Since the newly formed radiocarbon in the atmosphere has the same chemical properties as ordinary carbon, it can and does combine with the oxygen in the air to form carbon dioxide. This carbon dioxide diffuses through the atmosphere and is thought to be distributed evenly in the atmosphere and subsequently in the oceans. The amount of radiocarbon in the carbon dioxide of our present atmosphere is very low. There is, on average, only one carbon atom with the atomic weight of 14 for every 1,000,000,000,000 (that’s one trillion) with the atomic weight of 12. This ratio, 1 : 1012, has been determined because, as the radiocarbon disintegrates, it emits an electron that is detected using very sensitive equipment.
The carbon dioxide, with its radiocarbon component, is assimilated by plants during photosynthesis, and finally also by animals, which ultimately live on plants. Hence at any given time, the ratio between active and non-active carbon in all living organisms is essentially the same as that in the air—that is, 1 : 1012. Now, when an organism dies, it is unable to take up further radiocarbon, and that which is already present diminishes due to radioactive decay. Because the activity of the radiocarbon in a sample (measured by detecting the electron emission of the radiocarbon as it decays into nitrogen) decreases at what is assumed to be a constant rate, it is possible, by measuring the present activity of the sample, to determine the time elapsed since death occurred. Providing that all the assumptions inherent in the method are valid, the technique may be applied to samples which are between 100 and 50,000 years old.
This method is, no doubt, very ingenious and powerful, providing that all the following six assumptions are valid:14
that the amount of cosmic radiation—and hence the amount of neutron bombardment in the upper atmosphere—has been essentially constant over the last 50,000 years
that the concentration of radiocarbon in the carbon dioxide of the atmosphere has been constant over the last 50,000 years
that the carbon dioxide content of the ocean and atmosphere has been constant over the same period of time
that dead organic matter is not later altered with respect to its carbon content by any biological or other activity
that the rate of decay of radiocarbon is constant
that the rate of formation of radiocarbon in the upper atmosphere and its rate of disappearance from the biosphere are in equilibrium and have been so during the last 50,000 years.
These six assumptions, all of which must be valid if radiocarbon dating is to be accurate, must be critically examined from a scientific viewpoint.
The first three assumptions are contrary to some of the arguments advanced as causes of the Ice Age(s). Of the several hypotheses which have been advanced by geologists to account for the onset of the Ice Age(s), the ones most favoured by them are:15
variation in the sun’s radiation
an increase in the amount of carbon dioxide present in the atmosphere.
If the first hypothesis is correct, then assumption 1 is not true and assumption 2 is therefore also invalid. This is because the ratio of radiocarbon to ordinary carbon depends on how many neutrons bombard the upper atmosphere and that, in turn, depends on the amount or intensity of cosmic radiation. If, on the other hand, the second hypothesis is correct, assumption 3 is untrue because the carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere, and subsequently of the oceans, would have changed considerably over the last 50,000 years.
There is also the problem of contamination of atmospheric carbon dioxide by the burning of fossil fuels (e.g. oil, coal and natural gas) containing little or no active carbon and which dilute the active carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. During the nineteenth and twentieth centuries a considerable proportion of inactive carbon dioxide has been added to the carbon cycle.16 This means that, in radiocarbon dating, the standard used—that is, the present radiocarbon content of carbon dioxide, upon which radiocarbon age calculations are based—is incorrect. This standard, however, could be modified so as to make it correct for the time immediately before the Industrial Revolution. It has been found, however, that the amount of active carbon in the atmosphere varied even before the Industrial Revolution.17
Moreover, to complicate matters even further, the amount of radiocarbon has been steadily increasing since the middle of the last century with the advent of atomic devices that have released neutrons into the atmosphere. These neutrons combine with atmospheric nitrogen to produce radiocarbon. The position is so bad that the scientists who work on radiocarbon dating disagree with one another as to the position and magnitude of these so-called ‘short-term’ fluctuations of the radiocarbon in our present atmosphere.18 Each group of workers has its own particular standard upon which it bases the age of a particular sample, and this means that each group will give a different age for the same sample!
Scientists regard the fourth assumption—that dead organic matter is not later altered with respect to its carbon content by any biological or other activity—as being very important. The danger of contamination of the sample by external sources of carbon, especially in damp locations, has been recognized.19 At a conference on radiocarbon dating held in 1956, the following remarks were made concerning this sort of contamination:
The most significant problem is that of biological alteration of materials in the soil. This effect grows more serious with greater age. To produce an error of 50 per cent. in the age of a 10,000 year old specimen would require the replacement of more than 25 per cent. of the carbon atoms. For a 40,000 year old sample, the figure is only 5 per cent. while an error of 5,000 years can be produced by about 1 per cent. of modern materials.20
One scientist working in the radiocarbon dating field has said that, because of contamination, ‘we do not know which dates are in error, or by what amounts or why’.21
As we saw when looking at radiometric dating, the fifth assumption about a constant decay rate is the backbone of all radiometric dating. It has been generally assumed by scientists that the decay rates of radio-isotopes are independent of the physical and chemical environment. This is despite the fact that experimental evidence shows that this is not so.22 What is even more surprising is that one of these experiments involves carbon, and this has far-reaching consequences for the radiocarbon method of dating.
Finally, for radiocarbon dating to be accurate, the sixth assumption has to be correct: that the rate of formation of radiocarbon in the upper atmosphere and its rate of disappearance from the biosphere are in equilibrium at present and have been so during the last 50,000 years. However, Professor Libby noted that there did not appear to be an equilibrium in the rate of formation and the rate of disappearance of radiocarbon at the present time—and if these rates are not in equilibrium at present, there is a very real doubt about whether they were in equilibrium in the past. This was a cause of concern for Professor Libby, since his calculations showed that, if the earth started with no radiocarbon in its atmosphere, it would take only up to 30,000 years to build up to the equilibrium position.23 Although Professor Libby was aware of this non-equilibrium, he chose to ignore it, believing that the discrepancy was due to experimental error. But this discrepancy is very real: ‘The Specific Production Rate (SPR) of C-14 is known to be 18.8 atoms per gram of total carbon per minute. The Specific Decay Rate (SDR) is known to be only 16.1 disintegrations per gram per minute.’24 This represents a 14.4 per cent difference; how can an equilibrium condition be assumed with such a large difference existing? The truth of the matter is that this 14.4 per cent difference between the rate of formation and the rate of disappearance of radiocarbon makes all radiocarbon dating inaccurate.
In spite of these highly questionable assumptions, it is usually maintained that radiocarbon dating has been verified beyond any shadow of doubt by numerous correlations with samples of known age determined by other archaeological dating methods. But this is not so! Professor Libby pointed this out in his Nobel Prize acceptance lecture:
The first shock Dr Arnold and I had was when our advisers informed us that history extended b
ack only to 5,000 years. We had thought initially that we would be able to get samples all along the curve back to 30,000 years, put the points in, and then our work would be finished. You read statements in books that such and such a society or archaeological site is 20,000 years old. We learned rather abruptly that these ancient ages are not known accurately; in fact, it is at about the time of the First Dynasty in Egypt that the first historical date of any real certainty has been established.25
It is pretty obvious, therefore, that any genuine correlation between definitely verified historical dates and the age found by the radiocarbon dating method is limited only to the last 5,000 years or so. Interestingly, the earlier part of this period of history is covered by biblical history.
From the arguments so far, it can be seen that radiocarbon dating applied to the last 50,000 years (even if such a time period existed) is highly suspect because of the invalid and often questionable assumptions which have to be made. There is, however, fairly good agreement among radiocarbon dates for the last 5,000 years or so of historically verified chronology, although there are numerous discrepancies and there is a very large margin of error the further back in time that comparisons are made. Moreover, the assumptions inherent in this method of dating are unlikely to be valid for periods distant in the past because of the universal cataclysmic Flood described in the book of Genesis, and because of the different terrestrial and atmospheric conditions which prevailed before the Flood and which are described in the first few chapters of the Bible.
However, there are results obtained by radiocarbon dating that completely undermine this method of dating and, by association, all other radiometric dating. Because of the relatively short half-life of radiocarbon, it can be shown that biological matter more than 100,000 years old would not contain any radiocarbon at all because it would all have decayed into nitrogen. However, radiocarbon has been found in wood samples trapped in lava flows the ages of which have been determined as millions of years old by other radiometric dating methods.26 If the rocks are in fact millions of years old, any wood found in them would also be millions of years old and so should not contain any radiocarbon. This is not the only example. Radiocarbon has also been found in coal and diamonds found sandwiched between rock layers allegedly millions of years old. Radiocarbon dating performed on the coal and the diamonds give a radiocarbon age of only tens of thousands of years.27 Such examples, as well as others discussed above, show not only the untrustworthiness of radiocarbon dating, but also the complete unreliability of radiometric dating in general.
Tree-ring dating
Although the radiocarbon dating method can be shown to be flawed, it is often argued that this method of dating has been verified by the independent method called ‘dendrochronology’, or tree-ring dating. This is not strictly correct, as we shall see. Dendrochronology is, on the face of it, simplicity itself—you count the number of tree rings and that gives the age of the tree. But it is not quite as simple as that, as can be seen from the following observations:
Firstly, tree rings are not two-dimensional structures. They are sheaths or layers of wood more or less completely surrounding the trunk, the branches, and the roots, formed in succession outward from pith to bark. ‘Growth layer’ is really a better term than tree ring, although the latter is in ordinary use.
Secondly, light and dark wood are commonly called spring and summerwood. These are terms referring to time, and until investigation proves them to be correct, descriptive terms such as lightwood and densewood are more precise.
Thirdly, the densewoods do not always end in sharp boundaries. Gradations may vary from sharp to diffuse. The lightwood of any single growth layer may even grade outward into densewood, which in turn may grade outward into lightwood. One question arises immediately: if a growth layer ends abruptly at one point in the stem of a tree, must it end similarly everywhere within the stem?
Fourthly, densewoods vary widely in thickness. Some densewoods may be 10–15 cells in thickness; others may have only one cell.
Fifthly, since lightwood is also variable, growth layers may be anywhere from 0.01 mm to 10 mm or more in thickness. A tree in a particular location may have growth layers that are uniform in thickness, whereas a tree in a different location has highly variable growth layers.
Sixthly, the term ‘annual ring’ implies a precise knowledge of the time of ring formation. It is, however, possible that factors that promote growth may fluctuate within the year as well as annually, depending on the local environment.28
In spite of all these problems, however, American dendrochronologists maintain that they have built up a substantial tree-ring chronology from the dendrochronological studies of the Bristlecone Pine tree (Pinus aristata), which is a very long-living tree (some attain ages of a few thousand years29) that grows high up in the White Mountains of California.30 The tree-ring growth sequences are extracted in a borer and are the primary source for chronological data. However, the chronology is built up not merely by the microscopic counting of rings, but a large number of cores are examined, counted and compared in order to obtain a complete record of annual growth patterns over a few thousand years.
Now, simple ring-counting in a single-core specimen of Bristlecone Pine gives erroneous ages because of ‘missing’ rings.31 Apparently, 5 per cent or more of the annual rings may be ‘missing’ along a given radius or core that spans many centuries. At least half of the ‘missing’ rings are usually found in their anticipated position through careful search of as little as 10 cm of circuit. The other ‘missing’ rings in a sample core are found by cross-checking its ring pattern with the ring patterns of other cores from trees in the same locality in which the ‘missing’ rings are present, or by checking against the ring record of the occasional specimen that contains every ring in a span of over 2,000 years. Dendrochronologists maintain that by such cross-checkings, a reliable chronology can be established—a master chronology of Bristlecone Pine tree rings. This chronology can then be used as an independent check on radiocarbon dating.
The problem is that this master chronology is, on the whole, unsuitable for samples to be checked against because the rings show little variation from year to year. This means that there are not enough ‘markers’ for cross-checking purposes. The dendrochronologist therefore resorts to radiocarbon dating in order to determine the ‘age’ of the Bristlecone Pine wood sample before an attempt is made to match it with the master chronology. Hence the Bristlecone Pine tree-ring dating is partially dependent upon radiocarbon dating, the inaccuracies of which have been described above. It is surprising, therefore, that dendrochronologists use this Bristlecone Pine master chronology to check the dates obtained by the radiocarbon dating method, given that radiocarbon dating is used to give an idea of the age of a sample in the first place. This is the same circular reasoning that is used with regard to the age determination of rocks using index fossils, described earlier in this chapter.
Scientific evidence for a young earth
Having established the total unreliability of current dating methods, we must now look at some of the scientific evidence that points to the fact that we are, in fact, living on a young earth. This evidence comes from a variety of scientific disciplines—astronomy, physics, geology and biology—and all of it leads us to the inevitable conclusion that the age of the earth should be measured in thousands of years rather than thousands of millions of years. Although this evidence exists and is readily available—for example, on the websites of creation organizations and in articles and books written by creationists—it is unfortunately not given the publicity in the mainstream media that it deserves.
The first piece of evidence for us to consider is the number of supernova remnants that we observe in our galaxy. A supernova occurs when a star explodes; on average, this happens about once every twenty-five years in our galaxy. Supernovae are extremely luminous and are often visible from the earth even during daylight hours for several days or weeks before they gradually fade fro
m view. The gas and dust remnants from such explosions (like the famous Crab Nebula that we will look at in Chapter 6) expand outwards rapidly and should remain visible for over a million years. Yet the nearby parts of our galaxy in which we could observe such gas and dust shells contain only about 200 supernova remnants—a number which is consistent with only about 7,000 years of time.32
Another piece of evidence that points to a young earth is the lifetime of comets, especially those that orbit the sun in less than 150 years. The head of a comet is like a huge dirty snowball some 100 km in diameter. As it approaches the sun, a comet gains a tail as particles of dust and ice are blown off the comet’s head by high-energy emissions from the sun. As a result, each time a comet orbits close to the sun, it loses so much of its material that many of these comets could not survive for much longer than 10,000 years.33 As comets are supposed to be the same age as the solar system—that is, 4,600 million years—there is a problem for evolutionists, because the disintegration of comets proves that the solar system is only a few thousand years old. In order to explain this, evolutionists assume that comets come from an unobserved spherical ‘Oort Cloud’ which is located well beyond the orbit of Pluto. They then argue that improbable gravitational interactions with infrequently passing stars knock comets into the solar system, and that other improbable interactions with the large outer planets of the solar system slow them down. The result of such improbable events is the hundreds of comets currently observed in the solar system. The problem with this is that there is absolutely no evidence that the Oort Cloud exists: ‘Many scientific papers are written each year about the Oort Cloud, its properties, its origin, its evolution. Yet there is not a shred of direct observational evidence for its existence.’34
What About Origins? (CreationPoints) Page 11
