Download a Permanent Printable PDF Version of This Article.
Radiocarbon dating is the most reliable and widely used process of absolute dating of Earthly organic material - from things that once lived - but it has some severe limitations. As the decay rate for each radioactive isotope is known, it is possible to calculate how long the process has been taking place for a given specimen under examination.
Nitrogen atoms in the upper atmosphere are bombarded by neutrons produced by cosmic radiation resulting in radioactive carbon (C14) that becomes incorporated into atmospheric carbon dioxide. While animals inhale and utilize oxygen and exhale carbon dioxide, plants inhale and utilize carbon dioxide and exhale oxygen. So, the now C14-incorporated carbon dioxide is breathed and absorbed into all carbon dioxide breathing plants, and then the plants are eaten by animals, and the C14 passes into animal tissues. Even carnivores that eat only animal tissue absorb C14 from that animal tissue.
When the plant or animal dies no further isotope is absorbed and the beta radiation emission begins to gradually reduce to half strength, after the “half-life” of the isotope; 5,730 years in the case of C14.
Fortunately organic carbon is a constituent of all living material, and wood, bone, charcoal, peat, horn, and vegetable remains in soil can all be examined with sensitive Geiger counters, allowing for calculation of absolute age. This makes radiocarbon dating quite useful, up to a point. Error factors, plus or minus, involve hundreds of years.
But the diminution of the radioactivity limits the method to about 40,000 years without the use of "special techniques,” which radically increase the potential error factor, and above 70,000 years the amount of radioactivity is too small to register, let alone measure.
Very old carbon such as found in coal deposits is radioactively dead and useless for carbon dating. Coal is long past its own half-life. So very old things may not be measured at all, and younger things may not be measured with precision. Aging anything on Earth in the hundreds of thousands of years, or in the millions or beyond, involves little more than educated conjecture.
Another word for conjecture is a guess. A Guess never rises above the level of being a guess, no matter how scientific, no matter how educated, no matter how much consensus it enjoys, no matter how well it "fits" any popular hypothesis. Even with full, 100% consensus in the scientific community, in the absence of any empirical evidence, conjecture still remains conjecture. We cannot know with any certainty the age of most of the geological strata that is available to man for viewing.
I would still, however tentatively, tend to agree with a given, millions-of-years-old, Earth strata-age that enjoys near unanimous scientific support. Why? Because I can't come up with a better scientific guess than they can, and it's their field, not mine. The real problem in this situation lies in trying to determine if the proponents of the given strata-age are real scientists, or merely disciples of the faith of Scientism, play-acting at being real scientists. The only way to do that is to listen very carefully to their words, and how they state their case.
When you hear a TV scientist on PBS, or on the History Channel, or on the Discovery Channel, or a teacher in a classroom, saying things like, today, we can accurately measure the age of earthly strata, you should know that what you are listening to is clear falsehood. It might have started out as more of a little fib than a flagrant lie, but over time it has taken on the respectable aura of clear and overwhelming consensus among the educated elite, world wide. It has the near unanimous support of all of the fellows of TTRSTF4 , who will harrumph about it and support what, when pressed, they will refer to as conjecture, because the term conjecture sounds so much more scientific than the term very popular wild assed guess. In general, if a proposed conjecture regarding the age of a rock or a radioactively-dead fossil or a strata layer supports a given scientistic dogma, then that conjecture will enjoy immediate, unchallenged, and near unanimous support from the recognized scientific community.
This, alone, should tell us something very important about today’s recognized scientific community.
Nevertheless, there is such a thing as a real scientist, and real science is still being done. It is most usually done very quietly.
that, when modern scientists speak of cosmic distances between celestial
objects, and the velocities at which such objects are moving toward or
away from us, they stand on much firmer empirical evidences for their
statements than when they are speaking of the age of an ancient bone
fragment or fossilized leaf. But such things as the physical optics,
color-phase or wave-length of light waves emitted by the observed
objects, while they may be quite accurate, have nothing to do with aging
Smart-Assed Acronym Hover-Link Footnotes: For the convenience of those readers using devises that lack a mouse, these footnotes are provided for all webpages, in case any webpage contains any hover-links. (If you don't have a mouse, you can't "hover" it over a link without clicking to see the simple acronym interpretation.)SLIMC1 Secularist Liberal Intellectual Media Complex
Culture=Religion+Politics; Who Are We? Vic Biorseth
The Brilliantly Conceived Organization of the USA; Vic Biorseth
Return to the BLOG page
Return to the HOME PAGE
Respond to This Article Below The Last Comment
Saturday, October 06, 2012
As part of the ongoing effort to upgrade this whole website, upgraded this webpage to the new BB 2.0 - SBI! 3.0 release and to make use of the new reusable code features.
An earlier phase of this major conversion corrupted or adversely affected some fonts, alignments, quotes and tables in the previously published webpages. Not to worry; this phase is converting them all, one by one. Eventually, every webpage on this site will have the same look and feel as this one.
LOVE this new release!
Date: Sat Oct 06 09:33:43 2012
of 100 decayed K-40 atoms become argon-40, and only one of every 10,000 potassium atoms is the K-40 isotope; fortunately, potassium is one of the most abundant minerals on the Earth’s surface.) The phrase, 11 of 1000 decayed K-40 atoms become argon-40, as mentioned above implies the immediate transformation from K-40 to argon-40. As there is an immediate transformation from K-40 to argon-40 despite the amount is small as 11 out of 1000 decayed K-40, the reliability of radiometric dating method is in question. This is by virtue of it is mentioned that it would take a half life (or 1.25 billion years) for K-40 to turn up to be argon-40 and yet in reality it would take an immediate effect for the transformation. Even if one would suggest that 11 out of 1000 would turn up to be argon-40 and would take 1.25 billion years to process the balance of 989 (1000-11) atoms, how could the scientists account for 11 to be immediate and the balance of 989 atoms to 1.25 billion years not proportionally?
f)Samarium-147 (Parent Isotope) to Neodymium-143 (Daughter Isotope):
The following is the extract from the 6th paragraph from the website address, http://www.chemicool.com/elements/samarium.html:
(It wasn’t until 1885 that Carl Auer von Welsbach established that ‘didymium’ was actually composed of two distinct, new elements: neodymium and praseodymium.) The above extract mentions that didymium consists of neodymium and praseodymium and yet didymium was found in Samarium. With the discovery, they conclude that Samarium could turn up to be Neodymium in 106 billion years. Their conclusion that Samarium could turn up to be Neodymium is not based on seeing the physical transformation from one to another, but the substance, Neodymium, was found in Samarium. That has caused us in doubt about the reliability of radiometric dating method.
Could Samarium be able to isolate itself in the air without influence? No, it could not since the website address, http://www.elementsales.com/re_exp/index.htm, shows the immediate chemical reaction upon Samarium when it has contacted with air. The following is the extract from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samarium:
[Samarium ( /səˈmɛəriəm/ sə-MAIR-ee-əm) is a chemical element with symbol Sm and atomic number 62. It is a moderately hard silvery metal which readily oxidizes in air. Being a typical member of the lanthanide series, samarium usually assumes the oxidation state +3. Compounds of samarium(II) are also known, most notably monoxide SmO, monochalcogenides SmS, SmSe and SmTe, as well as samarium (II) iodide. The last compound is a common reducing agent in chemical synthesis. Samarium has no significant biological role and is only slightly toxic.] The phrase, Samarium…hard silvery metal which ready oxidizes in air, as mentioned above implies the ease to respond to air in chemical reaction. The ease in chemical reaction with the contact of air would certainly affect the quality of Samarium and even the radioactive decay since it would not be solely Samarium but other elements that would form a new compound with it to increase or reduce its decay. This certainly would put radioactive dating method into question.
Could scientists be able to separate Neodymium from Samarium? The following is the extract under the sub-title, Abstract, from the website address, http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0003267094002746:
(A separation scheme for strontium and light rare earth elements and its application to the isotopic analysis of strontium and neodymium in silicate rocks are presented. This method benefits from the selectivity and high capacity of two newly introduced extraction Chromatographic materials, referred to as Sr.Spec and TRU.Spec, respectively. These afford a straightforward separation of Sr and Sm + Nd with high yield, good purity and satisfactory blank levels, on very small (0.25 ml) columns using small volumes of solutions of a single mineral acid, HNO3.) The phrase, These afford a straightforward of Sr and Sm + Nd…using small volumes of… HNO3, gives the information that scientists could separate Samarium and Neodymium through mineral acid, HNO3.
Could Neodymium be able to stand alone from scientific point of view? Let’s observe the sequence of pictures of Neodymium in direct contact in air as shown in the website address, http://www.elementsales.com/re_exp/index.htm. For instance, if Samarium would turn up to be Neodymium-143 in a half life and that is 106 billion years, there would not be another half life for it since it would corrode in the air and ultimately vanish since it could not be isolated itself in the air. The computation of Samarium-Neodymium isotopes by means of radiometric dating method presumes Neodymium still retains for another half life and yet in reality, it could not. This has put the accuracy of radiometric dating method by means of Samarium-147 due to the possible corrosion of Neodymium-143 to its ultimate vanishing in the beginning of another half life. The computation of age through isotope by means of samarium has presumed that neodymium would continue for another half life once samarium has turned up to be neodymium after the initial half life. Yet in reality, neodymium would vanish instead of continuing its existence. As the reality is different from the assumption that is set up in radioactive dating method, the accuracy of the age that would have computed through this method is in question.
Date: Sat Oct 06 12:36:36 2012
From: Vic Biorseth
It appears that something may be missing from the opening line of your submission.
That aside, it appears that you confirm my statement that judging the age of the oldest of the strata that make up the crust of the earth is more a matter of scientific conjecture than substantive science.
Date: Wed Sep 24 2014
From: Vic Biorseth
Changes pursuant to changing the website URL
and name from
Thinking Catholic Strategic Center to
Catholic American Thinker.
Pulled the trigger on the 301 MOVE IT option June 1, 2014. Working my way through all the webpages. .
If you want to build a website like this one, this is how you do it.
Never be lukewarm.
Life itself demands passion.
He who is indifferent to God has already forfeited his soul.
He who is indifferent to politics has already forfeited his liberty.
In America, religion is not mere window dressing and citizenship is not a spectator sport.
Do not allow our common destiny as a whole people to just happen without your input.
Catholic American Thinker
Free E-zine Subscription
You will receive immediate email newsletters with links to new articles as they are published here. Your email is perfectly secure here; we use it only to send you the
Catholic American Thinker
and absolutely nothing else.
The Purpose of this group of links is to provide a repository for articles pertaining to the open fraud of Darwinian Evolution.
The Darwinism Pages
Natural Evolution of Species theory remains untested and even unobserved today, with no physical evidence supporting it, and must therefore be recognized as little more than an ideology, a silly superstition or a false religion.
Attacking Catholic Darwinism, from the purely Catholic perspective. This site has always challenged Darwinism from the purely scientific perspective. Now, we see another Catholic champion of Truth attacking Catholic Darwinism from Revealed Truth.
Mitochondrial Eve & Y-Chromosomal Adam v Darwinism and the "Natural" Homo. If all human DNA traces back to Mitochondrial Eve and Y-Chromosomal Adam, then the religion of Darwinism and the "Naturalness" of the homosexual condition are both refuted.
Did the breakdown and loss of the Scientific-Method begin with Darwinism? In the Evolutionary Trail of Modern Scientism, Marxism points back to Freudianism, and farther back to Darwinism. Was that where Modern Man initially took Science off the rails?
Refuting Darwin and Dawinian “science” as bunk and silliness. Refuting Darwin is almost too easy due to his rush-to-publish and his complete lack of empirical evidences.
Refuting the Origin Of Species pseudo-scientific theory of Darwinism. If Darwinism’s Origin Of Species is a true Scientific Theory then there must be a preponderance of evidences supporting it. Show us any of it.
The definition of Darwinism in a nutshell. In the definition of Darwinism we find the foundational principles upon which the quest for the atheist holy grail: the purely material origin of life itself.
Darwinism: Darwin, Evolution, and the Devolution of the Scientific Method. Scientistic Materialism's cornerstone: Darwinism and the competing sub-theories of Gradualism and Punctuated Equilibrium.
Radiocarbon dating as an aging method is accurate up to a point. Radiocarbon dating is reliable up to 6,000 years, shaky at best up to 40,000 years, and completely useless beyond 70,000 years.
Silly premises built on crumbling foundations: Global Villageism & Evolutionism. The Dem Global-Villagers insist the US Constitution was written to cover all citizens of Earth; Disciples of Scientism and Evolutionism all genuflect before their high priest, Richard Dawkins.
Faith versus Atheism: Is atheism really just a silly superstition? The Faith versus Atheism argument is at the root of every other important argument.
On Evil and Nonsense: Look closely at Nonsense, and find Evil at its root. Evil and Nonsense: deny evil and you deny right vs. wrong; which is to deny common sense, which is to invoke nonsense.
Genetic Entropy: Pointing to Human Devolution, not Evolution. Genetic Entropy shows that mutants have less genetic material for variation, never more, falsifying evolution via "favorable" mutation.
"We belong to the Church militant; and She is militant because on earth the powers of darkness are ever restless to encompass Her destruction. Not only in the far-off centuries of the early Church, but down through the ages and in this our day, the enemies of God and Christian civilization make bold to attack the Creator’s supreme dominion and sacrosanct human rights.”--Pope Pius XII
"It is not lawful to take the things of others to give to the poor. It is a sin worthy of punishment, not an act deserving a reward, to give away what belongs to others."--St. Francis of Assisi
If you can't find the page you're looking for, try the