|
The Problem of Carbon
“The
Problem of Carbon”
It seems that much is made of, and surety placed in, radiometric dating, normally
associated with the isotope Carbon 14. Indeed, the results of
dating materials and artifacts with this method is perhaps singularly
the most compelling “evidence” for evolution—the vast majority
believing that since so many fossils have been dated far beyond the
chronology of the Bible, evolution must be true1.
In a literal reading of the Old Testament of the Bible, the age of the
earth would be around 6 to 9 thousand years; this is obviously quite
incompatible with artifacts dated at hundreds of times such a
figure. This leads many to assume a priori that the record of the Bible
cannot be trusted at all; if it is wrong on the chronology, it is
probably wrong about many other things. It would seem that this
scientific assignment of dates is the Achilles Heel of theism.
On its surface, this is quite logical. That
is, either science is wrong about the dates or the Bible is; if the
Bible is wrong about the dates, certainly logic would dictate that the
relative level of trust it could be given would be quite low. The
Bible is a record handed down over 3,500 years, the people writing it
having little if any scientific or mathematical capacity, which could
hardly be considered supporting evidence of its veracity and
accuracy. On the other hand, science is present, imminent, and
tangible; it can be tested on the chalkboard and in the laboratory—the
approach purely from logic and objectivity would seem to gravitate
singularly towards its findings and reject the former. In the
modern society, the great age of once living organisms is an
established fact; to posit otherwise is to be wholly unscientific and
less than honest and objective. Indeed, the average person has
little need of the supporting scientific methodology and specific
findings since the great ages of the artifacts are so universally
accepted; the old age of the earth must be right.
In the positive, therefore, the older dates for the
age of the earth are assumed right, any other posit must then
necessarily be wrong, and this is essentially the pervasive and common
belief. Perhaps however, a question should be asked, and the
answer to it sought, from the negative; that is, asking the question
“What if the dating methods and their findings are wrong?” Or even, “Could
the dating methods be wrong?”
The methodology of Carbon dating will then be
considered from this perspective such that its relative veracity and
reliability will be examined in comparison to known and proven
scientific and mathematical function. That is, since there is
indeed a great presumption that the findings of radiocarbon dating are
sound and in fact inviolate, the probity of coming to such a conclusion
will be tested. The manifestation of such an approach will be not
to prove without qualification that the dating method(s) are true or
false, but rather to simply determine whether the intellectual assent to such findings
is congruent with the fundamentals of logic and science. In
essence, we will look not to what belief
is commonly held, but rather why
it is.
The approach here will be divided into two main
categories, the inherent physical properties and methods, and the
effects of human interactions or limitations.
INHERENT PROPERTIES AND ERRATA
Radiocarbon dating, especially using the Carbon 14
method, takes advantage of the radioactive decay of the isotope, which
is seen as a constant. Every living thing takes in and expels
Carbon 14 while it is alive, and a static level of the element is
maintained. When the organism dies, the infusion is suspended,
and the level is reduced according to the rate of decay, known as the
“half-life.” The amount of Carbon 14 in the artifact is measured
and then compared to the presumed static level the organism maintained
while alive; the comparison then yields the relative age of the
specimen. Though this sounds very straightforward and scientific,
there are several serious problems.
The first problem is seen in the very approach in
the presumption that must be made in the level of Carbon 14 the
organism had while living. Here we have a critical calculation
that is based upon an assumption that an organism which lived thousands
of years previous, of which there are no modern species to compare,
developed a specific level of Carbon 14 from an environment we know
nothing about. If for example, the presumption is inaccurate by
only 10%, considering that it is the
rate of decay that forms the mathematical constant, the inaccuracy
of the calculation of age at the upper limit would be tens of thousands of years.
The very basis for the assumption above is another
problem, and is perhaps the most embarrassing for the proponents of
radiocarbon dating. To assume a particular level of Carbon 14 in
an organism requires a
precise determination of environmental (atmospheric) levels of the same.
That is, to presume a particular level in a living thing requires a
precise knowledge of the ambient amount of Carbon 14 in the air and
environment. Scientists performing radiocarbon dating assume that
the amount in the environment has not changed. This is
compelling for several reasons, not the least of which is the
convenience with which “science” apparently operates; we hear of
massive changes in the earth, ice ages, catastrophic events that killed
the dinosaurs, etc., but the environment
never changed according to the same scientists.
Not only does the requisite level of assumption and
presumption all but invalidate the accuracy of the claims of very old
dating, but were there for example, an environmental phenomenon that
affected the level of ambient Carbon 14, the results could be skewed exponentially.
In fact, several such phenomena did indeed exist, proven by the same
science that supports old-age radiocarbon dating! It would seem
quite clear that some predisposition or predilection for particular
findings in terms of dating artifacts is at work in this case.
For example, consider that it is essentially accepted that an
antediluvian water canopy existed surrounding the earth; this would
have acted to either negate or at least significantly reduce the effect
of cosmic, x-ray, and ultraviolet radiation in the upper
atmosphere. Carbon 14 production would have been negligible, and
therefore would not have been
absorbed by living things; any organism living before the
reduction of the canopy would in turn be dated exponentially
older than it actually is. Or consider the effect a global
atmospheric shield of dust created as a result of a meteor impact some
scientists believe killed off the dinosaurs—levels of Carbon 14 in the
atmosphere must certainly have been different, thereby invalidating the
age/date test data. Isn’t it funny how the same scientists who
purport constant catastrophic changes in earth’s history depend
upon the inherent necessity that it was completely without any changes?
Moreover, it is established fact that the earth’s
magnetic field has been in a constant decline in strength2,
which would have vigorously protected the earth from the same
radiation, all but negating the production of Carbon 14 and thereby
minimizing the ambient amount available for absorption by living
things. Yet these two facts
are virtually unknown in modern society, and it seems never associated
with radiometric dating, apparently since it would put such method (and
indeed its findings) in doubt as to its reliability.
Another fact, which proves quite embarrassing to
“old-age” proponents in regard to radiometric dating, is the half-life
of Carbon 14 itself. Not only is the actual half-life length
itself in some contention, but the effect it would have on the upper
limits of its capability in dating illustrates clearly the level of
fraud that has been foisted on an unsuspecting society. Consider
that Carbon 14’s half-life is around 5,630 years3
(though estimates range from 5,300 to 5,700 years); in only ten cycles
of this, there would be nothing left
to measure in the extant specimen! This means that the
absolute maximum
age radiocarbon could date a specimen to would be around 56,300 years;
yet daily society is barraged with reports that some new find was dated
in the hundreds of thousands, and even millions of years using Carbon
14. Actually, after the sixth cycle or so, there would not be enough
Carbon 14 in the sample to be measured; the upper limit then
would be around 30,000 years.
This leads to yet another inherent problem in the
use of radiometric dating which would seem virtually insurmountable,
and is caused by the presence of environmental Carbon 14 itself,
ironically, the phenomenon scientists exploit in the determination of
date of origin. Simply stated, it is nearly impossible to
preclude contamination that seriously affects the results of the
measurement. The levels of Carbon 14 in any “old” artifact are
extremely low; because of this, it is virtually impossible to prevent
the test and measurement equipment from picking up residual or
background environmental Carbon 14 not associated with the
specimen. Further, most artifacts by their very nature are found
in and around various forms of rock, which provide several sources of additional
radiation. This has the concomitant effect of providing a
source of neutrino radiation; Carbon 14 decay is accelerated in the
presence of such bombardment, and again the effect would be to cause
the specimen to appear much older than it actually is. This
effect cannot be overstated in regard to the estimates of age—a less
than 5% reduction in the extant amount of Carbon 14 in the specimen,
owing to the “constant” of its half-life will yield a factor of 5 times
the actual age. Imagine the effect on science if an artifact
dated at 45,000 years is actually only 9,000; the possibilities are
staggering.
The foregoing is but a few examples of the problems
with Carbon 14; many more examples could be given, as well as some
documented, glaring failures such as live clams being dated at 1,500
years, and parchment documents from the 17th century being dated to the
4th. The point however, is that radiocarbon dating has serious
problems in terms of reliability and veracity, and its use is at best
quite limited. On the other hand, there is an obvious dichotomy in
these problems and the lack of common knowledge regarding them; it
would seem that there should be some explanation why the vast majority
of society is so unaware of the spurious nature of the science behind
radiocarbon dating. That is, since science is ostensibly clinical
and without emotion, the most likely cause of the dearth of knowledge
of the limitations, fallacies, and vulnerabilities in this method is
man himself—a manifestation of his own biases and predilections.
This is the subject of the next division.
THE HUMAN EFFECT
Whereas in the foregoing the physical and scientific
limitations and problems of using Carbon 14 dating has been examined,
the human effect and influence on the science is often underestimated;
this could be illustrated essentially in the rhetorical “Why?”
That is, since the use of Carbon 14 in radiometric
dating has several glaring and seemingly irreducible problems that
almost certainly cast doubt on its results, this begs the question of
“why” it is used at all, or at least why it would be considered
accurate. It would seem quite clear that some bias is at work in
the published results of dating activities, and therefore the
motivation for fostering erroneous (or at least misleading) findings is
suspect.
It would also seem however that it is not so much
what the proponents are trying to present as much as what they are
trying to prevent. That is, the view is held because a suitable
alternative is not available—evolution depends on the great age of
living things—the alternative is creation by God, and this is
unacceptable to many, especially it seems, scientists. (Though
there are indeed many scientists who believe in special Creation by
God). This lack of alternative is sufficient motivation for some
to ignore the obvious problems with radiocarbon dating, as long as
their “religion” of the theory of evolution remains intact. It is
somehow appropriate that the theory itself has the same type of
problems as the dating methods that support it. The question of
“why” is however yet unanswered; it boggles the mind to think that many
scientists, ostensibly known for their dedication to truth, objectivity
and scholarship would entertain such a problematic system, seemingly at
all costs.
It may be that the answer can be found,
appropriately enough, in the same place as the account of the creation
of man, the Book of Genesis. In the story about the fall into
sin, it would seem that the motivations are essentially the same:
“And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die: For God doth
know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good
and evil.” (Genesis 3:4-5, King James Version, emphasis mine
throughout).
Here are the two great motivations that underlie the motivation for
following after evolution and its requisite dating: for absent God,
there is no accountability; absent God creating, then evolution and man
would be the height of achievement, the top of the scale. Note
that the serpent is trying to convince Eve that she will not be held
accountable, that the results God had warned of would not be applicable
to her; man has sought to be free from accountability ever since.
Note also that man’s (Eve’s) status would change, that he would be as
high up the scale as any other created thing, perhaps beyond.
Evolution provides both of these things at once, and apparently man’s
desire for them is greater than he has for the truth. Just as the
progenitor of mankind, Eve, was misled by the serpent, society today is
being misled regarding the sufficiency and truth of what science really
purports; the great irony is that it is apparently for the same reason.
William B. Tripp, Ph.D, D.Th.
18 March 2002
Notes:
1 Various studies
have revealed that the data and results of radiometric analysis is
essentially the only commonly and universally offered defense for the
evolutionary view. The vast majority of respondents cannot cite
any other facet or evidentiary for holding to the theory of evolution.
2 Most scientists believe that the rate of decay is
such that it would render the field about ten times stronger at the
time of the Flood of Noah than it is today. Most models of
decline show that the earth’s field loses half its strength every 1,400
years—which would quite obviously support a young earth theory—prior to
about 10,000 years there would have been no field at all.
3 Webster’s II New
Riverside University Dictionary, (Boston MA: Houghton Mifflin
Company 1984) 229. Most volumes include the half-life under the
definition for “Carbon 14.”
See our Other articles here.
|
Print this page
