STRATA AND FOSSIL DATING In chapters 17 and 19, (Fossils and Strata, and Effects of the Flood) we will discuss the strata dating method in detail. We will here discuss only its relationship to radioactive dating methods and learn that there are no relationships!

There are only two primary methods of long-ages dating: (1) fossil-bearing rock strata, and (2) radioactive dating, including carbon 14 dating.

In the chapter on Fossils, we will discover that dating rocks by their fossils is based on circular reasoning: [1] Each strata is a certain age because of certain key fossils in it; [2] the fossils in the strata are a certain age because evolutionary theory says they should be that certain age, and also because they are in rock strata which is that same age. Thus, fossil-strata dating methods are hopelessly foundered.

Yet fossil/strata dating is crucial to the evolutionary theory! Without it, the whole thing collapses) (1) None of the other dating methods (the twelve methods discussed in this present chapter) are reliable, but instead are in continual conflict with one another and with fossil/strata dating conclusions. (2) The 19th century dating theory was applied to the fossils and strata, so the evolutionists are required to bring all other long-ages dates into alignment with those theoretical dates. Yet it cannot be done. This is a most serious problem.

In chapter 17 (Fossils and Strata) we shall discuss in detail the problems associated with fossil and strata dating, but let us right now put to rest a frequently-stated misconception: that radiodating methods have successfully dated and positively established as reliable the dating system conjectures in the so-called "geologic column" of rock strata. But that is not true!

For additional information see quotation supplement, "7 - Radiodating Fossil-bearing Strata, " at the end of this chapter.

ONLY THREE USABLE TEST RESULTS in reality, it is impossible to date sedimentary rock strata and the fossils within it by radioactive mineral dating. In fact, radiodating is so conflicting in its results, that, out of hundreds of thousands of tests, ONLY THREE test results have agreed sufficiently with evolutionary theory to be used as "norms." Each of these, of course, could only apply to a single stratum:

"An urgent task for geology is to determine, in years, the length of the eras, periods, and 'ages' and, eventually of the zones. Not a single one of themeras, periods, and ages, let alone zones--has yet been reliably determined. This statement is possibly surprising in view of the fact that almost any modern writer can produce a geologic timetable [based on evolutionary theory applied to "index fossils") that gives precise datings and lengths of the eras and systems and even of some of the smaller subdivisions . . These figures have been obtained in various remarkable ways. [!]

"Ultimately, however, they are tied to three [radioactive] dates based on atomic disintegration: (1) 60 million years, the age of the pitchblende at Central City, Colorado; (2) 220 million years, the age of the pitchblende at St. Joachimstal, Bohemia; and (3) 440 million years, the age of the uranium-bearing shale at Gullhogen, Sweden. The age of the Swedish shale is the only one of these that is paleontologically controlled . . All other absolute ages have been derived from the three radioactive tie points by interpolation based on thickness of strata or by 'reasoned guesses.' "*Adolph Knopf, "Measuring Geologic Time," in Scientific Monthly, November 1957, p. 227. (Italics ours.)

In other words, out of tens of thousands of tests only three radioactive samples have been found to be near enough to rock strata age theories to be usable, and two of them are just interpolated guesses based on "strata thickness." Evolutionists use but three undiscarded radiodatings to vindicate the reliability of the hundred-year-old strata and fossil dating theory!

In the same article, quoted above, Knopf explains that dating rock strata by their thickness is useless:

"As long ago as 1936 the conclusion had been reached by Twenhofel [a leading authority on sedimentation] that estimates of time based on thicknesses of strata 'are hardly worth the paper they are written on,' and he presents detailed evidence in support of this revolutionary concept." *Ibid.

"When we now attempt to construct a time scale by reasonable interpolation between these points, it becomes obvious that the available data are still too few, too poor, and internally inconsistent." *Henry Faul, "Geologic Time Scale, " in Bulletin of the Geological Society of America, May 1960, p. 640.

Reasoned guesses, unproven possibilities, and confused data. This is the present status of the evolutionary time scale.

"In attempting to build up a time scale, it is clear that we have to steer a difficult course through a maze of data of very variable quality, guided in some places by atomic weight evidence, in others by series of probabilities. Nevertheless... only a few points can be fixed with precision into the [fossil-bearing] geological column, and the total assemblage of data is too confused. "*Arthur Holmes, in The Age of the Earth (1931), p. 431.

INTERLOCKING IMAGININGS A brief historical review will help explain the situation:

(1) Early in the 19th century, evolutionists decided that fossils in certain rock strata should be such-and-such an age.

(2) So they gave the strata containing those fossils dates which would match their fossil age theories.

(3) Then they announced that they had thought up the dates by peering at so-called "Index fossils."

(4) They declared that they could now prove the ages of the fossils in the rocks by the rock strata they were in. Thus, they started out by dating the strata by imagined dates for fossils, and they ended up dating the fossils by applying those imagined dates to the strata!

This circular reasoning pattern has continued on down to the present day in regard to the dating of fossils and strata.

But then as the 20th century began, radioactive mineral dating began to be discovered. Repeatedly, scientists have tried to correlate radioactive dating with the dates they APPLIED to fossils and strata a century before radiodating was known. But they have not been able to do so. Out of literally thousands of tests, they have been able to correlate only three of them (the Colorado, Bohemian, and Swedish dates given in the Knopf quotation above). But three successes out of hundreds of thousands of test failures was enough to make their fossil/strata theory "scientific." It is on this basis that evolutionary scientists now grandly proclaim that the fossiliferous strata have been dated by radioactive minerals!

The following quotation may be somewhat difficult to understand because of its big words, but what it is trying to say is that radioactive dating is worthless in providing us with datings for anything in the history of our world (including the appearance of species, other events, or the age of the planet itself):

"The literature contains few age determinations (perhaps no more than one) on syngenetic radionuclides from paleontologically defined stratigraphic units, and almost all radioactive age determinations are made on igneous, hydrothermally introduced, or secondarily transported minerals that cannot as a rule be referred to a precisely defined place in the stratigraphic succession. At present, no coherent picture of the history of the earth could be built on the basis of radioactive datings."*Curt Teichert, "Some Biostratigraphical Concepts," in Bulletin of the Geological Society of America, January 958, p. 102.

ASTOUNDING DISCREPANCIES Of the 1400 radioisotopes known to exist, only 75 have half lives longer than 700 years. For years, scientists have carefully worked with these slow-decay radioactive substances in an attempt to obtain accurate dates ranging back into the millions of years. But they are simply unable to do it.

In 1978, John Woodmorappe did a great service to scientific advance by preparing a detailed 11-page set of chart of radiodatings. It is printed in Creation Research Society Quarterly for September 1979, pp. 102-129,147-148. This 30-page report contains approximately 400 radiodatings, a lengthy annotated analysis, and 441 source references.

These charts verify the wide spread of dates produced by radiodating.

For each theoretical stratigraphic level (proceeding from top to bottom), we will give you (1) the classical strata theory dates, (2) the low field test reading, and (3) the high test reading.

TERTIARY The Tertiary level is claimed to have been formed 14 to 130 million years in the past. Bailey Ash/California, USA dated at 3.4 million years, vs. volcanics/Inner Hebrides, Scotland dated at 2, 750 million years.

CRETACEOUS The Cretaceous level is claimed to have been formed 130-180 million years in the past. Mandi granite/Manikaran, India yielded dates ranging from 9 to 31 million years for granites, vs. volcanics/James Ross Island, Antarctica dated at 500 million years.

JURASSICThe Jurassic level is claimed to have been formed 180 to 225 million years in the past. Mt. Bukulia Granite/ Yugoslavia dated at 3 to 23 million years, vs. Independence dikes/California, USA dated at 2,860 million years.

TRIASSIC The Triassic level is claimed to have been formed 225 to 275 million years in the past. Watchung Basalt/New Jersey, USA dated at 79 million years, vs. Inas Granite/Malaysia dated at 363 million years.

PERMIAN The Permian level is claimed to have been formed 275 to 310 million years in the past. Ore/Lenterios, Portugal ranging from 71 to 118 million years, vs. Rose Dome Granite/Kansas, USA dated at 1,180 million years, plus or minus 60.

CARBONIFEROUS The Carboniferous level is claimed to have been formed 310 to 405 million years in the past. Tuffs/Andscollo, Argentina dated at 85 million years, vs. granite/Saxony, East Germany dated at 2,500 million years.

DEVONIAN The Devonian level is claimed to have been formed 405 to 435 million years in the past. Fitchburg Pluton/Massachusetts, USA dated at 221 to 241 million years, vs. galena/Kazakhastan, USSR dated at a spread of 500 to 900 million years.

SILURIAN The Silurian level is claimed to have been formed 435 to 480 million years in the past. Granites/Ax-les, Thermes, France dated at 113 to 126 million years, vs. Furuland Granite/Sulltlelma, Norway dated at a spread of 400 to 1,300 million years.

ORDOVICIAN The Ordovician level is claimed to have been formed 480 to 600 million years in the past. Bentonite/Tennessee, USA dated at 44 million years, vs. granite/Idaho, USA dated at 1,310 to 1,490 million years.

CAMBRIAN The Cambrian level is claimed to have been formed 600 million to 4.5 billion years in the past. Lighthouse Cove Fm./Newfoundland, Canada dated at 334 million years, vs. andesite/Suldal, Norway dated at 1,145 million years, plus or minus 98 years.

PRECAMBRIAN The Precambrian level is claimed to have been formed prior to 4.5 billion years in the past. Granite porphyry/New Mexico, USA dated at 34 million years, vs. Forsayth Batholith/Queensland, Australia dated at a spread of 368 to 1200 million years.


9-THE CARBON 14 CYCLE *Willard F. Libby (190&1980), working at the University of Chicago, discovered the carbon 14 dating method in 1946. This was considered to be a great breakthrough in the dating of remains of plants and animals of earlier times. It is the special method used by scientists to date organic materials from earlier times in history.

Cosmic rays entering our atmosphere from outer space, strike the earth and transform regular carbon (carbon 12) to radioactive carbon (carbon 14). Carbon 14 has a half life of about 5,600 years. This method of dating is called carbon 14 dating, C-14 dating, or radiocarbon dating...

Within about 12 minutes after being struck by cosmic rays in the upper atmosphere, the carbon 14 combines with oxygen to become carbon dioxide that has carbon 14 in it. It then diffuses throughout the atmosphere, and is absorbed by vegetation (plants need carbon dioxide in order to make sugar by photosynthesis.) Every living thing has carbon in it. While it is alive, each plant or animal takes in carbon dioxide from the air. Animals also feed on the vegetation and absorb carbon dioxide from it. There is some carbon 14 in all of that carbon dioxide. At death, the carbon 14 continues on with its radioactive decay. Theoretically, analysis of this carbon 14 can tell the date when the object once lived, by the percent of carbon 14 atoms still remaining in it.

Libby's method involves counting the Geiger counter clicks per minute per gram of a dead material in order to figure out when that plant or animal died.

It sounds simple and effective, but in practice it does not turn out that way.

"The experimental techniques in obtaining C-14 dates are described by Libby and may be briefly outlined as follows.

"[1] Sample is cleaned by physical and chemical methods to free it of contaminants which may contain C-14/C-12 ratios differing from the sample to be dated.

"[2] Clean sample is reduced to carbon which is further purified and weighed.

"[3] The carbon is converted to C02 and the C-14 decay rate determined.

"[4] Dividing the decay rate by the weight of carbon yields the specific decay rate from which the radiocarbon age is calculated."H. M. Morris, W. W. Boardman, and R.F. Koontz, Science and Creation (1971), p. 26.

SOMETHING TO THINK ABOUT Before we begin our study of radiocarbon dating, here are two quotations to think about:

"It may come as a shock to some, but fewer than 50 percent of the radiocarbon dates from geological and archaeological samples in northeastern North America have been adopted as 'acceptable' by investigators. "*J. Ogden III, "The Use and Abuse of Radiocarbon, " in Annals of the New York Academy of Science, Vol. 288, 1977, pp. 167-173.

"When radiocarbon dating was introduced on a wide scale, back in the early fifties, it quickly replaced the older methods of estimating ages. Thus it was freed from any embarrassing checks on its accuracy. Instead, adjustments were made to achieve internal order in the radiocarbon chronology! Once that comforting operation was completed, a feeling of security enveloped the exponents and their faithful followers. As Flint and Rubin viewed it: 'The consistency of the group of dates under consideration is such as to justify the assumption that all are accurate.'"Robert E. Lee, "Radiocarbon: Ages in Error, " in Creation Research Society Quarterly, September 1982, p. 124. (Quoted here was *R.F. Flint and *M. Rubin, "Radiocarbon Dates of pro-Mankato Events in Eastern and Central North America," in Science, 121(3149):649-658 (1955).)

Fortunately, according to Flint and Rubin, radiocarbon dating is consistent within itself. What they do not mention is that, unfortunately, the published dates are only "consistent," because the large number of radiocarbon dates that are not consistent are discarded!

In the Proceedings of the Symposium on Radiocarbon Variations and Absolute Chronology held at Uppsala in 1969, T. Sve-Sderbergh and I. U. Olsson introduce their report with these words:

 "C-14 dating was being discussed at a symposium on the prehistory of the Nile Valley. A famous American colleague, Professor Brew, briefly summarized a common attitude among archaeologists towards it, as follows: If a C-14 date supports our theories, we put it in the main text. If it does not entirely contradict  them, we put it in a footnote. And if it is completely out of date we just drop it. Few archaeologists who have concerned themselves with absolute chronology are innocent of having sometimes applied this method. . ."

An interesting item slipped into print in a Stanford University book (*David M. Hopkins [ed.], Bering Land Bridge (1967), pp. 110-111). Commenting on it, von Fange says



"Six C-14 ages were determined from a core in an attempt to date the formation of the Bering land bridge. The dates ranged from 4390 to 15,500 B.P. [years Before Present].

"The first problem was that the results were so disarranged from bottom to top of the core that no two samples were in the same order. Then the oldest date was discarded because it was inconsistent with other tests elsewhere.

"Then the remaining dates were assumed to be contaminated by a fixed amount, after which the authors concluded that the delta under study had been formed 12,000 years ago. This is what happens to men who operate without an alternative. "Erich A. von Fange, "Time Upside Down," in Creation Research Society Quarterly, June 1974, p. 17.

THIRTEEN ASSUMPTIONS As mentioned above, radiocarbon dating was invented by Willard Libby. From the beginning and consistently there after he and his associates proceeded on the assumption that (1) the way everything is now, so it always has been, and (2) no contaminating factor has ever disturbed any object tested with radiodating techniques. The result is a nice, tidy little theory that is applied to samples, without regard for the immense uncertainties of how the past may have affected them individually and collectively. It is for this reason that Libby was able to ignore all of a sample's past and declare:

"Once you ask the question, where is the Carbon 14, and where does it go, it's like one, two, three; you have [radiocarbon] dating." *Willard F. Libby, quoted in Isaac Asimov's Book of Science and Nature Quotations, p. 120.

Now let us consider the underlying assumptions that are made in order to make C-14 dating a workable method, even though not a reliable one. One expert in the field has provided us with two of the basic assumptions used in arriving at carbon 14 dates:

"There are two basic assumptions in the radiocarbon method. One is that the carbon 14 concentration in the carbon dioxide cycle is constant. The other is that the cosmic ray flux has been essentially constant at least on a scale of centuries. "*J. L. Kulp, "The Carbon 14 Method of Age Determination," in Scientific Monthly, November 1952, p. 261.

Restating them, here are these two basic assumptions, plus eleven more culled from scientific writings. If one or more of these assumptions is incorrect, then the C-14 dating will be unreliable:

(1) Atmospheric carbon: The air around us has for the past several million years, had the same amount of atmospheric carbon that it now has.

(2) Oceanic carbon: During that time, the very large amount of oceanic carbon has remained constant.

(3) Cosmic rays: Cosmic rays from outer space have reached the earth in the same amounts in the past as now.

(4) Balance of rates: Both the rate of formation and rate of decay of carbon 14 have always in the past remained in balance.

(5) Decay rates: The decay rate of carbon 14 has never changed.

(6) No contamination: Nothing has ever contaminated any specimen containing carbon 14.

(7) No seepage: No seepage of water or other factor has brought additional carbon 14 to the sample since death occurred.

(8) Amount of carbon 14 at death: The fraction of carbon 14 which the living thing possessed at death is today known.

(9) Carbon 14 half life: The half life of carbon 14 has been accurately determined.

(10) Atmospheric nitrogen: Nitrogen is the precursor to C=14, so the amount of nitrogen in the atmosphere must have always been constant.

(11) Instrumentation and analysis: The instrumentation is precise, working properly, and analytic methods are always carefully done.

(12) Uniform results: The technique always yields the same results on the same sample, or related samples that are obviously part of the same larger sample.

(13) Earth's magnetic field: Earth's magnetic field was the same in the past as it is today.

We have some big "ifs" in the above 13 assumptions! In reality, there is not one instance in which we can point to a C-14 sample and declare with certainty that EVEN ONE of those assumptions applies to it.

LIBBY'S OTHER DISCOVERY *Willard Libby's training was in science, not history, so he and his co-workers were initially startled to learn that recorded history (actual historical records) only goes back to about 3000 B.C. They had been taught in school that it extended back 20,000 years!

"The first shock Dr. Arnold and I had was that our advisors informed us that history extended back only 5000 years . . You read books and find statements that such and such a society or archaeological site is [said to be] 20,000 years old. We learned rather abruptly that these numbers, these ancient ages, are not known; in fact, it is about the time of the first dynasty in Egypt that the last historical date of any real certainty has been established."* W. F. Libby, "Radiocarbon Dating," in American Scientist, January 1956, p. 107.

(We will learn in chapter 18, Ancient Man, that the earliest dates of Egypt are based on the uncertain and incomplete king lists of Manetho. The earliest Egyptian dates should probably be lowered to 2200 B.C. More information on ancient historical dates will be found in that chapter. However, a much more thorough examination of this problem will be found in chapter 35, Archeological Dating.)

Like many other bright hopes that men had at last found a way to date things prior to 4,300 years ago, radiocarbon dating has turned out to be just another headache to conscientious scientists. They work with a method which does not give accurate results. But they keep working, collecting data, and hoping for better dating methods at some future time.

"Well authenticated dates are known only back as far as about 1600 B.C. in Egyptian history, according to John G. Read. [*J. G. Read, Journal of Near Eastern Studies, Vol. 29, No. 1, 1970.] Thus, the meaning of dates by C-14 prior to 1600 B.C. is still as yet controversial."H. M. Morris, W. W. Boardman, and R. F. Koontz, Science and Creation (1971), p. 85.

Aside from the few which can be checked by historical records, there is no way to verify the accuracy of C-14 dates. *Frederick Johnson, coworker with *Dr. Willard Libby, made this important statement:

"This [radiodating verification by actual historical dates] is not true of geological and archeological measurements, except in relatively rare instances. Measurements of time in these fields are inferred from processes, the rates of change or progress of which are not consistent and which are, as yet, quite unpredictable. There is no known standard rate for any one of these processes, and measurements of time for one process are invariably relative to rates of progress in other processes."*Frederick Johnson, quoted in Loc. cit.

SEVENTEEN RADIODATING PROBLEMS Here is a brief discussion of some of the serious hurdles to accuracy in radiocarbon dating:

(1) TYPE OF CARBON Uncertainties regarding just what type of carbon is in a given sample causes significant errors in dating. As mentioned earlier, every living thing is full of carbon compounds, and includes some carbon 14. But, after death, additional radioactive carbon may have drifted into the sample. Few researchers take the exhaustive time needed to try and figure out which carbon is which. Frankly, in most instances, it would be impossible to be certain how much of this secondary or intrusive carbon had entered the sample from elsewhere.

"In appraising C-14 dates, it is essential always to discriminate between the C-14 age and the actual age of the sample. The laboratory analysis determines only the amount of radiocarbon present.. However, the laboratory analysis does not determine whether the radioactive carbon is all original or is in part secondary, intrusive, or whether the amount has been altered in still other irregular ways besides natural decay."*E. Antevs, "Geological Tests of the Varve and Radiocarbon Chronologies," in Journal of Geology, 65 (1957), p. 129.

(2) VARIATIONS WITHIN SAMPLES Then there is the problem of variations within each of the samples. So many factors affect this that the experts are finding it seemingly impossible to arrive at accurate dates.

"Local variation, especially in [marine] shells, can be highly significant . . The most significant problem is that of biological alteration of materials in the soil. This effect grows more serious with age. To produce an error of 50 percent in the age of a 10,000 year old specimen would require the replacement of more than 25 percent of the carbon atoms. For a 40,000 year old sample, the figure is only 5 percent, while an error of 50,000 years can be produced by about 1 percent of modern materials. Much more must be done on chemical purification of samples."*F. Johnson, *J.R. Arnold, and *R.F. Flint, "Radiocarbon Dating, " in Science, February 8, 1957, p. 240.

13) LOSS OF C-14 Rainfall, below-ground moisture, lakes, and oceans, will affect samples and cause a loss of C-14, and thus ruin its radiation clock.

"The radiocarbon evidence indicates, on the basis of a comparison of the radiocarbon assays of old, historically dated marine shells from the Atlantic coast with the assays of their modern counterparts, that there has been a perceptible dilution of shallow oceanic carbonates with dead carbon from fossil fuels." *H.R. Brannon, et. al., "Radiocarbon Evidence on the Dilution of Atmospheric and Oceanic Carbon, " in American Geophysical Union Transactions, October 1957, p. 850.

(4) LESSON FROM JARMO Jarmo was an ancient village that was inhabited for not over 500 years. It was discovered in northeast Iraq. Eleven different C-14 tests were made there, and dates with a 6,000 year spread were tallied up! A fundamental scientific principle is that a correct method will give the same result when repeated; if it cannot do this, it is not scientific.

"Although it was hailed as the answer to the prehistorian's prayer when it was first announced, there has been increasing disillusion with the [radiocarbon] method because of the chronological uncertainties in some cases absurdities that would follow a strict adherence to published C-14 dates . . What bids to become a classic example of 'C-14 irresponsibility' is the 6,000 year spread of 11 determinations for Jarmo, a prehistoric village in northeastern Iraq, which, on the basis of all archeological evidence, was not occupied for more than 500 consecutive years." *C.A. Reed, "Animal Domestication in the Prehistoric Near East;" in Science, 130 (1959), p. 1630.

(5) CHANGES IN ATMOSPHERIC CARBON In addition, there is the problem of what carbonic and atmospheric conditions were like in earlier times. We know it was different, but do not know to what degree. But evidence is surfacing that changes have occurred which would invalidate ancient dates determined by carbon 14 analysis.

"It was found that the activity of radiocarbon in the atmosphere was going up and down even before the Industrial Revolution [when additional smoke began polluting the air].""H. deVries and *H.T. Waterbolk, "Groningen Radiocarbon Dates III," in Science, December 19, 1958, p. 1551.

"Recent elaborate studies have now demonstrated conclusively that the initial activity of C14 samples and thus the rate of C-14 production has varied with time. Most recently the work of Suess has clearly pointed out these variations."'University of California at Los Angeles, "On the Accuracy of Radiocarbon Dates, " in Geochronicle, 2 (1966). (This is Libby's own laboratory.)

(6) SUNSPOT EFFECT ON C-14 PRODUCTION Sunspot production seriously affects our planet in a number of ways, one of these is radiocarbon production in the atmosphere. As you may know, the normal solar sunspot cycle is 11 years, with every second cycle-22 years, apparently producing a complete recycling of solar magnetism.

Important discoveries have been made recently in regard to sunspots. Major variations in sunspot production have occurred in the past, some of which we know of. These have resulted in decided changes in radiocarbon production. (1) From 1420 to 1530, and from 1639 to 1720 there were few sunspots, and during those years not a single aurora was reported anywhere around the globe, northern Europe became something of an ice box, and there was an increase in solar wind, with consequent higher C-14 production in the atmosphere at that time. (2) In the 12th and early 13th century, there was unusually high sunspot activity for a number of years. At that time, there was less C-14 production, warmer climate, increased glacial melt, and unusually brilliant displays of the aurora borealis. Thus, we see that the past is not the same as the present in regard to radiocarbon production, yet "uniformity""the past is like the present" is a basic premise in all carbon 14 dating. When radiocarbon production in the atmosphere is so drastically changed, dating results based on carbon 14 are seriously affected.

"When carbon dioxide enters a tree leaf, it becomes part of the new wood deposited in the outer ring of the trunk. Scientists study two forms of this carbon dioxide: an isotope, or variant, of carbon called carbon-12 and the radioactive isotope carbon-14, which is created when high-energy cosmic rays strike nitrogen molecules in the upper atmosphere. Because carbon-14 decays into carbon-12 at a known rate, the ratio of the two isotopes in a tree ring analyzed today reveals how much carbon-14 was present in the atmosphere when the ring was formed . .

"When the sun is active [actively producing sunspots], it emits greater quantities of the charged particles that make up the solar wind; these in turn envelop Earth and deflect many of the cosmic rays that generate large amounts of carbon-14 [resulting in less C-14 production in our atmosphere]. [In contrast,] Periods of prolonged solar inactivity, and the consequent leveling off of the solar winds, should therefore correspond with increased production of carbon-14 . . The carbon-14 content of tree rings from the period 1640 to 1720 was markedly higher than in the years before or after."*Allan Fallow, The Sun (1990).

A number of additional sunspot changes in the centuries before then have been discovered. Each major change has generally lasted from 50 to several hundred years.

(7) RADIOCARBON DATE SURVEY A major survey of 15,000 dates obtained by carbon 14 dating revealed that, in spite of its errors, radiocarbon dating still yields dates that are millions and even billions of years younger than those obtained by other radiodating techniques (uranium, thorium, potassium, etc.):

"A survey of the 15,000 radio carbon dates published through the year 1969 in the publication, Radiocarbon, revealed the following significant facts:

"[a] Of the dates of 9671 specimens of trees, animals, and man, only 1146 or about 12 percent have radiocarbon ages greater than 12,530 years.

"[b] Only three of the 15,000 reported ages are listed as 'infinite.'

"[c] Some samples of coal, oil, and natural gas, all supposedly many millions of years old have radiocarbon ages of less than 50,000 years.

"[d] Deep ocean deposits supposed to contain remains of most primitive life forms are dated within 40,000 years.

"If the earth and life on earth were really as ancient as the theory of evolution requires a great proportion of radiocarbon ages should be infinite. This is because, with a half-life of only 5730 years, initial radiocarbon in a fossil decreases in about ten-half lives to a level too low to be measured."Robert E. Lee, "Radiocarbon: Ages in Error," in Creation Research Society Quarterly, September 1982, pp. 116-117.

(8) CHANGE IN NEUTRINO RADIATION A change in neutrino radiation into our atmosphere in earlier times would also affect radiocarbon levels. But we have no way of measuring past neutrino radiation levels.

"[An earlier increase in neutrino levels] must have had the peculiar characteristic of resetting all our atomic clocks. This would knock our C14, potassium-argon, and uranium-lead dating measurements into a cocked hat! The age of prehistoric artifacts, the age of the earth, and that of the universe would be thrown into doubt." F.8. Jueneman, article in Industrial Research, 14 (1972), p. 15.



(9) RECENT DATES ARE MOST ACCURATE It is rather well known that carbon 14 dates, going back about 2,600 years, tend to be the most accurate. But, prior to about 600 B.C., the dates given by radiocarbon analysis begin lengthening out excessively.

(10) IF WARMER AND MORE WATER VAPOR If the earth was either warmer at an earlier time, or had more water in the atmosphere (both of which we believe happened before and during the Flood), then the C-14 clocks would register long ages of time prior to about 2000 B.C.

"The intensity of cosmic radiation, and hence the rate of production of neutrons might have been higher at some time in the geologic past. . The second possibility invoking action in the past assumes that at a time when the earth was warmer the atmosphere contained much more water vapor."*Serge A. Korlf, "Effects of the Cosmic Radiation on Terrestrial Isotope Distribution, " in American Geophysical Transactions, February 1954, p. 105.

"All calculations of radiocarbon dates have been made on the assumption that the amount of atmospheric carbon dioxide has remained constant. If the theory presented here of carbon dioxide variations in the atmosphere is correct, then the reduced carbon dioxide amount at the time of the last glaciation means that all radiocarbon dates for events before the recession of the glaciers are in question. "*Gilbert N. Plass, "Carbon Dioxide and the Climate," in American Scientist, July 1958, p. 314.

(11) COSMIC RAYS The amount of cosmic radiation entering our atmosphere and reaching the earth would also be crucial.

"If one were to imagine that the cosmic radiation had been turned off until a short time ago, the enormous amount of radiocarbon necessary to the equilibrium state would not have been manufactured and the specific radioactivity of living matter would be much less than the rate of production calculated from neutron activity." *W.F. Libby, Radiocarbon Dating (1955), p. 7.

A partial change in cosmic radiation amounts would also greatly affect C-14 dating. But a change in cosmic radiation from outer space would not be necessary, only a change in the amount of water, warmth or both in our atmosphere.

(12) MAGNETIC FIELD The greater the magnetic field of the earth, the smaller the amounts of cosmic rays that will strike our world, and it is cosmic radiation into our atmosphere that changes C-12 into C-14. The three go together: earth's magnetic field, cosmic rays, and C14. Thus the strength of earth's magnetic field has a major effect on the amount of carbon 14 that is made.

But scientists now know that there has been a fairly rapid weakening of earth's magnetic field. We discussed this in more detail in chapter 6, Age of the Earth.

The amount of radiation bombarding the earth from outer space is partially related to the strength of earth's magnetic field. The stronger the field, the less radiation will enter the atmosphere. That radiation generates carbon 14 in the upper atmosphere, so any change in the magnetic field will seriously influence the amount of carbon 14 that is produced. The radiocarbon dating method is only effective by assuming that the rate of C-14 manufactured in past ages has always been identical to what it is now. But this assumption is clearly untrue for several reasons, one of which is the gradual weakening of our planet's magnetic field.

(13) MOISTURE CONDITIONS Atmospheric changes in moisture content in the past would also be significant. Changes in ground moisture, even temporary ones would have an even greater impact. How much moisture came into contact with a given sample at various times in past ages? Could water have trickled alongside or through the sample at some earlier time? What about storage problems in more recent times, or after the sample was collected? Prior to testing, was the sample placed in a location damper than where it was found? All these factors can decidedly affect the internal clockwork of radiocarbon samples.

"Some geologists question the use of the C14 method for samples stored under moist conditions. This is a most serious limitation, for who can be sure that a given sample has not been moistened?"Erich A. von Fange, "Time Upside Down," in Creation Research Society Quarterly, June 1974, p. 17.

(14) DRAMATIC CHANGES AFTER FLOOD For some time after the Flood there were changes in the atmosphere (a loss of water from the vapor canopy), changes in climate (due to worldwide warmth changing to cooler conditions), and changes due to volcanism and glaciation.

Because of these dramatic worldwide alterations, plants, animals, and people living in the early centuries after the Flood would have received much less carbon 14 than they would receive today. This would make those earlier life forms and civilizations appear to be much more ancient by radiocarbon dating methods than they actually were.

"The acceptance of the long duration of these prehistoric ages is due in part to C-14 dating. It is during these periods, immediately after the Flood, that we would expect the C-14 dates to show the greatest inflation. Although the problem of C-14 dating is very complex with many factors being involved, creationists generally agree that the Flood greatly upset the equilibrium of the C-14/C-12 ratio [the balance between radioactive and normal carbon] in the atmosphere and that a return to the vicinity of a new equilibrium may have required hundreds of years. Thus, the inflation of the C-14 dates would be the greatest immediately after the Flood and then gradually taper off. "Stan F. Vaninger, "Archaeology and the Antiquity of Ancient Civilization-2," in Creation Research Society Quarterly, September 1985, pp. 88-87.

With the passing of the centuries, the carbon 14 radiation levels would have gradually increased, until by about 1000 B.C. they would have been close to early nineteenth century levels.

This is why radiocarbon dates for the past 2,600 years (going back to c. 600 B.C.) generally show a better correlation with historically verified chronologies. But even in dates from 600 B.C. on down to the present there are discrepancies in carbon 14 dates.

"Apart from the reduction since 1700 A.D., there has been a steady increase in atmospheric C-14 activity since 650 B.C. This increase is the basic prediction of the non-equilibrium model.

"Whereas variations have been small for most of this period, this has not been the case over the last 500 years. The only trend that is widely accepted as having a satisfactory explanation has been the general decrease in activity since 1880 A.D. . . This decrease is known as the Suess Effect, and it is attributed to the large amounts of non-radiogenic carbon from fossil fuel that has been burned since the Industrial Revolution."David J. Tyler, "Radiocarbon Calibration: Revised," in Creation Research Society Quarterly, June 1978, p. 19.

"At 600 B.C., the C-14 activity level is about -10%. Before this, the atmospheric activity is observed to decrease in such a way that, by about 2000 B.C., it is of the order of +50%. Clearly, the trend for older samples to have progressively lower delta %, levels is observed. In other words, the whole picture is now consistent with the non-equilibrium model. Before 2160 B.C., there are no suitable [historically datable] materials for calibration purposes, and so it is not possible to trace the curve back further in time . .

"Conventional C-14 calibration has the effect of 'stretching out' radiocarbon time, and slowing down, for example, the rate of man's cultural development. By contrast, this revised approach has the effect of 'compressing' radiocarbon time, and speeding up the rate of man's cultural development."Op. cit., p. 22.

(15) EVEN MODERN SPECIMENS ARE INACCURATE But it is a surprising fact that even specimens from recent centuries show serious problems. Consider a few examples. They reveal that radiocarbon dating cannot be relied on as accurate evidence for anything:

Mortar from Oxford Castle in England was dated by radiocarbon as 7,370 years old, yet the castle itself was only built 785 years ago. (E.A. Von Fange, "Time Upside Down," quoted in Creation Research Society Quarterly, November, 1974, p. 18.)

Freshly-killed seals have been dated at 1,300 years. This means they are supposed to have died over a millennium ago. Other seals which have been dead no longer than 30 years were dated at 4,600 years. (* W. Dort, "Mummified Seals of Southern Victoria Land," in Antarctic Journal of the U.S., June 1971, p. 210.)

Wood was cut out of living, growing trees and tested. Although only a few days dead, it was dated as having existed 10,000 years ago. (* B. Huber, "Recording Gaseous Exchange Under Field Conditions," in Physiology of Forest Trees, ed. by K.V. Thimann, 1958.)

Various living mollusks (such as snails) had their shells dated, and were found to have "died" as much as 2,300 years ago. (*M. Keith and *G. Anderson, "Radiocarbon Dating: Fictitious Results with Mollusk Shells," in Science, 141, 1963, p. 634.)

(16) CARBON INVENTORYDue to drastic changes at the time of that immense catastrophe, the Flood, there is reason to believe that dramatic changes were occurring at that time in the carbon 14 content of the atmosphere. In addition, massive amounts of carbon was buried then. Immense worldwide forests became fossils or coal, and millions of animals became fossils or petroleum.

A world carbon inventory by *W.A. Reiners reveals that the total amount of carbon in the world today is less than 1/500th of the total amount that is today locked into fossil plants and animals within sedimentary rock strata! (See *W. A. Reiners, Carbon and the Biosphere, p. 369.) An enormous amount of carbon was buried at the time of the catastrophe of the Flood. If the same world inventory of carbon 14--as now exists--were distributed in that pre-Flood biosphere as living plants and animals, the level of C-14 activity back then would have been 500 times as much as the amount existing now. This alone would account for nine C-14 half lives, or 51,000 years of the radiocarbon time scale. This factor alone totally destroys the usefulness of radiocarbon dating.

(17) FOUR RADIOCARBON SAMPLES There should be evidence of this dramatic changeover in C-14 rates in specimens examined. And so we find it. Here are four interesting radiocarbon samples:

"Hair from the Chekurovka mammoth that was found in the Lena River delta region of Russia has a radiocarbon age of 26,000 [years], while the radiocarbon age of peat only eighteen inches above the carcass is 5,610. At normal [present] growth rates, between 500-2,000 solar years would be required for the development of an eighteen inch peat layer.

"Muscle tissue from beneath the scalp of a mummified musk ox found in frozen muck at Fairbanks Creek, Alaska, has a radiocarbon age of 24,000, while the radiocarbon age of hair from a hind limb of the carcass is 17,200. A life span exceeding 7,000 years for a specimen of this species is doubtful.

"In a gravel deposit at the Union Pacific Mammoth Site near Rawlins, Wyoming, a mammoth skeleton was found together with artifacts that indicate the animal was killed by man. Radiocarbon dating of ivory from the center of the tusks establishes the kill date at approximately 11,300 radiocarbon years ago. Wood fragments from the gravel in which the remains were buried have a radiocarbon age of approximately 5,000 years. The bones would not have survived 6,000 solar years of exposure, nor could they be expected to remain in an articulate relationship during erosion and reburial by natural processes.

"A mastodon skeleton found at Ferguson Farm near Tupperville, Ontario, provided a radiocarbon age of 8,900 for the collagen fraction of bones and a radiocarbon age of 6,200 for high organic-content mud from within the skull cavities. It is unlikely that this skeleton could have survived exposure for 2,700 solar years before emplacement in peat."Robert H. Brown, "Radiocarbon Age Measurements Re-examined," in Review and Herald, October 28, 1971, pp. 7-8.

THROWING OFF THE CLOCK In his book, Evolution or Degeneration (1972, pp. 80-81), H. R. Siegler mentions that * Willard F. Libby, the developer of radiodating, found a serious discrepancy at a certain point in past history that indicated his assumed build-up of terrestrial radiocarbon was inaccurate. But, since he was convinced that the earth was millions of years old, he went ahead with his date assumptions. Siegler suggests that a relatively recent Creation (plus, we might add, the catastrophic effects of the Flood) would account for the discrepancy.

Prior to about 1600 B.C., radiodating tends to go wild. Something happened back then that threw the clock off. Creation scientists recognize that the problem was the Genesis Flood and the abnormal conditions that existed for centuries after it ended.

C-14 DATA POINTS TO THE FLOODAn immense number of plants and animals died at the time of the Flood recorded in Genesis 6-9. One would expect that radiocarbon dating should produce a large number of specimens which expired at about the same time. Due to errors in dating, we would not expect those carbon 14 dates to correspond with the time of the Flood, but we should expect them to nonetheless point to a time when there was a dramatic increase in the number of deaths.

In 1970, R. Whitelow, of Virginia Polytechnic Institute, went through the research literature on radiocarbon dating, and carefully compiled 25,000 C-14 dates up to that year. The specimens were of people, animals, and vegetation obtained from above and below sea level. Whitelow then applied certain principles to help avoid disparity problems between radiocarbon production and disintegration. He then put the results of his research into a single graph.

The chart shows a gradual increase in deaths from about 5000 B.C. onward. The deaths peaked at about 4,000 years ago (2000 B.C.). Errors in radiocarbon dating would be responsible for the 2,000-year spread in the largest number of deaths--although the Flood took place in a much smaller period of time. (Biblical chronology indicates that the Genesis Flood occurred c. 2348 B.C.) But the basic facts are there: A gigantic loss of life occurred at about 2500 B.C.! (See R. Whitelaw, "Time, Life and History In the Light of 15,000 Radiocarbon Dates," in Creation Research Society Quarterly, 7 [1970]:56.)



MASS SPECTROMETER Here is a technique which you are not likely to hear much about. The problem is that it consistently yields dates which are too low. Yet if its conclusions were accepted, ALL fossils, ALL coal, ALL petroleum, and ALL hominid (ancient man) bones would be dated less than 5,000 years in the past!

The mass spectrometer technique is fairly new, and the equipment is quite expensive. Unfortunately, when working with radiocarbon, the results will still be skewed (dates will appear to be too ancient) because the atmosphere in ancient times had a different amount of carbon 14 than it now has.

"Several laboratories in the world are now equipped to perform a much improved radiocarbon dating procedure. Using atomic accelerators, the carbon-14 atoms in a specimen can now be actually counted. This gives more precise radiocarbon dates with even smaller specimens. The standard, but less accurate, radiocarbon dating technique only attempts to count the rare disintegrations of carbon-14 atoms, which are sometimes confused with other types of disintegrations. This new atomic accelerator technique has consistently detected at least small amounts of carbon-14 in every organic specimen--even materials that evolutionists claim are millions of years old, such as coal. The minimum amount of carbon-14 is so consistent that contamination can probably be ruled out. If the specimens were millions of years old, there would be virtually no carbon-14 remaining in them.

"Eleven human skeletons, the earliest known human remains in the western hemisphere, have recently been dated by this new accelerator mass spectrometer technique. All eleven were dated at about 5,000 radiocarbon years or less! If more of the claimed evolutionary ancestors of man are tested and are also found to contain carbon-14, a major scientific revolution will occur and thousands of textbooks will become obsolete." Walter T. Brown, In the Beginning (1989), p. 95.

CONCLUSION As with the other methods of non-historical dating, we find that radiocarbon dating is also highly inaccurate.

"The troubles of the radiocarbon dating method are undeniably deep and serious . . It should be no surprise, then, that fully half of the dates are rejected. The wonder is, surely, that the remaining half come to be accepted."*R. E. Lee, "Radiocarbon, Ages in Error, " in Anthropological Journal of Canada, March 3, 1981, p. 9.

For additional information see quotation supplement, a "8 - Carbon 14 Dating," at the end of this chapter.


10-AMINO ACID DECOMPOSITION In 1955 *Philip Abelson reported on a new dating method, and immediately a number of researchers began exploring its possibilities.

Amino acids are the building blocks of proteins. At the death of the creature that they were in, amino acids begin decomposing at varying rates.

A major difficulty in applying this dating method is that, of the twenty amino acids, some decompose much more rapidly than others. Scientists can only try to estimate the age when an animal died by the amount of decomposition it has experienced since death. Gradually more stable compounds remain, while others decompose in varying ways.

Accompanying this is the problem that various organisms have different ratios of amino acids. Each type of plant and animal has its own special amino acid ratios. Because of this, trying to analyze their later decomposition to establish the dates when they died is risky business. Due to this problem of wide variation in decomposition time among different plant and animal species, researchers that have worked with this dating method have written several reports stating that amino acid dating, on the basis of comparative decomposition, can only yield broad ranges of fossil age. In other words, it is not a useful dating method.

NO ANCIENT FOSSILS One worthwhile discovery that scientists made when they applied amino acid dating methods (both amino acid decomposition and amino acid racemization) out in the field, was that traces of amino acid still exist all through the fossil strata! This means that none of the fossils are ancients

Although we cannot accurately date with amino acid methods, yet we can know that when amino acids still exist in the field, they are not very old! We will discuss this more in chapter 17, Fossils and Strata.

11-RACEMIC DATING This is a different dating method based on amino acid remains from once-living creatures. It is also called racemization. A leader in research into both amino acid dating methods has been the Carnegie Institute of Washington D.C.

Of the twenty amino acids, all but one (glycine) can be formed in one of two patterns: the L (left-handed) ) ) and the D (right-handed). ). ). The chemical structure of the L and D are identical to one another. The difference lies only in their shape. Imagine two gloves: a left-handed glove and a right-handed one. Both are made of the same materials, but they are mirror opposites. The L and D amino acids are both identical in every way, except in the L form, some molecules stick out on the left side, and on the D form, some protrude on the right side. (In two later chapters [chapter 9, Primitive Environment; and chapter 10, DNA] we will discuss L and D amino acids again.)

"Proteins contain from 50 to several hundred amino acids. All the amino acids which occur in proteins, except for glycine, which is the simplest amino acid, have at least one asymmetric carbon atom, and can exist as one of two possible stereoisomers. That is, the chemical groups attached to this particular carbon atom are all different and can be arranged in space in two different ways. When there is only a single asymmetric carbon atom, these two different forms are known as optical isomers. Chemically, there is very little difference between them, but biologically, there is as much difference as night and day. The two forms are known as L-amino acids and D-amino acids, the L and D designating the direction in which solutions of these amino acids rotate plane-polarized light. They are mirror-images of each other, and one cannot be superimposed on the other, just as is true of left and right hands. All amino acids in proteins (except glycine) are L-amino acids.'' Duane Gish, in Battle for Creation (1976), p. 276.

ONLY L Only the L (left-handed) amino acids ever occur in animal tissue. The D (right-handed) ones are never found in animals which are alive.

When man makes amino acids in a laboratory, he will always get an equal number of both L and D. Only very complicated methods are able to separate them so that the experimenter will end up with only L amino acids. There is no way to synthetically make only L amino acids.

We will learn in chapter 9, Primitive Environment that, in 1953, *Stanley Miller made some synthetic non-living amino acids. But they were composed of equal amounts of L and D types. The surprising fact is that (with the exception of glycine which is totally symmetric in shape) only L (left-handed) amino acids are found in living animals. Scientists cannot explain why this should be, but that is the way it is. (If anyone asks whether you are right or left-handed, you can tell them you are more left-handed than right.)

SEEKING A RACEMIC MIXTURE This brings us back to racemization as a dating method: At death, the L amino acids begin converting to the D type. The changeover in animal remains is completely random, with Ls changing into Ds, and Ds changing back to Ls. Gradually, over a period of time, a "racemic mixture" is the result. The amino acids become "racemic" when they contain equal amounts of both L and D types.

Scientists much prefer racemic dating to amino acid decomposition dating. Analyzing for a racemic mixture can be done more quickly and with less expensive equipment than the amino acid decomposition method. In addition, the starting point will, with the exception of glycine, always be 100 percent L amino acid content.

But there are serious problems !n trying to use racemic activity to date ancient materials:

TEN RACEMIC PROBLEMS Many different factors can affect the accuracy of racemic dating methods, and, as with problems accompanying radioactive and radiocarbon dating analysis, for any given specimen no one can know which factors are involved or to what degree. Why? Because the person would have to be there studying the specimen since its clock first started thousands of years ago at its death, and its L amino acids began their journey toward racemization.

The rate at which racemization occurs is dependent on at least ten different factors: (1) What have been the surrounding water concentrations? (2) What amount of acidity and/or alkalinity has been nearby at different times? (3) What has been the varying temperature of the specimen since death? (4) To what degree has there been contact with clay surfaces in the past? (Clay is highly absorbent.) (5) Could aldehydes especially when associated with metal ions have contacted the sample at some past time? (6) What buffer compounds have contacted it? What were their concentrations? (7) To what degree has the amino acid specimen been bound in the past and to what degree has it been more open to contamination? (8) If bound, where was the tested specific amino acid located in relation to the outer membrane or shell of the specimen? (9) How large was the specimen it was in? Have changes in size occurred in the past? (10) Were bacteria present at some earlier time? Because one of the amino acids (D-alanine) can be produced by bacteria, test results can be thrown off by this one factor.

MOST EASILY CONTAMINATED Using this method, amino acids in very hard materials, such as bone, tend to produce dates up to 20,000 years. Amino acids in more easily contaminated materials, such as sea shell meat, will run to long ages of time, peaking out about 150,000 years.

TEMPERATURE CHANGE Just a one degree increase in temperature at 23C (73.4F) just one degree will produce a nearly 16 percent increase in the rate at which racemization occurs. So any temperature change will significantly affect the racemic clock within the amino acid mixture.

Interestingly enough, the only time when racemic dating agrees with the theorized long-ages dating of radioactive materials is when the racemization has been done in the laboratory with very high temperatures! Thus, as would be expected, samples from out in the field reveal ages that are far less than those acceptable to evolutionary conjectures.

THE COLD STORAGE PROBLEM Another problem lies with the fact that "cold storage" would slow down racemization and give an appearance of a longer age span since death. After the Flood, intense volcanic activity spewed so much dust into the air that the earth chilled and glaciers spread from the poles southward for quite some time. Since then, the climate has gradually been warming up. Thus, if an animal died in A.D. 500, and if it was free from various contamination factors, it might yield a date of 1500 years. But an animal dying in 2200 B.C., shortly after the Flood, might yield an age of 150,000 years.

The Racemic researchers themselves admit that their dates can only be tentative at best. The fact is, which they know all too well, there is no characteristic racemization rate that is reliably constant.

"Racemization 'dates' should probably be regarded only as preliminary estimates unless corroborated by other independent criteria." *Gifford H. Miller and *Peter E. Hare, "Amino Acid Geochronology: Integrity of the Carbonate Matrix and Potential of Molluscan Fossils," in Biogeochemistry of Amino Acids (1980), p. 416.

MOISTURE-A DOUBLE PROBLEM* Wehmiller and *Hare have suggested that racemization can only occur during the hydrolysis of the protein. In other words, moisture has to be present all during the time that the amino acids are racemizing. But that moisture, coming from outside and flowing in and through the specimen, will bring with it contamination of various kinds. In contrast, amino acid samples from extinct dinosaurs from the La Brea tar pits in southern California, indicate that they died only yesterday! This is because tar sealed water away from the samples. Yet scientists can have no way of knowing the temperature and other factors of the water and air that earlier contacted a given sample.

For example, if the water had a higher pH (if it was more alkaline), then racemization would occur in only a fraction of its normal time, giving the impression of great age to the sample. But who can know the pH of the contaminating water at various times in the past?

SOME SAMPLE TESTS One example of racemic dating problems is the dating of a single Late Pleistocene Mercenaria shell, which, when several tests were run on it, produced a variety of dates ranging from 30,000 to 2 million years for its various amino acids!

"Bender has strongly questioned the reliability of the amino acid racemization dating method. He points out that bones obtained from different levels in the Muleta Cave of Mallorca, when dated by the amino acid racemization method, the radiocarbon method, and by the Thorium-239 method, as reported by Turekian and Bada, gave strongly discordant [widely varying] ages. He maintains that amino acid racemization rates are extremely sensitive to the environment."Duane Gish, in Battle for Creation (1976), pp. 275-276.

ANOTHER RADIODATING PROBLEM Efforts have been made to confirm racemization dating by radiocarbon dating, but this has failed also.

"Extrapolation based on C-14 dated samples to older samples must be considered tenuous." *Gifford H. Miller and *Peter E. Hare, "Amino Acid Geochronology: Integrity of the Carbonate Matrix and Potential of Molluscan Fossils, " in Biogeochemistry of Amino Acids (1980), p. 439. Because of the very low dates it produces, racemic dating has cast yet another shadow over the integrity of the high-age dates produced by the various radioactive dating methods.


12-ASTRONOMICAL DATING The speed of light is also used as a "dating method. " The time required for light to travel to us from distant stars and galaxies is generally given in the millions of light years. If such time spans are correct, then one would expect those light sources (the stars the light came from) to be millions of years old.

But to a great degree, these long ages of time for dating starlight are based on the redshift theory, and on the Einsteinian theory of the nature of space, both of which have been seriously questioned.

(1) Red-shift Theory. Several of the very serious weaknesses of the red-shift theory, which requires speeding stars, immense distances, and an expanding universe, were discussed in chapter 1, Origin of the Universe.

More reasonable explanations of the spectral red-shift, which fit astronomical facts better, would eliminate the expanding universe theory and bring the stars much closer to us.

(2) Einstein's Theory. Albert Einstein theorized that the speed of light is the only constant (186,000 miles per second), and that everything else is relative to it. Theoretical effects of that theory are little short of astounding (people that become almost infinite in length if they travel too fast, time that stops, etc.).

But there are a number of scientists who do not believe Einstein was correct. They believe in a Euclidean universe which has normal time, energy, and matter in it. The velocity of light would not then be a constant.

One important implication of the Euclidean viewpoint would be that the time required for light to travel from a star to the earth would be greatly reduced. This is highly significant.

"The acceptance of Riemannian space allows us to reject Einstein's relativity and to keep all the ordinary ideas of time and all the ideas of Euclidean space out to a distance of a few years. Astronomical space remains Euclidean for material bodies, but light is considered to travel in Riemannian space. In this way the time required for light to reach us from the most distant stars is only 15 years."*Parry Moon and *D.E. Spencer, "Binary Stars and the Velocity of Light, " in Journal of the Optical Society of America, August 1953, p. 635.

13-PALEOMAGNETIC DATING Because paleomagnetic dating is such a new field, and is so intricately associated with seafloor spreading and plate tectonics, which has taken the geological world by storm since the 1960s, it deserves special discussion and far too much space for this present chapter. Therefore, it will be discussed in chapter 26 (paleomagnetism).

Within the past 25 years, paleomagnetic dating has become a significant method of trying to prove long ages for earth's history. The serious flaws in this dating method will be discussed in chapter 26, Paleomagnetism.

14-VARVE DATING There are sedimentary clays which are known as varved deposits. These clays are banded sediments, with each band generally quite thin. The color of each band will vary from light to dark. Evolutionists interpret each varve as being exactlyno more and no less equal to one year! On this basis, they count the "varves" and attempt to work out "varve chronologies." In reality, any brief flooding discharge into a lake will cause a varve, which is a settling out of finer particles. Thornbury, a major geology writer makes this comment:

"There has been criticism of this method of arriving at estimates of Pleistocene chronology. In the first place, it involves a great deal of interpolation and extrapolation, which introduce possible errors. Secondly, there is some question as to whether varves actually are annual deposits. Deane from his study of the varves in the Lake Simcoe region of Ontario was led to doubt seriously that varves represent yearly deposits, and was inclined to think that they represent deposits of shorter lengths of time.''* W. D. Thornbury, Principles of Geomorphology (1954), p. 404

Pebbles, plants, insects, and dead animals have been found embedded in varves. How could a dead fish rest on the bottom of a lake for two hundred years without rotting, while slowly accumulating sediments gradually covered and fossilized it? This does not occur in modern lakes, and it would not have happened anciently.

For much more information on this topic, see John Whitcomb and Henry Morris, The Genesis Flood, pp. 421-429.

15-TREE RING DATING The giant sequoias (Sequoia gigantea) of the Sierra Nevada Mountains of California, along with the bristlecone pines of Arizona and California, are the oldest living things on earth.

"The sap of the giant sequoia is nonresinous. The trees, once they have developed a heavy bark, are practically fireproof, which may account for their long life. Even if they are fire-damaged, the high tannin content of the sap has the same healing action that tannic acid has on human flesh when burned."*Isaac Asimov's Book of Facts (1979), p. 178.

Nothing can kill a mature sequoia, with the exception of man and his saws. Yet none of them are older than 4,000 years of age. They date back to the time of the Flood, and no farther.

The bristlecone pines of the White Mountains in California and nearby Arizona, appear to be somewhat older, but research by Walter Lammerts, a plant scientist, has disclosed that the bristlecone pine routinely stops growth during the dry summer and, when both spring and fall are rainy (which is common), it produces two rings a year. Thus, the giant redwoods (Sequoia gigantea) are with certainty the oldest living thing; not the bristlecone pine.

For more information on this, see chapter 6, Age of the Earth.

16-BURIED FOREST STRATA DATING Buried trees are to be found in the sedimentary deposits. Some are horizontal, others diagonal, and many are vertical. This topic will be discussed in more detail in chapters 17 and 19 (Fossils and Strata and Effects of the Flood). Because these vertical trees are at times found above and below one another, it is assumed by evolutionists that here is another way to prove long ages. Because these vertical trees are at times found above and below one another, it is assumed by evolutionists that here is another way to prove long ages. Because these vertical trees are at times found above and below one another, it is assumed by evolutionists that here is another way to prove long ages. Outstanding examples are to be found in Amethyst Mountain and Specimen Ridge in the northwestern part of Yellowstone National Park. Fifteen to eighteen successive levels of buried trees are to be found there. This could be the result of local floods occurring over a period of many centuries (although such floods never today wash over these mountains). These tree levels would be more easily explained by the Genesis Flood--a worldwide inundation which covered everything, and, as it rose, successively laid down trees, plants, and animals, covered them over with sediment, and then repeated the operation again and again.

"Much evidence shows that the Specimen Ridge 'fossil forests' are not the remains of forests which grew one on top of the other during long periods of time. Rather, it appears that trees from distant forests were ripped up and transported by water to be dumped at Specimen Ridge. The facts strongly indicate that the standard view long held by geologists is completely wrong . .

"Recent detailed research has brought to light much evidence which contradicts the traditional [evolutionary] view.

"Dr. Harold Coffin has conducted careful studies over a number of years on all aspects of the Yellowstone petrified tree formations. Some of the facts about these formations which do not fit the picture of forests being buried where they grew are as follows:

"(a) Tree roots abruptly terminating or broken. (b) Almost all trees completely stripped of bark or limbs. (c) Small trees upright, unbroken (a breccia flow would push them over). ["Breccia" is a sedimentary rock which was formed of angular rock fragments which water then washed into place, and which were later cemented together by silt.] (d) Ring patterns of trees do not cross match. (e) Both upright and prone trees lined up as if by water current. (f) No valid evidence of soil layers where trees grew. (g) Absolutely no evidence of animals found where soil layers should be; also, very few cones found. (h) Many examples of trees overlapping, with roots on one located at a level part-way up the trunk of another. (i) Broad leaves found where tree trunks are only conifers. (j) Pollen scarce and not of same kind as the tree trunks.

"These and other facts strongly suggest that geologists have been wrong for a hundred years. The evidence better fits the view that trees were ripped up and transported by water from another location and dumped in place at the same time that repeated volcanic eruptions were layering the area with ash and breccia."R.E Kofahl, Evolution Refuter (1980), pp. 8890.

"Up to 600 feet of strata have been formed since 1980 at Mount St. Helens, [including] fine pumice ash laminae and beds from one millimeter thick to greater than one meter thick, each representing just a few seconds to several minutes of accumulation . . Mount St Helens teaches us that the stratified layers commonly characterizing geological formations can form very rapidly by flow processes.

"The landslide-generated waves on Spirit Lake stripped the forests from the slopes adjacent to the lake and created an enormous log mat, made up of millions of prone floating trunks . . [which are] gradually sinking to the lake floor . . Many trees float in upright positions . . These trees, if buried in sediment, would appear to have been a forest which grew in place over hundreds of years, which is the standard geological interpretation for the upright petrified 'forests' at Yellowstone National Park.

"Scuba investigation of the upright deposited trunks shows that some are already solidly buried [at the bases] by sedimentation . . The Spirit Lake upright deposited stumps, therefore, have considerable implications for interpreting 'petrified forests' in the stratigraphic record."Steven A. Austin, "Mount St. Helens and Catastrophism," in Impact, July 1986, pp. 1 -3.

17-PEAT DATING Peat moss is any of a group of pale-green mosses, genus Sphagnum. They grow in swamps and are the major source of peat. Peat is made up of deposits of this decomposed plant matter found in what was once swamps. It is found in bogs and similar poorly drained areas. The residue of these mosses are sold as a mulch; under the name, "peat moss" or "sphagnum moss." Peat is not only used as a plant covering (mulch), but is also burned as a fuel.

Scientists have worked out the theory that peat forms at the rate of about one-fifth inch per century, or one foot in 6,000 years. Thus, evolutionists use peat bogs to help support the theory that long ages were required to form peat bogs. But research evidence indicates otherwise.

Here are a few facts which run contrary to this theory:

"More than a century ago, . . peat farmers said that the rate [of peat formation] was about 2 1/2 inches [6.35 cm] per year. A large number of embarrassing finds soon supported the experience of the peat farmers:

"Elephant bones found under a few inches or feet of peat in America are still dated in terms of many thousands of years. In some places in Scotland old Roman roads were covered with peat to a depth of eight feet [24.38 dm) in some places, but one could hardly argue for an age of 48,000 years for such work by human beings.

"Other finds included datable metal objects found at great depths in peat. In Abbeville, France, a boat loaded with Roman bricks was found in the lowest tier of peat. In the Somme Valley, beech stumps up to four feet in height were found covered by peat before they had decayed. "Erich A. von Fange, "Time Upside Down," in Creation Research Society Quarterly, June 1974, p. 17.

18-REEF DATING During his five-year voyage on the Beagle (1831-1836), *Charles Darwin first learned about coral reefs. Sailors and explorers were well acquainted with them, but no one knew how they got there. He developed a theory that coral reefs gradually grew higher as the oceans filled over millions of years, and later (1842) wrote a book about it.

Coral, which makes the reefs, only lives within a couple hundred feet of sea-level, yet remains of coral are to be found deep in the ocean. Therefore, at some past time the oceans rose. According to *Darwin's uniformitarian theory, oceans have risen at a slow, steady rate for millions of years.

What actually occurred was a rapid filling of the oceans during the Flood as the rains fell and, shortly afterward, as mountain building took place--which flooded the ocean basins with yet more water. For more on this, see chapter 19 (The Flood).

For additional information on these reefs, see the in-depth discussion by John Woodmorappe in Creation Research Society Quarterly, March 1980, pp. 213-216, and March 1982, pp. 206-208. Supposedly ancient "reefs" in the Pacific are there shown to be Flood deposits. Additional background on this topic will be found in *Richard Milner, Encyclopedia of Evolution (1990), pp. 9596.

19-THERMOLUMINESCENCE DATING A little-known method of dating is thermoluminescence dating, but it is one that has also failed to meet expectations. Speaking of Ban Chiang pottery dating from southeastern Asia, we are told:

"The Ban Chiang painted pottery, thought on the basis of thermoluminescence dates to be more than 6,000 years old, is now found by radiocarbon dating to be no older than the first millennium B.C. "Quoted in news notes, Creation Research Society Quarterly, June 1977, p. 70.

20-STALACTITE FORMATION In almost every country there are limestone caverns. Water running through limestone dissolves some of the mineral. As it prepares to drip from cracks in the ceiling, some of the water evaporates and leaves a mineral deposit. The result is dripstone. As it grows longer, it becomes stalactites. Dripping onto the ground, more formations are built up, called stalagmites. (Memory device: "c" comes before "g", as stalactites come before and result in stalagmites; therefore stalactites are on top, stalagmites are on the floor.) [A friend who proofread this chapter added this humorous note in the margin: "I know an easier one: "tites" stick tight to the ceiling, while "mites" crawl on the floor."]

Stalactites are the long conical formations that hang down from the ceiling of caves. They are often cited as a proof of the earth's great age. But that is not correct. They can form fairly rapidly. Dr. Kenneth Hamm tells of a cave in Queensland, Australia which, because it is a comparatively dry cave with little moisture, would have an especially slow stalactite growth. It is known that, in the 1890s as a means of recreation, men destroyed the stalactites within that cave with shotgun blasts. By the 1980s, the stalactites had already made six inches [15.24 cm] of new growth.

A London subway tunnel that has not been used since 1945 when it was no longer used as an air-raid shelter, was opened again 33 years later in 1978. In his book, In the Minds of Men (page 336), Ian Taylor shows a picture of the 24 inch [6,096 cm] stalactites that had developed in that brief space of time.

"How long does it take for a stalactite to grow? Many people, impressed by repeated statements of extreme duration of geologic time, have made statements to the effect that it takes dripstone practically forever to grow appreciably. However, there is more than a little evidence that growth is considerably more rapid. First of all, stalactites are found in man-made tunnels that are only a few years old . . Second, certain conditions are so favorable to dripstone growth that as much as several cubic inches a year may be deposited in a single stalactite . . Third, there are many examples of large stalagmites growing on blocks of stone that have fallen from cave ceilings." *Charles E. Hendrix, The Cave Book (1950), p. 26.

"During a tour through a cave, one is often told that stalagmites and stalactites took many millions of years to form. Little specifically seems to be known about the growth rate, except that it is a vaguely slow process.

"Some formations are believed to be about 100,000 years old since they rest on silt and fossils dated at about that age. The usual orthodox view is that only rarely will more than one hundredth of an inch be deposited per ten-year period, or one inch in a thousand years.[Pensee, 3(1):48.]

"About twenty years ago the clear outline of a bat was found inside a stalagmite in Carlsbad Caverns, New Mexico. It had been cemented over before bacteria, decay, or predators could destroy it. The suggestion was made that under the right conditions the growth of the stalagmite might be amazingly rapid. (Creation Research Society Quarterly, 8(2):44.)

"In a cave in the Tehuacan Valley of Mexico, a vast chamber known as the Hall of the Dead was found. A massive cave-in had occurred and one can still see the skeletons of people of the Olmec period there. The skeletons are all covered with stalagmites. Rather than an age in the millions of years, the skeletons are dated as no earlier than 1200 B.C. [Pensee, 3(1):48.]

"A writer in Nature some years ago was about to show that a stalagmite about 15 years old from a lead mine exactly paralleled in form and height another which, in association with human remains, had been estimated by experts as being 220,800 years old. Some authorities are suggesting that the association of human bones with long extinct animals may not be proof of the antiquity of man but rather that these animals lived into quite recent times. [A.C. Custance, "Fossil Remains of Early Man," Doorway Papers #45 (1968), p. 20.]"Erich A. von Fange, "Time Upside Down," in Creation Research Society Quarterly, June 1974, p. 19.

Over a dozen other examples of lengthy stalactites that developed within a matter of a decade or less could have been described. But the above illustrations should suffice. Neither stalactites nor stalagmites are an evidence that the earth is millions of years old, and the standard scientific measurement applied to them (one inch equals a thousand years) is totally inaccurate.

You have just completed 

Chapter 7 DATING METHODS Part 2