https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a_wIKiOgk10
These videos are not correct. As much as I would like to see the ark, The
Chinese and Turks were falsifying the information and including placing old wood
at the site of the alleged ark sighting. The Bible says that the ark rested upon
the mountains of Ararat and not specifically on it. I do believe that there is
evidence somewhere, but until they do a full underground radar mapping of the
entire area, then God must not want it revealed just as yet. We have to also
remember that the ark would have been over 5000 years old and could be under
many many feet of soil over 5000 years of volcanic activity, erosion,
earthquakes and etc. We need to remember that everything of the earth returns to
the earth except plastics of course. The proof of the flood is overwhelmingly
evident all around the world. How else can you explain shark bones on the
highest peaks all over the world. Here is an article explaining the c-14 carbon
dating that proved that these samples were indeed hoaxes. Enjoy the read....
Terry Prophecy Watcher Weekly News (PWWN)
Is the Wood Recently Found on Mt. Ararat from the Ark?
by Dr. Andrew Snelling on November 9, 2011Abstract
In
April 2010, a press conference was held in Hong Kong to announce to the world
the potential discovery of the remains of Noah’s Ark on Mt. Ararat. What are we
to make of these claims?
| 观看简体中文版本，请按此 | 觀看繁體中文版本, 請按此 |
On
April 25, 2010, a press conference was held in Hong Kong to announce to the
world the potential discovery of the remains of Noah’s Ark on Mt. Ararat in
Turkey by a joint Chinese–Turkish team of explorers. Both before and after this
press conference, representatives of the discovery team had cautiously been
seeking to make contact with sympathetic scientists whose positive support they
hoped to enlist.
A Skype Conference Call
Consequently,
on April 20, 2010, I participated in a Skype conference call (early morning in
northern Kentucky, USA) with several Chinese members of the discovery team (late
evening for them in Hong Kong). During that conference call I was shown video
footage of the team’s exploration on Mt. Ararat, footage that was subsequently
released at the press conference. Photos of a wooden structure purportedly
buried on Mt. Ararat, and of the inside of it, were also provided (for example,
Figure 1).
As
a scientist I am always cautious and somewhat skeptical of bold and spectacular
claims, especially when made in defense of the Bible, yet as a Bible-believing
Christian the thought of this wooden structure being the remains of the Ark was
tantalizing. Friends in Hong Kong who helped arrange this confidential
conference call were equally cautious but excited. We were all looking for the
unequivocal evidence that would convince us that this was indeed the remains of
the long-sought-after Ark. Such a discovery would be another powerful witness to
the truth and authority of God’s Word.1
These
Chinese members of the discovery team wanted to determine if I would be
sympathetic to their claims, and able to participate with them in their planned
press conference, to appear as an “expert witness” to corroborate their
potential discovery. I would have seriously considered their request if they
could convince me that this discovery was genuine. I was already skeptical
though, because the Bible tells us the Ark landed on “the mountains of Ararat”
halfway through the Flood on day 150 (Genesis 8:4), rather than on Mt. Ararat
itself, which is mostly a recent volcano that has erupted numerous times in
recent history.
Even
so, during our conference call I asked whether any scientific tests had already
been conducted. It was quickly indicated that samples of wood from the
structures on Mt. Ararat had been tested for radiocarbon (C-14). My curiosity
was naturally aroused, as such tests would potentially be a good indication of
the structure’s possible antiquity. So without any hesitation on their part,
these Chinese members of the discovery team tabled their full compilation of
C-14 test results, and sent me a copy.
What
I saw immediately convinced me, that if these C-14 test results were obtained on
wood samples from the structure they had discovered on Mt. Ararat, then they had
definitely NOT discovered the Ark. I graciously sought to explain this to our
conference call hosts, giving the reasons for my coming to that conclusion. I
also strongly urged them to have further C-14 testing done on their wood
samples, and other scientific tests performed on samples of a rope and white
pellets we’d seen in the video footage and photos. I even suggested that they
delay their press conference until such time as extra scientific tests had been
done.
That
conference call ended amicably. It wasn’t clear whether our Chinese hosts had
understood my explanations as to how and why their C-14 tests proved their wood
samples are NOT from the remains of the Ark. They had asked that the C-14 test
results remained confidential.
The Press Conference and Its Aftermath
The
discovery team went ahead with their planned press conference in Hong Kong on
April 25, 2010, and announced to the world’s media that the Ark had been
discovered on Mt. Ararat. At the press conference, wood, rope and white pellet
samples were on display (Figure 2). The five-page press release was entitled:
“Exploration team successfully ventures inside 4,800-year-old wooden structure
on snow-capped Mt. Ararat. Experts and Turkish officials believe artefact is
Noah’s Ark.” Yet all that appeared in the press release concerning the dating of
the wood was: “Wood specimens were dated as 4,800 years old.” That simple
statement was understood to mean that more than one sample was dated at 4,800
years old, but no mention was made of what dating method was used.
In
response to the ensuing media blitz, AiG posted on its website a brief report
on April
27, 2010, and brief comments on April
29, 2010, followed by a lengthier news item on May
1, 2010, in the weekly News to Notefeature. Only in the latter
news item was the radiocarbon dating of the wood samples briefly mentioned, with
incomplete details (I was incommunicado in the Grand Canyon at the time!). But the
AiG news item did briefly explain why the radiocarbon dates obtained from the
discovery team’s wood samples were problematic, if indeed this was pre-Flood
wood from the Ark.
Rather
than engage in a public discussion over the C-14 dating of the wood samples,
efforts continued to be made behind the scenes to convince the discovery team to
fully disclose the C-14 test results they had obtained, and to undertake further
C-14 testing of their wood samples, plus scientific testing of the samples of
rope and white pellets. Those efforts seem to have failed, as to my knowledge
the full details of the C-14 testing of their wood samples have never been
publicly disclosed by the discovery team. Nor am I aware that any scientific
testing of the samples of rope and white pellets has been done and publicly
reported.
Meanwhile,
a dramatic, full-length feature film has been produced by the discovery team,
publicizing their claim to have found the Ark on Mt. Ararat, proclaiming that
the biblical record is therefore true, and sharing the Gospel on that basis. The
film is also being used to raise funds for further exploration and documentary
production, with the same evangelistic purposes. The premiere screening was in
Sydney, Australia, with the film being subsequently shown in other Australian
capital cities, including recently in Brisbane. Other film showings have
occurred in Hong Kong and Taiwan, and now the film is being released in the
USA.
Several
U.S. Christian academics are shown in the film, portrayed as lending their
support to the claim that the Ark has been discovered on Mt. Ararat. As a
result, many Christians have been enthralled if not convinced by this
purportedly incredible archaeological discovery. Consequently, many have donated
funds towards the cost of further Ararat expeditions in the hope that other
documentary films will be forthcoming to be used for evangelistic purposes.
The Undisclosed C-14 Test Results
However,
the full details of the C-14 testing of the wood samples from this wooden
structure on Mt. Ararat that is claimed in this film to be the Ark have still
not been disclosed to film audiences. Neither do these results seem to have been
disclosed to some of the U.S. Christian academics who feature in the film. If
the results have been disclosed to these advisors, the implications do not seem
to have been fully understood by those advisors. This is a very serious concern.
These academic consultants and the film audiences are not aware that this
crucial C-14 evidence actually undermines the Ark discovery claim.
The
Chinese–Turkish discovery team claims that they secured wood samples from wooden
structures high on Mt. Ararat. While this certainly is attention worthy, what
many find troubling is their assertion that subsequent C-14 testing of those
wood samples buttresses their claim that those fragments are in fact part of the
Ark. Furthermore, the discovery team has chosen not to make their C-14 test
results publicly available for scientific scrutiny. Therefore, since people are
being seriously misled, and are generously donating under apparently false
pretenses, I have prayerfully concluded that I have a Christian responsibility
and intellectual obligation to provide these U.S. Christian academics and the
Christian public with the full details and implications of the C-14 testing
undertaken by the Chinese–Turkish discovery team.
A
compilation of the C-14 test results for their wood samples is provided in Table
1, exactly as it was given to me on April 20, 2010 by the Chinese members of the
discovery team, in the file they sent me. To ensure the reader will not miss
their data, I have taken the liberty to clean up the layout to enhance clarity,
readability, and comprehension. The results themselves have not been altered in
any way.
Table
1. The C-14 test results obtained
by the discovery team
|
Laboratory
|
Sample A (DB)
|
Sample B (SS)
|
Sample C (PW)
|
Sample D (BS)
|
Details
|
Remarks
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Laboratory 1
|
N/A
|
|
|
|
δ13C
=
-26.9% Activity higher than 100% of modern level. It means that this tree was growing after 1955. |
|
|
|
C-14 age = 120±25 years BP
|
|
|
δ13C
=
-26.5% |
I asked the lab that B and C belonged to the same structure and how
came the great difference. He replied that he did not know our collection method
and the place and explained that C was from the inner part of the tree and B was
the bark.
| |
|
|
|
C-14 age = 610±25 years BP
|
|
δ13C
=
-26.4% |
| |
|
Laboratory 2
|
Modern Age
|
|
|
|
post-1950 AD as it clearly shows signs of nuclear weapons testing
enrichment
|
Samples A and B were practically collected from the same site (the
location team members abseiling down), in reply to my query whether the samples
were contaminated by moss and bacteria growth. The lab replied: the older age of
sample B might be due to Suess Effect of diluted C-14 by fossil
fuel.
|
|
|
C-14 age = 135±30 years BP
|
|
|
δ13C
relative to VPDB =
-25.2% |
| |
|
Laboratory 3
|
|
|
|
C-14 age = 4269–4800 years BP
|
|
Method employed: Radiocarbon and Dendrochronology; Calendric Age
calBP 6891±4647; 68% range calBP: 2243–11538; Calendric Age calBC:
4941±4647
|
It
should be clear immediately from the table that four wood samples were C-14
tested, and three laboratories were used. We were not told the identity of these
laboratories, so I have no way of assessing the quality of these C-14 analyses.
Presumably, they are reputable laboratories, but no indications were given as to
which analytical equipment was used to do the testing, whether by the older beta
counting method, or by the newer (more sophisticated and accurate) accelerator
mass spectrometry (AMS) method.
C-14 Dates of Samples A, B, and C
Sample
A was analyzed by both Laboratory 1 and Laboratory 2, and both laboratories
obtained essentially the same result. This wood sample came from a tree growing
since 1955, because the wood had a C-14 activity level greater than the modern
level, indicating contamination with C-14 generated by nuclear weapons testing
in the atmosphere.2 So obviously this wood sample A could NOT
have come from any wooden structure that is the remains of the Ark, even if this
wood was found on Mt. Ararat.
Sample
B was also analysed by both Laboratory 1 and Laboratory 2, and again both
laboratories obtained essentially the same results. This wood sample is dated at
120±25 years BP and 135±30 years BP. Thus this wood sample possibly came from a
tree living between 95 and 165 years prior to AD 1950, the zero reference point
or datum for BP (Before Present).3That
is, the tree was possibly living sometime between AD 1785 and AD 1855. Thus wood
sample B also could NOT have come from any wooden structure that is the remains
of the Ark.
In
the Remarks column of Table 1 there is a note that Samples A and B “were
practically collected from the same site.” A query was also made about “whether
the samples were contaminated by moss and bacteria growth”. The laboratory
evidently replied that “the older age of sample B might be due to Suess Effect
of diluted C-14 by fossil fuel.”
What
this comment regarding the Suess Effect is referring to is the observation that,
as a result of the Industrial Revolution there was so much burning of fossil
fuels, particularly coal, the carbon dioxide produced by that burning diluted
the C-14 in the atmosphere.4Consequently,
trees growing in the 1800s photosynthesized less C-14 than trees photosynthesize
today, so the wood from the 1800s trees should give ages slightly older than
their true ages.
Sample
C was only analysed by Laboratory 1, and yielded a C-14 date of 610±25 years BP.
Thus this wood sample would appear to be from a tree living sometime between 585
and 635 years prior to AD 1950, that is, between AD 1315 and AD 1365. Once
again, this third wood sample also could NOT have come from any wooden structure
that is the remains of the Ark. Thus three of the four wood samples
categorically do NOT support the claim the Chinese-Turkish exploration team has
found the wooden remains of the Ark on Mt. Ararat.
Interestingly,
it was reported to Laboratory 1 that samples B and C belonged to the same wooden
structure, so that laboratory was asked to try and explain the apparent great
age difference between their two analyses (see Remarks column in Table 1):
120±25 years BP (sample B) and 610±25 years BP (sample C). The laboratory’s
response was that, even though they did not know how and where the team
collected these samples, they were able to determine that sample “C was from the
inner part of the tree and (sample) B was (from) the bark.” If so, then the
tree(s) from which these two wood samples may have come would have grown for at
least 490 years. Nevertheless, such an interpretation by the laboratory is
rather conjectural, at best, by their own admission.
Contamination Can Be Ruled Out
The
question of potential contamination is important to discuss here, as there is a
lot of misunderstanding and confusion (including, perhaps, among the discovery
team and its U.S. academic and scientific advisors) about how it might
supposedly affect C-14 dating of samples. Obviously, samples need to be
collected in the field with proper care to reduce the risk of contamination.
However, such concerns are usually overstated by those who have little or no
knowledge of how radiocarbon laboratories handle samples before the C-14 testing
is performed. Any contamination due to field handling during collection and
laboratory processing of samples can be effectively ruled out, due to the harsh
chemical pre-treatment of samples in the laboratory prior to final preparation
of the samples for the C-14 analyses.
Most
laboratories typically follow a modified AAAOx pre-treatment to guarantee the
elimination of any contamination, including that from any moss or bacteria.5 First, the samples are drenched in hot and
strong hydrochloric acid to dissolve away any contaminant inorganic minerals,
such as calcium, barium or strontium salts. Then the samples are soaked for at
least a week in a hot and strong mixture of hydrochloric and hydrofluoric acids.
After this, any acid-soluble humics are removed from what remains of the samples
with an extended hot and strong hydrochloric acid treatment. Finally, this
pre-treatment is followed by an extended cold and fresh alkali extraction.
The δ13C Parameter
One
other detail in Table 1 needs commenting on here. In the Details column is the
notation δ13C.
This is an extra measurement Laboratory 1 performed on samples A, B and C, and
Laboratory 2 performed on sample B. It also indicates that these two
laboratories probably used the more sophisticated accelerator mass spectrometer
(AMS) equipment to do the C-14 measurements, as the C-13 to C-12 ratio needed to
calculate the δ13C
value is a by-product of C-14 measurements using that equipment.
For
a technical discussion of this parameter, see the Appendix below. However, in
summary, it can be concluded that the δ13C
values measured by these two laboratories verify that the samples they were C-14
dating were indeed wood, because the δ13C
values they measured were within the range for recent and fossil woods.
The Fourth Sample—Sample D
In
spite of the young ages obtained for three of the four wood samples, it was only
the dating of the fourth wood sample that was the basis of the press release
that a 4,800-year-old wooden structure had been discovered on Mt. Ararat. This
fourth sample, sample D, was only analysed at one laboratory, and that was
Laboratory 3 (Table 1), a different laboratory than the ones where the other
three samples were analyses Why the different laboratory? Could it be that the
discovery team was dissatisfied with the ages yielded by the first three samples
in the first two laboratories which were too young and recent to have come from
the Ark, so they chose a new laboratory to date this fourth sample? Or was it
simply that this sample was larger than the other samples which could be brought
out unnoticed for testing at laboratories outside the country, and so sample D
had to be analyses at a laboratory closer to Mt. Ararat, for example, across the
nearby border in Iran? It is not too surprising that there are now even area
rumors circulating that Laboratory 3, for a price, fabricated the needed C-14
age for sample D. Proper and transparent dating methodology should not leave the
academic community speculating with such puzzling questions.
Regardless,
sample D yielded a C-14 age of 4,269–4,800 years BP (Table 1). Obviously, the
discovery team had seized on this result and only quoted in the press conference
and press release the higher number in the date range, namely, 4,800 years. The
appeal of the 4,800 year age for this wooden structure on Mt. Ararat is that the
traditional date for the Flood is 4,350-4,500 years ago, using a tight
chronology calculated from the genealogies in the Masoretic text of the Hebrew
Old Testament. Furthermore, the pre-Flood wood used to build the Ark would have
grown on trees over several hundred years prior to the Flood year, so the 4,800
year date for this wood sample was exactly what the discovery team wanted and
was therefore expecting. Thus the dates for the other three wood samples were
ignored or (privately) explained away by the discovery team and/or their
advisors, because they inconveniently yielded ages that were too young and
recent.
THE RESULTS REPORTED BY LABORATORY 3 FOR WOOD SAMPLE D WERE NOT AS SIMPLE AS THE ANNOUNCED 4,800 YEAR AGE.However, the results reported by Laboratory 3 for wood sample D were not as simple as the announced 4,800 year age. In the Remarks column of Table 1 it is stated that both radiocarbon and dendrochronology were used to date wood sample D. The laboratory thus evidently reported a “calendric age” of 6,891±4,647 years cal BP (calibrated BP), the 68% cal BP range. In other words, they concluded that this wood sample was between 2,243 and 11,538 years BP old. Or to put it another way, they reported the age as 4,941±4,647 years cal BC (calibrated BC), namely, the tree from which this wood came died sometime in the years 294-9,858 BC. All these dates, with their reported very large uncertainties, are very different from the emphatic 4,800 year age announced at the press conference and in the press release.
It
is intriguing that, in the Remarks column of Table 1, it is indicated that
dendrochronology was also used to date sample D. In that method, otherwise known
as tree-ring dating, the widths and patterns of the growth rings found in wood
samples are measured and then compared against a master tree-ring chronology.6 Master tree-ring chronologies for different
tree varieties have been established by comparing the growth rings in various
living long-lived trees with woods from previous forests of these trees used in
very old buildings and found in archaeological sites. However, the method of
comparing and correlating tree rings between different trees and woods is highly
subjective, and matches are often first established using C-14 dating. Thus
dendrochronology is not objectively independent of C-14 dating. Furthermore, it
assumes only an annually repetitive pattern of tree rings. However, in the early
post-Flood there are good scientific reasons to think that world climatic
conditions would have varied almost weekly, rather than following an annual
repetitive pattern, resulting in multiple growth rings in trees per year. So to
examine the few growth rings in a small wood sample of unknown tree origin or
variety and to apparently use dendrochronology to date it is highly subjective
and speculative at best.
In
any case, the announced 4,800 year date for the wood sample D is based on
unsound reasoning on the part of the discovery team. All appearances indicate
that they are unaware of the numerous C-14 dating results obtained on pre-Flood
wood and other fossils, and simply do not understand the problems with the C-14
dating method.
C-14 Dates for Pre-Flood Fossilized Wood
Within
the biblical framework of earth history, the Flood was responsible for
producing, in about one year, the bulk of the fossil record preserved in the
earth’s surface sedimentary rock layers, conventionally dated by secular
geologists as being up to 540 or more million years old. Thus the animals and
plants that have been preserved as fossils in the rock record were animals and
plants that were alive in the latter years of the pre-Flood era just before the
Flood catastrophe occurred. Thus wood found fossilized in the geologic record
would represent trees that were in forests from which Noah also obtained the
wood to build the Ark. Consequently, if we were to find the wooden remains of
the Ark, then that wood should yield C-14 test results similar to whatever C-14
is found in fossilized wood, since both represent the remains of pre-Flood
trees.
Measurable
C-14 has been detected in fossils from the earliest days of radiocarbon dating.
In many instances, according to their supposed millions-of-years ages those
fossils should be completely C-14-dead. In other words, all the original C-14
initially in them should have decayed away, so they should not have any C-14 left in them. This is because C-14 has
a half-life (or decay rate) of 5,730 years. If any organism or plant when it was
buried and fossilized contained the level of C-14 currently in plants and
animals, then after only one million years, corresponding to 174.5 C-14
half-lives, the fraction of the original C-14 remaining would be 3×10-53.
However, a mass of C-14 equal to the entire mass of the earth contains only
about 3×1050 C-14 atoms.7 Thus, not a single atom of C-14 formed even
one million years ago anywhere in or on the earth should conceivably still
exist. Therefore, there should be absolutely no measurable C-14 able to be
detected in fossils claimed to be a million or more years old. On the other
hand, if the fossils are the remains of animals and plants that lived prior to
the Flood and were then destroyed and buried to become fossils during the Flood
only 4,500 years ago, all fossils should therefore still have measurable C-14 in
them.
A
well-kept “secret” and fact is that they do! A survey of all the C-14 dates
reported in the journal Radiocarbon up to 1970 found that for more than 15,000
samples, all such fossilized organic matter was “dateable within 50,000 years as
published.”8 These samples included coal, oil, natural
gas, and other allegedly very ancient (> one million years old) fossil
materials. The scientific community never took these anomalies seriously,
because these measurements were obtained using the beta-decay counting method,
by which it was difficult to distinguish between the decay of C-14 atoms and
background cosmic rays. Thus, for samples such as these that were claimed to be
so old they should be C-14 dead, the measurable C-14 levels detected were simply
dismissed as due to measurement errors.9
The
accelerator mass spectrometer (AMS) method was developed in the early 1980s. It
counts C-14 atoms directly and is thus not compromised by background cosmic
rays, so it is far more accurate. Thus a further tabulation of about 70 superior
AMS measurements published between 1984 and 1998 in the standard radiocarbon
literature shows that all of the fossilized organic materials analyses yielded
significant levels of C-14 when according to their claimed millions-of-years
ages they should have been entirely C-14 dead.10 These organic materials included not only
fossilized wood, but natural graphite, coal, natural gas, oil, fossilized shells
and bones, and even marble, from every portion of the geologic record of the
Flood. All contained detectable C-14 levels well above the AMS limits of
detection. It was argued that instrument error as an explanation for these
results could be eliminated on experimental grounds, and that contamination of
the C-14-bearing fossil material in
situ was unlikely. Proper
laboratory procedures had also eliminated any contamination during field
collection and sample preparation. Therefore, it is concluded that the
detectable C-14 in these samples most likely originates from the original
organisms themselves, including the original pre-Flood trees.
Additional
C-14 dating studies of fossilized woods have been undertaken, with samples from
various strata levels in the geologic record of the Flood conventionally dated
as 30-250 million years old.11 The fossilized wood samples (see Figure 3)
were C-14 tested using the AMS method at two laboratories. In all cases the
measured C-14 levels were well above the AMS limit of detection (meaning that
the AMS measurements were accurate), with the values equating to C-14 ages of
between 20,700±1,200 years and 44,700±950 years (see Table 2).
Table
2. C-14 dating results for fossil
woods from the geologic record of the Flood.
| Location | Conventional Age | C-14 age (BP) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Geologic | Numerical | ||
| Cripple Creek, Colorado, USA | Oligocene | 32 million years | 41,260±540 years |
| Crinum, Queensland, Australia | Eocene | 45 million years | 29,544±759
years 37,800±3,450 years 44,700±950 years |
| Redding area, California, USA | Cretaceous | 112–120 million years | 32,780±230
years 33,490±240 years 37,150±330 years 42,390±510 years |
| Edge Hill, Warwickshire, England, UK | Jurassic | 189 million years | 20,700±1,200
years 22,730±170 years 24,005±600 years 28,820±350 years |
| Bundanoon, New South Wales, Australia | Triassic | 22–230 million years | 33,720±430 years |
| Toukley, New South Wales, Australia | Permian | 250 million years | 33,700±400 years |
In
another study, ten coal samples from the U.S. Department of Energy Coal Sample
Bank maintained at Pennsylvania State University were selected as representative
of U.S. coal beds geographically, as well as with respect to depth in the
geologic record of the Flood.12 Coal is buried and fossilized plant
material, including wood. These coal samples were from Eocene, Cretaceous, and
Pennsylvanian coal beds spanning 40–300 million years on the conventional
geologic timescale. The AMS analyses detected C-14 levels in all ten coal
samples equivalent to an age range of between 48,000 and 50,000 years. In other
words, irrespective of their claimed 40–300 million years ages, the trees buried
in these coal beds all yielded the same C-14 age of 48,000–50,000 years,
consistent with them all being buried and fossilized at the same time, which is
also consistent with these coal beds all having formed during the Flood year of
the biblical timescale only 4,500 years ago.
Why Does Pre-Flood Wood Yield Inflated C-14 Ages?
It
is clear then from the C-14 dates obtained on pre-Flood wood buried and
fossilized during the Flood, as listed in Table 2, and pre-Flood wood buried and
fossilized in coal beds (also deposited during the Flood), that if wood found
today on Mt. Ararat were to be pre-Flood wood used to build the Ark, then it
should yield a C-14 age of between 20,000 and 50,000 years. The obvious question
then is why pre-Flood wood, being only 4,500 years or so old according to the
biblical timeframe based on a tight chronology calculated from the genealogies
in the Masoretic text of the Hebrew Old Testament, would give such inflated C-14
ages of between 20,000 and 50,000 years?
All
these C-14 dates calculated from the AMS C-14 analyses of these fossil woods and
coal beds are based on the assumption that the modern atmospheric C-14/total-C
ratio existed when these trees were alive just before the Flood 4,500 years ago.
In other words, it isassumed that C-14 atoms were produced at the same
rate in the earth’s atmosphere 4,500 years ago as they are today. But this
assumption is demonstrably incorrect.
C-14
atoms are produced from nitrogen atoms in the earth’s upper atmosphere today as
a result of the bombardment of the earth by cosmic rays from outer space.
However, the earth is partially shielded from the full brunt of this cosmic ray
bombardment by its magnetic field.13 Furthermore, the earth’s magnetic field is
known from real-time historical measurements to have been stronger in the past,
such that 1,400 years ago it would have been twice as strong as it is today.14 Therefore, if the earth’s magnetic field was
twice as strong 1,400 years ago, then the production of C-14 atoms in the
earth’s atmosphere would have been half of what it is today. This evidence for a
stronger magnetic field in the past is also confirmed by measurement of the
magnetism “fossilized” in ancient pottery.15 Therefore, since the amount of C-14 atoms in
the atmosphere was much less back at the time of the Flood and beforehand due to
a stronger magnetic field, then these C-14 dates for these fossilized woods,
calculated assuming the same number of C-14 atoms available in the atmosphere
back then as today, would be grossly inflated, as confirmed by the results in
Table 2.
Additionally,
animals and plants were far more prolific in the pre-Flood world than in today’s
world. We know this from the huge quantities of plants buried in today’s coal
beds and from the incredible numbers of creatures found fossilized in limestones
and other rock layers in the geologic record of the Flood. Studies indicate that
the amount of carbon in the animals and plants of the pre-Flood world could have
been 300–700 times more than that in our present world.16 And the vast majority of this carbon would
have been normal C-12, which would have swamped whatever small amount of C-14
was present in the pre-Flood world. In other words, the C-14/total-C ratio in
the plants and animals of the pre-Flood world would have been 300–700 times
smaller than the same ratio today. Thus C-14 ages calculated assuming the
C-14/total-C ratio found today, rather than using the 300–700 times smaller
ratio of the pre-Flood world, would be grossly inflated. This is exactly what we
find in the C-14 ages provided by conventional radiocarbon laboratories of
samples of pre-Flood wood fossilized in Flood rock layers and coal beds.
Conclusion
If
the wooden remains of the Ark were to be found on Mt. Ararat, then samples of
that wood would be expected to yield C-14 dates of between 20,000 years and
50,000 years, consistent with the C-14 dates of pre-Flood wood found fossilized
in the geologic record of the Flood. Even though the true age of such fossilized
pre-Flood wood should be only 4,500 years or so old, around the date for the
biblical Flood, these grossly inflated C-14 dates obtained in conventional
radiocarbon dating laboratories are due to those laboratories ignoring the very
much less C-14 in the pre-Flood world compared to today’s world. But in strong
contrast, the wood samples that have been claimed by a Chinese-Turkish team to
have supposedly come from their discovery of the wooden remains of the Ark on
Ararat have yielded C-14 dates from analyses in conventional radiocarbon
laboratories ranging from recent (modern) to 6,891±4,647 years. These results
are grossly short of what the C-14 dates should be for pre-Flood wood.
Therefore, if we logically follow the soundest scientific inference, it must be
concluded that these wood samples cannot have come from the pre-Flood wood used to
build the Ark. Given the present C-14 evidence, despite the tantalizing wooden
remains the Chinese-Turkish team claims to have discovered on Mt. Ararat, such
artifacts CANNOT have come from the Ark. So whatever they have found, they are
NOT the remains of the Ark.
Appendix: The δ13C Parameter
As
well as radioactive carbon, C-14, most carbon consists of two stable atoms of
slightly different atomic masses. These are the carbon isotopes called C-12 and
C-13. The difference in the atomic masses of these isotopes is sufficiently
large to affect the rates of chemical reactions and physical processes in which
compounds containing these isotopes participate. For example, plants
preferentially absorb 12CO2 (carbon dioxide) from the atmosphere during
photosynthesis and discriminate against 13CO2 and 14CO2.17 This process is called fractionation, and
during photosynthesis this fractionation of carbon isotopes causes plant
tissues, including wood, to be depleted in C-14 relative to 12CO2 of the atmosphere. Furthermore, during
laboratory preparation of samples for analysis further isotopic fractionation
can occur between carbon isotopes when after the harsh pre-treatment the
purified carbon is combusted into carbon dioxide. Thus these effects introduce
small but systematic errors into C-14 dates of organic matter such as wood.
These
errors can be eliminated by measuring the isotopic composition of carbon in the
samples to be dated by the C-14 method. This is done by measuring the C-13/C-12
ratio of samples by mass spectrometry, which is the same instrument being used
to measure the C-14 content of samples in the accelerator mass spectrometer
(AMS) method. Because fractionation is mass-dependent, C-14/C-12 fractionation
will be twice as great as C-13/C-12 fractionation.
The
atomic C-13/C-12 ratio in ordinary terrestrial carbon as measured on a mass
spectrometer is 0.0112, which is an awkward number to deal with. Therefore, the
isotope composition of carbon is expressed by the δ13C
parameter, defined as the per mil (parts per thousand) difference between the
C-13/C-12 ratio of the sample and a carbon standard.18The
carbon-isotope standard chosen and used is carbon dioxide prepared from the
internal calcite (calcium carbonate) skeleton (shell) of a Cretaceous belemnite
(cephalopod) originally collected from the Peedee Formation in South Carolina.
The C-13/C-12 fractionation is therefore normally expressed in the δ13C
parameter relative to this PeeDee Belemnite (PDB) standard.
This
fractionation factor or δ13C
parameter is then used to correct C-14 dates. Since plants are depleted in C-13
(that is, enriched in C-12), their δ13C
values are negative, whereas the δ13C
values of marine carbonates are close to zero because their C-13/C-12 ratios are
similar to those of PDB, which is also a marine carbonate.19 Because “modern wood” is established as the
reference point for calibrating the efficiency of C-14 counting equipment, such
as the accelerator mass spectrometer, date corrections must be applied relative
to this type of material, which has a normal or “calibration” value of δ13C
of -25 per mil (‰) relative to PDB.
Because
there can be some variations in plants and woods, the δ13C
value in recent and fossil wood samples can vary, as can be seen in the δ13C
value for samples A, B and C in Table 1. Variations can also be seen in the
δ13C
values measured on the same sample in different laboratories, as can be seen in
Table 1, where there is a 1.3‰ difference in the δ13C
value determined on sample B in Laboratory 1 and Laboratory 2. Nevertheless,
these laboratories verified that these were indeed wood samples they were C-14
dating, because the δ13C
values they measured were within the range for recent and fossil woods.
has a Ph.D. in geology from The University
of Sydney, Sydney, Australia, for his research on the mineralogy and
geochemistry of the Koongarra uranium deposit in Australia’s Northern Territory.
For many years he worked in the mining industry as a field and research
geologist, and was a consultant to the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology
Organisation in a collaborative international research program involving the
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, several U.S. universities, the UK Atomic
Energy Research Establishment, the Japanese Atomic Energy Research Institute,
the International Atomic Energy Agency and the European Nuclear Energy Agency.
For more than 25 years he has been involved in full-time research on the global
geologic evidences that confirm the Genesis historical account of the worldwide
cataclysmic Flood. He has also conducted detailed technical research into all
the radioactive dating methods for rocks and fossils, and along with the
research of others has demonstrated conclusively that these methods are
erroneous and grossly misleading. He has served for more than 25 years with
Christian ministries in Australia and the U.S. that stand for the absolute
authority of God’s Word, and is currently the Director of Research for Answers
in Genesis and the Creation Museum in northern Kentucky,
U.S.A.
BE SURE TO CHECK OUT MY ALL NEW PROPHECY AND CREATION DESIGN WEBSITES.
THERE IS A LOT TO SEE AND DO..........
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.