afdave
Posts: 1621
Joined: April 2006
|
CARBON 14 IN COAL AND DIAMONDS: EVIDENCE FOR A YOUNG EARTH
I think I have beat the Helium-Zircon thing to death and I won't be so bold as to claim victory in the sense that I have proven long ages are wrong with this one experiment. But I will say that it is a very interesting experiment and it is quite impressive that Humphreys was able to predict the diffusion rates so accurately. I think Henke's rebuttals are extremely weak ... especially the ones about vacuum testing, the temperature history and supposedly 'fudging' data. This becomes very clear if you read the books. The only objection that holds any water in my opinion is the infiltration question, which again is very weak. We shall see what future data brings to light in regard to this question.
So on to C14 in Coal and Diamonds ...
This is an article written for IMPACT, which is ICR's free monthly newsletter. I have the RATE Books from which this information came, so if anyone has any questions about this article, I can answer them ... | Quote |
Carbon Dating Undercuts Evolution's Long Ages (Impact #364)
by John Baumgardner, Ph.D.
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% (40%/100) 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.
[Discussion of 'How can we throw out all the radio-isotope ages?']
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.
http://www.icr.org/index.p....&ID=117 |
So what we have is coal which is supposedly very old (50 million to 350 million years old) giving Carbon 14 dates on the order of 50,000 years (uncorrected for the Flood)!!
Wow! What do we do with that??!!
If this is not bad enough for long agers, the RATE Report goes on to report c14 in diamonds with roughly half that found in coal (about 0.12% on average). Of course, diamonds are supposed to be much older than coal, but these C14 levels indicate an age of only 55,000 or so!!
What's going on??!!
****************************************
Arden... | Quote | | Could you explain something, please? If 'the USA was founded as a Christian nation', then why do the Declaration of Independence, Constitution, and Bill of Rights fail to mention Christianity in any way? |
Read "Original Intent" and "The Myth of Separation" by David Barton of Wallbuilders. Or start a new thread on this topic ... maybe I will find time to respond.
Improvius... | Quote | Perfect, that's exactly what I was expecting. So in order to test your hypothesis, you simply throw out any and all data that conflicts with it, then keep whatever anomolous and/or erroneous scraps remain. I very much like the analogy of throwing out the signal and listening to the noise.
I'm sure you will disagree, but for the rest of us, it is perfectly clear that this is your methodology. |
No. Actually YOU are throwing out the huge signals that a) there was a Global Flood and b) current dating methods have bad assumptions among other things.
Eric... | Quote | | Dave, he didn't predict the diffusion rate over time, which is critically important to determining the age of the zircons. He didn't predict it, and he still doesn't know it. No one knows it, which is why everyone knows Humphreys' conclusions are suspect. Without knowing the diffusion rate into and out of the zircons throughout the entire time since their formation, he can draw no conclusions about how old they are. That's the entire point you don't seem to be getting. |
No. He predicted what it would be as a function of temperature when it was experimentally measured. He made his prediction based upon his hypothesis of recent creation and one or more accelerated nuclear decay events. The enormous point that you don't seem to be getting is "How in the world can there possibly be so much Helium left in these zircons?" It shouldn't be there if they are 1.5 Ga.
Ichthyic... | Quote | | what exactly do you contribute? You can't teach. you're retired from business. Your're dumber than a box of rocks. so what is it, exactly, that you think you contribute to american society at large? Ever considered maybe you're just a waste of space? |
Said by someone who has contributed exactly ZERO sciency information to this thread. Said by someone who sometimes uses proper capitalization, sometimes not. Very telling.
AFDave... | Quote | | I do. It's called the SAT Test. You go find the gorilla and the chimp. I'll provide the human, the SAT test and the testing room. We'll give them each the same amount of time. |
You all do have a good point ... namely, that it is probably not good semantics to talk about "non-biological differences." I do need a different word. Maybe "intangible differences"? I don't know. In any case, here's the deal. My point is simply that if one is to look beyond the genetic similarity, one will see huge differences between humans and both apes in question, while the differences between the apes is very minor by comparison. And the SAT Test would be a good indicator of this, but it would not be a fair test to use a 2 year old human and other such 'equalizers' to perform the test. The test should be conducted on adult specimens who have been in their natural environment. If you like, (and have the time) go get a newborn gorilla, chimp and human, then raise them together and give them all the same 'educational advantages' such as private school, piano lessons, little league baseball, etc.
I predict that even the slowest people on this thread will detect enormous differences between the humans and both apes by 8 years of age. In contrast to this, I predict that the gorilla and the chimp will behave in much the same way.
Do I have any volunteers to do this experiment? I would even pay big money to see you try it.
Eric... | Quote | | Sure, Dave. As soon as you explain to me why we should assume that both the 737 and the A-320 are more closely related than either is to the CH-47. |
Wow. You're serious aren't you. OK. The 737 and A-320 are more closely related because they share more common design features: jet engines, fixed wings, 100+ passenger seats, swept wings, to name a few. They are closer to each other than to the Chinook because the Chinook has a very different design: rotary wing, no jet used for forward propulsion, vertical flight capability, etc. Compare this to our human and two ape scenario: to say it simply, the apes both act like 'animals' and the human does not. Yes, it's really that simple. Apes don't use complex language like we do, don't build civilizations, don't write scientific papers, don't compose 'Beethoven's 5th', etc. etc. It really blows my mind that we could be having this discussion, because this stuff is just so obvious to me.
Clamboy... | Quote | | "As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries." |
If anyone wants to discuss this further, I suggest a new thread, but suffice to say now that you should read David Barton's "Original Intent." Then you would see the context of this Treaty. Context means a lot in case you have not realized this before. In this case they were trying to reassure the 'Mahometans' that America was not like the imperialistic Christian nations of Europe who sent crusade against the 'Mahometans.'
There are voluminous amounts of information which speak of the 'Christian-ness' of the founding of America. Read Barton.
Eric... | Quote | | I just wish one of these days he'd give us a sample of the "massive evidence for a global flood" he says he has. |
If you want a head start, go buy "The Genesis Flood" by Morris and Whitcomb. You know. One of those actual BOOKS like you guys keep telling me to buy.
JonF... | Quote | | Yet he never establishes a connection between hardness and diffusivity. Why is that? Because, as has been pointed out many times, hardness does not correlaate with diffusivity. Humphreys is presenting a red herring. |
No. It is because this is irrelevant. Henke objects to vacuum testing. Humphreys responds by showing that vacuum testing is legitimate because it has very little effect on diffusivity in hard materials.
JonF... | Quote | | The real beauty (if there is any) of the experiment is that, if (and that's a big if) it can be replicated in other studies and on other zircons, RATE may have come up with an interesting anomaly. |
But of course, very few will be motivated to do similar experiments other than the RATE team because most scientists don't want their idea of long ages dislodged.
JonF... | Quote | | The argument is over whether or not Humphreys' assertions and arm-waving are sufficient evidence for knowing all the relevant values and discarding hundreds of thousands, possibly millions, of independently obtained and cross-correlated and consistent evidence. I don't think so. |
I agree that this one experiment should not by itself throw out long age dating. But there are 2 other very good RATE experiments which I have not discussed which add to the case for a young earth. What the RATE Group is really saying is 'Look, guys. Long age theory has problems. Here's 3 (or more) big problems. Let's do more research in these areas.' Then of course, you have many, many other non-radiometric indicators of a young earth (which the RATE project doesn't even address) and which I have only just barely touched upon.
Chris Hyland... | Quote | | I can't remeber if I have asked you this before, but do you think it's feasable that one single species of ape/monkeys evolved into all the species in the world in a few thousand years? |
My guess is that there was a 'monkey kind' and an 'ape kind' aboard the ark, and yes, 4500 years is plenty of time for all the varieties we see today to have come about.
George... | Quote | | I've a follow-up question. Can a person be a Christian and accept the theory of evolution? In other words, can a person be like me?- I'm one of the 6 Christians in the poll. |
I should think so. Why would a person not be able to be a Christian while believing in evolution?
George... | Quote | | Personally, I'm beginning to come to the conclusion that a YEC cannot be a real Christian, but can only be some sort of book-worshipping cultist. The meat of God's message doesn't really matter to you does it? Only the words actually written in your favourite translation (KJ?) of the Bible. |
Actually, my favorite 'translation' of the OT is the Hebrew, which is not a translation of course. But I have to rely on Hebrew scholars to read it for me since I do not know Hebrew. I do not worship the book and I am not a cultist. I lead a very normal life in American society. I simply realize that the Bible has proven itself to be a very accurate document in the areas that we CAN verify when the archaeological evidence is examined. So it makes me suspect that it is very likely also true in the areas which we CANNOT verify. | Quote | | That's why, when confronted with scientific facts that conflict with the book, you and your fellow YECs can only respond with the most unChristian dishonesty: hand-waving, ignoring opposing arguments, appeal to authorities you know are dubious, attempts to squirm through loopholes and even outright lies. |
I think the opposite is true for the most part. While it is true that some YECs are loonies and hypocrites, the YECs I have read for the most part seem much more honest and fair-minded when it comes to examining evidence that evolutionists and long age geologists.
| Quote | | Even better, YECs are even hypocrites when it comes to Biblical literalism. Or do you really get your medical advice from the Book of Leviticus, Dave? |
What in Leviticus are you referring to?
| Quote | | Dave, people like you (and GWB, but that's another story) almost make me ashamed to call myself a Christian. (Sorry about the outburst y'all, but I think Dave wears on everyone's patience.) |
Sorry to hear that! Stick with me and maybe you will change your mind. If not now, maybe on your deathbed!
--------------
A DILEMMA FOR THE COMMITTED NATURALIST
A Hi-tech alien spaceship lands on earth ... DESIGNED.
A Hi-tech alien rotary motor found in a cell ... NOT DESIGNED.
http://afdave.wordpress.com/....ess.com
|
