Carbon 14 dating （关于炭十四定年法）
The logic behind the dating methods assumes that plants or animals intake C14 from their environments while they are alive and then die. When they die, the C14 decays to C12 but no new C14 is introduced. Therefore, over time, the C14 present in the dead animal will become less than that in the surrounding environment. Therefore, if we know the half-life of C14, we can compute the age of the sample. The half-life of C14 is about 5600 years. This means that in 5600 years, half of the C14 present in the sample will decay to C12. So, if a sample has 25% of the C14 of the current environment, we might well assume the sample is 11200 years old.
It will be immediately evident to you that this methodology makes the following assumptions.
1. that the level of C14 in the plant or animal was at equilibrium with its environment when it died.
2. that the level of C14 in the environment has not changed over the age range of the dating calculation.
3. that the sample has not been subjected to any external factors which could have leached in or leached out new C14.
Let's think about these:
Assumption 1: Since dating methods attempt to date samples (usually fossils) which are many thousands of years old, there is just no way of knowing whether these assumptions are true or not. We have only been measuring atmospheric isotopes for less than 100 years. It is also not obvious that the same concentration of C14 exists in the atmosphere all over the world. For example, trees near active volcanos might be expected to show higher levels of C14 than those further away.
Secondly, when they die, most creatures do not become fossils. Why not? Because very unique events are required to form fossils. Immediately this should raise an alarm because the whole theory of carbon dating assumes that things have always been uniform. But by definition, fossils are only created by non-uniform, or catastrophic, circumstances. In fact, most of the fossils we find today were probably created by Noah's flood which was clearly a catastrophe.
Assumption 2: If the C14 level in the environment was lower in the past than it is now, it would mean that all fossils would date older than they really were. In the days before Noah's flood, the atmosphere was covered by a thick blanket of water vapour. We know this from the fact that it rained 40 days and 40 nights. There is not enough water in the atmosphere for that to take place today. I have read estimates of a maximum of 3 hours of rain worldwide. The point of this is that historically, this water blanket would have shielded the earth from cosmic rays to a greater extent than it does today, thereby reducing the formation of C14. As a consequence, it would not surprise us that fossils date older than we believe they should. The concentration of C14 in the environment today is higher than what it was in the past.
Assumption 3: When fossils are submerged in water or subjected to other hostile environmental conditions, C14 can leach in or out of the fossil. If anything like this happens, it clearly invalidates the dating calculation.
Finally, C14 dating is not able to date very old fossils. It is often assumed that carbon dating can date anything. But with a 5600 year half life, anything over 45,000 years will only have 1/16th the concentration of C14 it had when the animal died. As concentrations decrease, the measurement error increases, so C14 dates beyond this age are meaningless. To date old fossils, Potassium-Argon dating is therefore used. The half-life for potassium to decay into argon is 1,300,000,000 years. The problem with this is that the half-life is so long that tiny fluctuations in the concentration translate to differences of millions of years. This is the method that is used (for example) to date hominid bones and gives dates of1-2 million years for early humans.
Early human fossils.
There is a lot of talk about these, but a few facts help put things into perspective. The total number of early human fossils worldwide is extremely small - about enough to fill one billiard table. Furthermore, most fossils are only fragments - a jawbone, a tooth, a skull from which the entire evolutionary history of man has been postulated. This is very creative science!
The only fossils spoken about in the literature are those that fit the expected timeline. Not all do. For example, in 1972, Richard Leakey reported finding a skull in northern Kenya, east of Lake Rudolph which he dated at 2.5 million years old. The specimen was referred to as KNM ER 1470 (Kenya National Museum, East Rudolph). In short, Leakey and others obtained 41 potassium-argon dates for this skull, all of which were rejected because they didn't give the right answers. Finally, the age of the skull has been inferred (2m years) by using the date of some pigs teeth which were found some distance away. However, the shape of the skull is surprisingly like that of modern man, so this fossil is still contentious.
The fact is, evolutionists need their fossils to date old to support their theory. They will keep testing (as in the case of skull 1470) until they get an answer that 'fits'. They are not obliged to publish 'outlying data' in the scientific literature. So, the human evolutionary tree is fabricated using very scarce and selective data, a dating methodology guaranteed to give old dates (potassium-argon), untestable dating assumptions (those mentioned above) in order to support a man made evolutionary theory. As the apostle Paul wrote to Timothy in 1Tim 6:20 "avoid profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science, falsely so-called".
It will be immediately evident to you that this methodology makes the following assumptions.
1. that the level of C14 in the plant or animal was at equilibrium with its environment when it died.
2. that the level of C14 in the environment has not changed over the age range of the dating calculation.
3. that the sample has not been subjected to any external factors which could have leached in or leached out new C14.
Let's think about these:
Assumption 1: Since dating methods attempt to date samples (usually fossils) which are many thousands of years old, there is just no way of knowing whether these assumptions are true or not. We have only been measuring atmospheric isotopes for less than 100 years. It is also not obvious that the same concentration of C14 exists in the atmosphere all over the world. For example, trees near active volcanos might be expected to show higher levels of C14 than those further away.
Secondly, when they die, most creatures do not become fossils. Why not? Because very unique events are required to form fossils. Immediately this should raise an alarm because the whole theory of carbon dating assumes that things have always been uniform. But by definition, fossils are only created by non-uniform, or catastrophic, circumstances. In fact, most of the fossils we find today were probably created by Noah's flood which was clearly a catastrophe.
Assumption 2: If the C14 level in the environment was lower in the past than it is now, it would mean that all fossils would date older than they really were. In the days before Noah's flood, the atmosphere was covered by a thick blanket of water vapour. We know this from the fact that it rained 40 days and 40 nights. There is not enough water in the atmosphere for that to take place today. I have read estimates of a maximum of 3 hours of rain worldwide. The point of this is that historically, this water blanket would have shielded the earth from cosmic rays to a greater extent than it does today, thereby reducing the formation of C14. As a consequence, it would not surprise us that fossils date older than we believe they should. The concentration of C14 in the environment today is higher than what it was in the past.
Assumption 3: When fossils are submerged in water or subjected to other hostile environmental conditions, C14 can leach in or out of the fossil. If anything like this happens, it clearly invalidates the dating calculation.
Finally, C14 dating is not able to date very old fossils. It is often assumed that carbon dating can date anything. But with a 5600 year half life, anything over 45,000 years will only have 1/16th the concentration of C14 it had when the animal died. As concentrations decrease, the measurement error increases, so C14 dates beyond this age are meaningless. To date old fossils, Potassium-Argon dating is therefore used. The half-life for potassium to decay into argon is 1,300,000,000 years. The problem with this is that the half-life is so long that tiny fluctuations in the concentration translate to differences of millions of years. This is the method that is used (for example) to date hominid bones and gives dates of1-2 million years for early humans.
Early human fossils.
There is a lot of talk about these, but a few facts help put things into perspective. The total number of early human fossils worldwide is extremely small - about enough to fill one billiard table. Furthermore, most fossils are only fragments - a jawbone, a tooth, a skull from which the entire evolutionary history of man has been postulated. This is very creative science!
The only fossils spoken about in the literature are those that fit the expected timeline. Not all do. For example, in 1972, Richard Leakey reported finding a skull in northern Kenya, east of Lake Rudolph which he dated at 2.5 million years old. The specimen was referred to as KNM ER 1470 (Kenya National Museum, East Rudolph). In short, Leakey and others obtained 41 potassium-argon dates for this skull, all of which were rejected because they didn't give the right answers. Finally, the age of the skull has been inferred (2m years) by using the date of some pigs teeth which were found some distance away. However, the shape of the skull is surprisingly like that of modern man, so this fossil is still contentious.
The fact is, evolutionists need their fossils to date old to support their theory. They will keep testing (as in the case of skull 1470) until they get an answer that 'fits'. They are not obliged to publish 'outlying data' in the scientific literature. So, the human evolutionary tree is fabricated using very scarce and selective data, a dating methodology guaranteed to give old dates (potassium-argon), untestable dating assumptions (those mentioned above) in order to support a man made evolutionary theory. As the apostle Paul wrote to Timothy in 1Tim 6:20 "avoid profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science, falsely so-called".
