Here's the truth about scientists dating the remains of ancient man! It is time you were told the real purpose of science in claiming man has been on earth so long. Read the startling answer!
Many have wondered about the accurancy of radiocarbon dating, which claims great age for the remains of prehistoric men.
We are asked:"You say that man has been here for only 6,000 years; but scientist claim up to 200,000 years.Your whole teaching is predicated upon a Biblical record that is in sharp disagreement with science."
"You substantiate your claim by the Bible. But doesn't the scientist know through radiocarbon dating that man has been here longer than the Bible states."
DO YOU WONDER HOW THE SCIENTIST KNOW MAN HAS BEEN ON EARTH OVER 6,000 YEARS? THE ANSWER IS HE DOESN'T KNOW! HE GUESSES!
Why does he accept assumptions and believe as he does? Because he wants to. He does not want to believe God. He looks for excuses to doubt what God reveals. It is as simple as that.
Radiocarbon dating is presently the most popular of several methods scientist use in trying to convince the public that prehistoric man's remains are much older than God's account of creation allows.
Radiocarbon dating is not based upon fact, but on three assumptions:
1) That an accurate half life for carbon 14 is precisely measurable.
2) That cosmic radiation has been constant for many thousands of years.
3) That the nitrogen supply available to be acted on by this radiation has been constant.
These three factors are all pure assumptions, not fact. Scientist even openly admit the second and third are assumptions. (America magazine, March 18, 1961, page 782)
As support for the theory of evolution, science devised the method of counting the supposed age of prehistoric man by means of radiocarbon dating. It is done by comparing the proportionate amounts of ordinary carbon (carbon 12) with radioactive carbon 14 in organic remains left by prehistoric man.
Living organisms contain a certain portion of unchanging, ordinary carbon 12, and a minute portion of radioactive carbon 14. How does carbon 14 originate? It is produced when cosmic radiation from outer space hits the nitrogen in the earth's atmosphere. A portion of the nitrogen is transformed into radioactive carbon 14.
The proportions of the two types of carbon in living matter depend upon their relative proportions in the earth's air and water in which the living matter existed. When an organism dies, the carbon 12 in it remains the same. But the carbon 14, being radioactive, begins to diminish in quantity by degeneration, or disintrgration.
The whole theory is predicated on the assumption that half of a given quantity of radioactive carbon 14 disintegrates in 5568 years, half the remaining amount in another 5568 years, and so on. Thus this period of 5568 years is termed the half life of radioactive carbbon 14.
Scientist have assumed that the proportion of carbon 12 and carbon 14 in living matter has always been the same as it is today. They measure in proportionate amounts of carbon 12 and carbon 14 in remains left by man. Assuming it started out with the same proportions as a substance would have today, scientist gives an estimated age for man's remains based on the loss of radioactive carbon 14.
Even Dr. Willard F. Libby, the originator of dating by the radioactive carbon 14 method, was not sure of it's reliability. He admitted several noteworthy weeknesses. But many scientific writers use this half life figure of his as it was established truth. They ascribe to this figure far greater accuracy and reliability than Dr. Libby claims in his book Radiocarbon Dating published in 1955 by the University of Chicago Press.
Dr. Libby admits on page 42 of his authoritative work that his theory is not proven and that he is not even sure that the half life of carbon 14 is between 5,000 and 6,000 years. But he feels that "the evidence strongly favors his conclusion." (Radiocarbon Dating p.36).
Dr. Willard F. Libby developed the theory of age dating the past by radioactive carbon. His method is based on fundamental assumptions which science has since proved to be untrue.
The second assumption employed in establishing radiocarbon dating is that cosmic radiation has been constant for 10,000 to 20,000 years, a factor on which the foremost scientist are admittedly uncertain.
Notice Nuclear scientist Faul's statement on page 350 of his authoritative book Nuclear Geology: "So far there is no proof... that the cosmic ray intensity has remained constant, and however reasonable it may be, we must rank this as pure assumption." (Emphasis ours.)
Scientist who use radiocarbon dating know they are only assuming radiation has remained the same for thousands of years. They know there is abundant evidence that radiation has increased, and that it has brought in a corresponding increase in the amount of carbon 14 being formed. Nevertheless, carelessly bold young scientist make such erroneous statements as: "Rate of carbon 14 formation has been constant for 25,000 years." ("Atoms That Punch The Clock," page 77 of the February 1958 Nature Magazine). Here we see a typical example of the common flagrant misuse of data offered by scientist as a possibility and parroted by their students as gospel truth.
After admitting that radiation may have changed, scientist try to explain away this weekness with more assumptions... because they realize that less radiation in ancient times would have produced a corresponding lower amount of carbon 14. This would automatically cause a computer to give an abnormally ancient age to any prehistoric object being dated.
In order to assume that the amount of radiation reaching the earth has not changed, scientist must further assume that the strength of the magnetism of the north and south poles has not varied. It is known that this magnetism reflects radiation from the inhabited portions of the earth to the polar regions. Therefore, a decrease in the strength of the magnetic field would allow more cosmic radiation to reach the inhabited portions of the earth and form more carbon 14.
It has been proven that the earth's magnetic field has weekened and allowed an increase in radiation. Here is one proof!
When rocks are beeing formed by volcanic action, tiny metallic slivers in the forming rocks become aligned like compass needles with the earth's magnetic poles. A study of the form and alignment of these particles gives an indication of the strength of the magnetic field at the time the rocks were being formed. Magnetic field research by this method reveals the magnetic field is very unstable and varied, considerably in past centuries!
In the December 1956 issue of Nature and the February 1957 Scientific American are the reports of the findings three American geophysicists, whose studies convinced them the intensity of the magnetic field has dropped 35% in the past 2,000 years. This means there was also a great increase in cosmic ray intensity, and with it an increase in the production rate of carbon 14 in living organisms. In other words, the fact that much less carbon 14 was produced in the past means much less was absorbed by living organisms in those days. Therefore, radiocarbon dates appear much older than they should (even if the half life figure were correct.)
The earth is a giant magnet, with two magnetic poles, operating on the same principle as the toy magnets many of us played with as children. The earth's stored magnetism, like the stored magnetism in the toy counterpart, gradually decreases. This gradual decrease works on the same principle as the cooling of a hot chunk of metal that is taken from a furnace and allowed to cool off of it's own accord. At first it cools rapidly and then it's rate of cooling decreases.
There had to be a time when the earth received it's charge of magnetism... There had to be a starting point. When this magnetic field was new, it's strength would be sapped more rapidly at first, just like the cooling of the hot metal. But as time progressed and the magnetic field became weaker, there would be less drain on it by outside influences and the rate of change would slow down. So many influences are involved in these proccesses that there would not be an exact rate of decrease of the magnetic field, but all the fluctuations would be within a general pattern.
Here is another proof that in recent centuries radiation has decreased and caused a corresponding increase in the formation of carbon 14.
In December 1961 Science Digest, in the article "Another Revision Suggested For Carbon 14 Dating", we learn that R. A. Rafter and H. S. Jansen of the New Zealand Institute Of Nuclear Sciences examined the carbon 14 in the rings of an 800 year old Kauri tree, a species of pine, and found that there was a steady increase in the amount of carbon 14 in the atmosphere during the lifetime of the tree, and a rapid increase from 1550 to 1650. If fluctuations have been so wild in recent times, they certainly could have been just as wild in past times.
There are many weaknesses in the radiocarbon dating theory that have not yet been considered. We have all seen natural wonders such as sun spots and comets; and we recognize the fact that there are tremendous forces in operation in the universe. Who knows how much the formation of cosmic rays may have been altered in recent centuries by any number of the forces God built into His universe.
Scientist third assumption upon which radiocarbon is based is that the nitrogen supply in the atmosphere has not changed... that for many thousands of years there have been the same amount of nitrogen available for radiation to change into carbon 14. But this is admittedly an assumption! (America magazine, March 18, 1961, page 782.)
The most authoritative atmosphere chemist and meteorologist that we could contact readily admitted that there is no evidence at all for this assumption, and no way of finding any proof for it... that it has just been accepted as faith because that is the way it looks at present, and they have nothing better to believe.
The fact that an admitted assumption is used as a basis for excepting radiocarbon dating shows the folly of the theory. This shows scientist are ready to gamble with facts... that they are willing to use even a nonproveable point that will popularize their theory and make it look logical and scientific. They are not interested in finding TRUTH they are interested in hiding the truth of Divine Creation, which is obvious to anyone to see by examining the creation around him.
Even scientist, themselves, are beginning to lose confidence in radiocarbon dating. They see it's many weaknesses and realize that although it has been popular only a few years, it cannot last much longer, and must soon be replaced by another method of dating ancient man's remains. Now science must find a new method which can for a while furnish an apparent support for their dating guesses. Notice this admission from a foremost authority in archaeology:
"The point where the editors of the present volume wish to make is that the archaeologist will often find that the only available method for estimating age is the rate of accumulation technique. He may elect to ignore the method in belief that it is too unreliable, or he may apply the method and reserve judgement of it's absolute accuracy. But in view of the many difficulties in the employment of the radiocarbon dating technique (Sample collecting, cost of laboratory runs, wide margin of error, and probable future abandonment of the method due to atmospheric enrichment by radioactive elements), The rate of accumulation method should not be completly forgotten, since it may in future be the only possible one available in particular cases." (Emphasis ours, parenthesis his>>> from page 346-347 of The Archaeologist At Work by Robert F. Heizer, Professor of Anthropology, University of California at Berkeley. Published by Harper and Brothers, New York.)
Notice that this eminent archaeologist recommends rate of accumulation dating, admittedly unreliable, as being superior to radiocarbon dating. Sooner or later this new method, or some other system, will come tothe fore and take the place of radiocarbon dating. The new method of dating human remains will, in turn, be used for a while as a tool in science's rebellion against God.
Science's rejection of the Bible and acceptance of assumptions is an open confession that since science cannot accept the Bible as proof, it can do no better than guess, assume, and remain in darkness.
Scientist have given no proof for any of the assumptions upon which they based radiocarbon dating. They even admit many obvious weaknesses in the theory... lest they appear noticeably ignorant. The theory originates from scientist desire to date man older than God's date for the creation of the first man on earth. In the name of science... in order to call God a liar... men have deliberately ignored the obvious scientific evidence before them. They have calculated carefully in order to wilfully come to this wrong conclusioon! With reckless abandon, science has perverted the record prehistoric man laft behind. Radiocarbon dating stands proved as a gross error.
Evolution, Dinosaurs Before Adam
Can Christians beleive in Evolution?
There's Nothing New Under The Sun
