Christians, by definition, take the statements of Jesus Christ seriously. He said, “But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female” (Mark 10:6). This only makes sense with a time-line beginning with the creation week thousands of years ago, since the Bible clearly gives the ages of all the patriarchs from Adam to Jesus, which allows us to calculate the time elapsed since the creation of Adam. It also makes no sense if man appeared at the end of millions or billions of years, because of the death, suffering that would have had to occur before the “curse” caused by the sin of Adam and Eve.
· How the Carbon Clock Works
Carbon has unique properties that are essential for life on earth. Familiar to us in several forms, or isotopes: as the black substance in charred wood, coal and the graphite in “lead” pencils: and in the “girl’s best friend”, diamonds. One rare form has atoms that are 14 times as heavy as hydrogen atoms: carbon-14, or radiocarbon.
Carbon-14 is made when cosmic rays knock neutrons out of atomic nuclei in the upper atmosphere. these displaced neutrons now moving fast, hit ordinary nitrogen (N-14) at lower altitudes, converting it into C-14. Unlike common carbon (C-12), C-14 is unstable and slowly decays, changing back into nitrogen and releasing energy. This instability makes it radioactive.
Ordinary carbon (C-12) is found in the carbon dioxide (CO2) in the air, which is taken up by plants, which in turn are eaten by animals. So, a bone or a leaf of a tree, or even a piece of wooden furniture, contains carbon. When C-14 has been formed, like ordinary carbon (C-12), it combines with oxygen to give carbon dioxide (CO2-14), and so it gets cycled through the cells of plants and animals.
We can take a sample of air, count how many C-12 atoms there are for every C-14 atom, and calculate the C-14/C-12 ratio. Because C-14 is so well mixed up with the C-12, we expect to find that this ratio is the same if we sample a leaf from a tree, or a part of your body. In living things, although C-14 atoms are constantly changing back to Nitrogen (N-14), they are still exchanging carbon with their surroundings, so the mixture remains about the same as in the atmosphere. However, as soon as a plant or animal dies, the C-14 in that once-living things decreases as time goes by. In other words, the C-14/C-12 ratio gets smaller. So, we have a “clock” which is ticking the moment something dies. Obviously this works only for things which were once living. It cannot be used to date volcanic rocks, for example
The rate of decay of C-14 is such that half of an amount will convert back to N-14 in 5,730 (+- 40) years. This is the “half-life.” So, in two half-lives, or 11,460 years only one-quarter will be left. Thus is the amount of C-14 relative to C-12 in a sample is one-quarter of that in living organisms at present, then it has a theoretical age of 11,460 years. Anything over about 50,000 years old, should theoretically have no detectable C-14 left. That is why radiocarbon dating cannot give millions of years. In fact, if a sample contains C-14, it is good evidence that it is not millions of years old! Sounds good so far, right? But, in reality things are not that simple:
· Is It Reliable? What Does Carbon Dating Really Show?
First, plants discriminate against carbon dioxide containing C-14. that is they take up less than would be expected, so they test older than they really are. Furthermore, different plants discriminate differently. All this has to be “corrected” for, which is a subjective call based on your “world-view” (i.e. evolution or creation).
Second, the ratio of C-14/C-12 in the atmosphere has not been constant --- for example, it was higher before the industrial era when the massive burning of fossil fuels released a lot of carbon dioxide that was depleted in C-14. This would make things which died at that time appear older in terms of carbon dating. Then there was a rise CO2-14 with the advent of atmospheric testing of atomic bombs in the 1950’s. This would make things carbon-dated from that time appear younger than their true age.
Measurement of the C-14 in historically dated objects (E.g. seeds in the graves of historically dated tombs) enables the level of C-14 in the atmosphere during the industrial era to be estimated, and so partial calibration of the “clock” is possible. Accordingly, carbon dating carefully applied to items from historical times can be useful. However, even with historical calibration, archaeologists do not regard C-14 dates as absolutes because of frequent anomalies. They rely more on dating methods that link into historical records Outside the range of recorded history, calibration of the “C-14 clock” is not possible.
· Other Factors Affecting Carbon Dating
The amount of cosmic rays penetrating the earth’s atmosphere affects the amount of C-14 produced and therefore the dating system. The amount of cosmic rays reaching the earth varies with the sun’s activity, and with the earth’s passage through magnetic clouds as the solar system travels around the Milky Way galaxy.
The strength of the earth’s magnetic field affects the amount of cosmic rays entering the atmosphere. A stronger magnetic field deflects more comic rays away from the earth. Overall, the energy of the earth’s magnetic field has been decreasing, so more C-14 is being produced now than in the past. This will make old things look older that they really are. In all these variables a subjective “yardstick” is used, based on the world-view of the person(s) assigning dates..
Also, the Genesis flood (“world-view” --- see “The Great Flood”) would have greatly upset the carbon balance. The flood buried a huge amount of carbon, which became coal, oil, etc., lowering the total C-14 in the biosphere (including the atmosphere --- plants regrowing after the flood absorb CO2, which is proportionately lowered at this time, but whereas no terrestrial process generates any more C-12. C-14 is continually being produced, and at a rate which does not depend on carbon levels.(it comes from nitrogen). Therefore, the C-14 level relative to C-12 increases after the flood. So, the C-14/C-12 ratio in plants/animals/the atmosphere before the flood had to be lower than what it is now. Unless this effect (which is additional to the magnetic field issue) is corrected for, carbon dating of fossils formed in the flood would give ages much older than their true ages.
Volcanoes emit much CO2 depleted in C-14. Since the flood was accompanied by much volcanic activity (see Genesis), fossils formed in the early post-flood period would give radio-carbon ages older still, than they really are.
The Carbon-14 method when corrected for the effects of the flood, and all the other variables can give useful results, but needs to be applied carefully. This still does not eliminate the possibility of error because of the possible effects of other unknown variables. It does not give dates of millions of years, and can fit well with the Biblical flood.
· What About Other Radiometric Methods?
There are various other radiometric dating methods used today to give ages of millions or billions of years for rocks. These techniques, unlike carbon dating, mostly use the relative concentration of parent and daughter products in radioactive decay chains. For example, potassium-40 decays to argon-40; uranium-238 decays to lead-206 via other elements like radium; uranium-235 decays to lead 207; rubidium-87 decays to strontium-87; etc. These techniques are applied to igneous rocks, and are normally seen as giving the time since solidification.
The isotope concentrations can be measured very accurately, but isotope concentrations are not dates. To derive ages from such measurements, unprovable assumptions have to be made such as:
1) The starting conditions are known (for example, that there was no daughter isotope present at the start, or that we know how much there was).
2) Decay rates have always been constant.
3) Systems were closed or isolated so that the parent or daughter isotopes were lost or added..
There is plenty of evidence that the radioisotope dating systems are not the infallible techniques many think they are, and that they are not measuring millions of years.
When a “date” differs from that expected, researchers readily invent excuses for rejecting the results. The common application of such posterior reasoning shows that radiometric dating has serious problems. The forms issued by radioisotope laboratories for submission with samples to be dated commonly ask how old the sample is expected to be. Why? If the techniques were absolutely objective and reliable, such information would not be necessary.
If the long-range dating techniques were really an objective means of finding the ages of rocks, they should work in situations where we know the age. Furthermore, different techniques should consistently agree with one another.
· There are many examples where the dating methods give “dates’ that are wrong for the rocks of a known age:
1. K-Ar “dating” of five historical and site lava flows from Mount Ngauruhoe in New Zealand. Although one lava flow occurred in 1949, three in 1954, and one in 1975, the “dates” ranged from less than 0,27 to 3.5 Ma! Again, using hindsight, it is argued that “excess” argon from the magma (molten rock) was retained in the rock when it solidified. The secular scientific literature lists many examples of excess argon causing dates of millions of years in rocks of known historical ages. This excess appears to have come from the upper mantel, below the earth’s crust. This is consistent with a young world --- the argon has had too little time to escape. If excess argon can cause exaggerated dates for rocks of known ages, then why should we trust the method for rocks of unknown age?
2. Using four different “dating” methods (potassium-argon model, rubidium-strontium, rubidium-strontium isochron, and lead-lead isochron) for basaltic rocks from the Uinharet Plateau of the Grand Canyon (which most geologists believe to be only thousands of years old) got variations of “dates” ranging from 10,000 years to 2,600 Ma!
3. Geologist Dr. Steve Austin sampled basalt from the base of the Grand Canyon strata and from lava that spilled over the edge of the canyon. By evolutionary reckoning the latter should be a billion years younger than the basalt from the bottom. Standard laboratories analyzed the isotopes. The rubidium-strontium isochron technique suggested that the recent lava flow was 270 Ma older than the basalt beneath the Grand Canyon --- an impossibility!
4. In Australia, some wood found in Tertiary basalt was clearly buried in the lava flow that formed the basalt, as can be seen from the charring. The wood was “dated” by radiocarbon (C-14) analysis at about 45,000 years old, but the basalt was “dated” by the potassium-argon method t 45 million years old!
5. Isotope ratios of uraninite crystals from the Koongarra uranium body in Northern Territory of Australia gave lead-lead isochron ages of 841(+-140) Ma. This contrasts with an age of 1550-1650 Ma based on other isotope ratios, and ages of 275, 61, 0, 0, and 0 Ma from thorium/lead (Th-232/PB--208) ratios in five uraninite grains. The latter figure are significant because thorium-derived dates should be the more reliable, since thorium is less mobile than the uranium minerals that are the parents of the lead isotopes in the lead-lead system.
The “zero” ages in this case are consistent with the Biblical accounts.
Is There Evidence That The Time Elapsed Since Life Began Should be Measured in Thousands, Instead of millions or Billions of Years?
Many of the “problems” we have discussed with the current “millions and billions of years” dating methods point to the possibility of a young earth. Let’s now look at some of the evidence that suggests a “young earth” (less than 10,000 years).
· Laboratories that measure C-14 would like a source of organic material with zero C-14 to use as a blank to check that their lab procedures do not add C-14. Coal is an obvious candidate because the youngest coal is supposed to be millions of years old, and most of it is supposed to be tens of millions of years old. Such old coal should be devoid of C-14, but it isn’t. No source of coal has ever been found that completely lacks C-14!
· Red blood cells and hemoglobin have been found in some unfossilized dinosaur bone. But these could not last more than a few thousand years --- certainly not the 65 Ma since the last dinosaurs lived according to evolutionists!
· The earth’s magnetic field has been decaying so fast that it looks like it is less than 10,000 years old. Rapid reversals during the flood year and fluctuations shortly thereafter would have caused the field energy to drop even faster!
· Radioactive decay releases helium into the atmosphere, but not much is escaping. This helium originally escaped from rocks. This happens quite fast, yet so much helium is till in some rocks, that it has not had time to escape --- this corresponds to a earth of about 10,000 years old.
· A supernova is an explosion of a massive star --- the explosion is so bright that it briefly outshines the rest of the galaxy. The supernova remnants (SNRs) should keep expanding for hundreds of thousands of years, according to the physical equations. Yet there are no very old, widely expanded SNRs, and few moderately old ones in our galaxy, the Milky Way, or in its satellite galaxy the Magellanic Clouds. This is just what we would expect for “young” galaxies that have not existed long enough for wide expansion.
· The concentrations of elements and compounds in the ocean (i.e.: uranium, sodium, nickel, cesium, potassium. copper, gold, tin, aluminum, etc.) that flow from the rivers should be much higher that they are now if the earth were very old. These concentrations indicate the earth is less than ten thousand years old.
· The sun is shrinking at a rate of 0.1% per century. Why is this important? Because this means that 100,000 years ago the sun would be twice the size it is now. Any life on the earth would have been impossible. At 20 million years BC the earth would have been inside the sun! Rather harsh environmental conditions, don’t you think?
· Population statistics, calculated for the world’s population based on the number of years man has been on the earth: with 10,000 years comes out to 4.34 billion people; with just one million years comes out to enough people to fill the known universe with 10 to the 2900 people left over (that’s 10 with 2900 zeros after it!
· Cosmic dust is currently filtering down from outer space at a rate of 14 million tons per year. based on it’s high nickel content, it is possible to measure this cosmic dust. There is only enough cosmic dust to yield an estimated age of a few thousand years for the earth. The same applies to the moon. The “moon-walkers” should have sank in hundreds of feet of cosmic dust when they stepped out on the moon --- - if the universe were millions of years old!
· Hydrogen is constantly being converted into helium throughout the universe. The universe is almost entirely made up of hydrogen. However hydrogen cannot be produced in any significant amounts through the conversion of other elements. This conversion is a one-way process. If the earth were millions or billions of years old there would be very little hydrogen left in the universe. This indicates a young universe.
1) The Revised & Expanded Answers Book, Ken Hamm, Jonathan Sarfati, & Carl Wieland, pp. 75-94, 2002, Creation Science Foundation, Master Books, Inc, PO Box 726, Green Forest, AR. 72638.
2) Reason and Revelation, Bert Thompson, Phd, Wayne Jackson, MA, Apologetic Press, 230 Landmark Dr., Montgomery, AL 36117
A friendly welcome awaits you. We do not wish to embarrass you in any way. You will not be asked for contributions. We assemble for Bible study and worship each Sunday morning and we welcome you to meet with us. We would be happy to talk to you about your questions and we want to be of encouragement.
Please contact me, Dennis Crawford, at BibleTruthsToU@gmail.com, or 253-396-0290 (cell) for comments or further Bible information, or for the location of a congregation belonging to Jesus Christ near you.
No comments:
Post a Comment