberals and evolutionists both think they are mind-readers.

We may never know what is exactly exactly exactly right, but the wrong ideas of the past will be wrong forever.

may? I see you cleave tightly to your beliefs. Your "wrong forever" concept is for the most part silly and unsupported. Please provide examples.

Thus, it is simultaneously true that science will never be "over" and that it's too late for the notion that the earth sits on the back of a giant turtle to make a comeback.

You spend a lot of time typing nonsense.

Science is not just a progression - often old ideas are proven wrong. It is possible that one day science will incorporate the essence of God (if this thought pisses you off or makes you laugh - you are not a man of science, you are man of predefined beliefs)

The fact I didn't read the article doesn't matter in the least. What matters is did the fool try to date a fossil?

You see facts are what is important you can't carbon 14 date inorganic material. It is so simple and a fact is a fact. If it is a rock you can't carbon date it. We'll I'll take that back a little, you can't carbon date it and get an actual date when the creature lived. You can carbon date anything. You can carbon date my television set but it doesn't mean anything. All it will tell you is how much carbon 14 it contains.

Carbon 14 is a very limited dating method and if you don't even understand the most simple facts about it then you should shut up about it.

I am finished debating this. A fact is a fact. You don't have facts just silly technobabble.

You do more harm to your creationists beliefs by defending something so absolutely stupid. The only people you are convincing are the people to stupid to realize a rock was never alive. You don't need to convince those people because they already agree with you.

So you're not going to back this up? I don't blame you; you can't.

I said the same thing to you. Try to be original.

BTW: I don't need to back up my comment. I said you provided no supporting evidence. That is a fact.

You're about to understand what it means not to defend your arguments...

Oh, you mean because I didn't want to re-hash the off-topic "dinosaur in the ark" issue in this particular thread, I am not defending the real topic (dating using C14)?

You sure provide strange justification for declaring yourself victorious...

Creationist research is practically non-existent. 99 percent or more of their citations are mainstream. Their quote salads are full of out-of-context snippets designed to show that evolutionists don't believe in evolution. They let real science do the work, then they pick just the parts they want and try to spin from there.

Once again. You make stuff up. Notice once again you provide zero supporting evidence. We are just supposted to take your word on it. Science does not work that way.

Even if you throw out 14C readings entirely, there are litteral mountains of other evidence that conclusivly proves evolution.

So, in your opinion I take it, evolution is no longer a 'theory', but a 'law', right?

Personally, I consider evolution to be a religious tenet of the Left...one that requires much more of a suspension of disbelief than anything in the Bible.

Your "wrong forever" concept is for the most part silly and unsupported. Please provide examples.

How easy! Science is not over, but Geocentricism will be wrong forever. Science is not over, but Flat-earthism will be wrong forever. Science is not over, but the idea that combustion is the result of phlogiston rushing out of the burning object will be wrong forever. Science is not over, but the idea that the geologic column is the result of one big worldwide flood will be wrong forever. Science is not over, but the idea that the earth is only 6K years old will be wrong forever.

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.