In Depth Analysis — Full Article

Carbon Dating Must Be Reliable — Mustn't It?

SUPRISED -KNOW HOW IT WORKS AND THAT IT CANT BE TRUSTED

Recently I visited the Australian museum of Natural History and Anthropology and among many things was treated to a display that employed the impressive features of modern technology. A brilliant AI display that revealed in 10 minutes what is supposed to have happened in Queensland so many millions of years ago. It is commonly accepted today that the dating systems that are used to promote an extremely long age for the geological column and life on earth are givens and should not be challenged. And if challenged many will look in aghast and shock as to how someone could audaciously suggest otherwise. These assumptions are far more insidious than a speculative and impressive AI presentation, as they impact so much of our collective psychology and cultural norms. Plus they have become in many ways the foundation for other assumptions that deal with the origins of man and his migrations. And are now challenging and in some ways supplanting long established histories that were known to be true and accepted as such for millennia So today we will do just that, by bringing into question the facts that pertain to the methodology and some of the processes that relate to Carbon dating.

Lets start with cosmic radiation from outer space that continually bombards the earth. These rays interacting with the nitrogen in the atmosphere cause all living things, animal or vegetable, to absorb radioactive carbon 14 (C14). This continues until the death of each living thing. Then the radioactive carbon begins to break down, and this occurs at an accurately known rate. To discover how long it is since that living thing died, the residual radiocarbon in the specimen is measured. If half of the original C14 remains, then the age of the subject is very close to 5,568 years. The procedure was tested by using samples with ages already established by other means. And it always checked out. It was natural to assume, then, that it would be equally reliable on samples for which there was no way of determining age.

NO C-14 IN COAL When samples of coal (from ancient trees) were tested, there was found to be no residual C14. So, assuming that there was the usual amount of radiocarbon in the trees before they died, it was then assumed that the trees must have been dead for a very long time for the C14 to have completely disintegrated. So the 16 scientists dated the coal at many hundreds of thousands of years old. So far so good.

NECESSARY ASSUMPTIONS

But the validity of this method of dating depends upon four assumptions:

1. That the amount of cosmic radiation in the atmosphere has remained constant at all times in all places;

2. That the sample tested has not been contaminated by recent microbes or bacteria;

3. That the sample is pure -- preserved from leaching, radiation, and so on.

4. That the rate of decay is constant. ASSUMPTIONS? That's right. Those ASSUMPTIONS have to be made when carbon dating was first announced by Dr. Libby in 1949, it was thought to be the last word. When C-14 dating is compared to firm historical dates, it is generally accurate to within 150 years + or -, although some comparisons show a 250-year difference.

UNRELIABLE BEYOND 4,000 TO 5,000 YEARS

Even Libby, the developer of C-14 dating, later admitted his great disappointment in finding that it was not reliable beyond about 4,000-5,000 years, or about 2000-3000 BC. In any case, since about 2000 BC is the oldest firm historical date available, before that year there is no independent means of checking its accuracy. Very few are admitting it publicly, but the early confidence is no longer justified. You see, it has been discovered that cosmic radiations vary widely, due to many factors, natural and industrial. Most results -- that's right, most results - are rendered invalid by absorption, leaching, cosmic radiation, and a proven varied rate of decay.

(See The Great Dating Blunder, Chapters 1 and 2.)

Suppose you enter a sealed room which contains nothing but a burning candle. You are asked to determine how long the candle has been burning. You soon realise how impossible this is. You could measure the relative amounts of oxygen and carbon dioxide in the room; or you could try to figure out how long the melted wax took to accumulate but you cannot know whether someone had opened and re-shut the window.

Was it ever put out and re-lit? Could some interruption have caused it to burn faster? You see, there is room for enormous error. Dating cannot deal with unique events. They're gone. You cannot re-run them. You cannot repeat a test on them. A cosmic global disaster, say shortly before 2000 BC, cannot be repeated in the lab. But it would play immeasurable havoc upon readings prior to about 2,000 BC. A series of measurements of samples of known age (from historical records, for example), extending back about 3,800 years, has shown fairly good agreement. However, they become inaccurate on materials which lived before that. And even in that period, considerable correction is at times required.

ASSUMPTIONS QUESTIONABLE

The carbon 14 method has been widely accepted in a way that the results do not seem to justify. It has now been discovered that cosmic radiations vary widely, due to many factors:

1. The magnetic field around the earth (which is now known to be deteriorating rapidly)

2. The amount of water vapour in the atmosphere

3. Solar and stellar activity (Nobody knows, for example, what effect sunspot activity has had over the centuries.)

4. Volcanic addition of non-radioactive carbon dioxide into the air 5. Industrial addition of carbon dioxide into the air

6. Electrical activity.

All of these factors are subject to change and all give indications of different conditions in the past. James R. Arnold of the Institute of Nuclear Studies, University of Chicago, gives a typical scientific assessment: So far there is no proof independent of the method, that the cosmic ray intensity has remained constant, and however reasonable it may be, we must rank this as a pure assumption. (James R. Arnold, Nuclear Geology, 1954, p. 350)

The so-called "constants" originally accepted can be no longer regarded as "constants".

The consequence is that dating systems are now most suspect. One problem centres around the constancy of ozone in the upper atmosphere. Other scholars are declaring that great changes, even in radiation, have taken place in relatively recent times. French scientists Drs. E. and O. Thellier investigated Roman bricks of 200 AD. From the degree of magnetization of amounts of iron in the dried clay compared with such materials today, they estimated that the earth's magnetic field may have weakened by as much as 65 per cent in the past 2,000 years. (Scientific American, vol. 196, No. 2, February, 1957, p.64)

The weakening of this force field cushion around the earth indicates an increase in both cosmic ray intensity in our atmosphere and in radiocarbon in recent times. So declare Dr. Elsasser of the University of Utah and Drs. Ney and Winckler of the University of Minnesota. If such a phenomenon is general around the earth, it would mean that all radiocarbon datings, especially of more ancient materials, are suspect. With less radiocarbon in ancient times, organic materials (which 20 would thus show less radioactivity residue) would now give a false appearance of being much older than they really are. Clifford Wilson notes: It appears that dramatic changes occurred in the earth's atmosphere a few thousand years ago. Beyond that time -- roughly one half-life of Carbon-14 -- radiometric dating is not reliable. (Clifford Wilson, The Chariots Still Crash. Old Tappan, N.J.: Fleming H. Revel and Co., 1976, p.p. 70) Gilbert N. Plass, writing in

American Scientist, concurs that "all radiocarbon dates for events before the recession of the glaciers are in question." (Gilbert N. Plass, "Carbon Dioxide and the Climate", American Scientist, vol. 44, July, 1956, p. 314)

THE CARBON-14 COVER UP - Surely not?

We now come to the most astounding unpublicised fact concerning the Carbon-14 system. This technique has, during its development, uncovered some startling, though publicly undisclosed, evidence of an earth with an atmosphere less than 10,000 years old. Here it is. Through the action of solar rays, radioactive carbon is being formed in the atmosphere at a constant rate. This Carbon-14 ultimately enters all living tissues; and much more is absorbed into the ocean. From the time of its formation, it begins a slow decay. Theoretically, the amount decaying per day SHOULD BE EQUAL TO the amount being produced by cosmic rays in the upper atmosphere. THE SUCCESS OF CARBON-14 DATING DEPENDS ON THIS EQUILIBRIUM.

So here is the crucial question:

How long would it take for the Carbon-14 on earth to build up from almost zero to equilibrium? And why are certain facts that undermine the theory held back?

This effects the entire history of our planet and has captivated the minds of millions. It has serious moral implications and has proven to have disastrous affects from an anthropological and cultural perspective. Erroneous dating systems have given impetus to un scientific theories such as evolution that since its infancy created a rationale for racism. If anyone doubts this they should be reminded of WW2 and even the ideas that circulated in the late 19th and early 20th centuries that gave rise to Eugenics. Much more could be said but I will conclude here and invite you to pursue further reading on this matter.

THE DATING BLUNDER

WHAT REALLY HAPPENED TO THE DINOSAURS

TOPPLING EVOLUTION

LOST RACES

← Back to summary