If we are going to investigate time, we will be confronted with the issue of dates,
those markers of time, and of how these dates are established.
The most widely used method for determining the age of fossils is to date them
by the “known age” of the rock strata in which they are found. At the same time,
the most widely used method for determining the age of the rock strata is to date
them by the “known age” of the fossils they contain. In this “circular dating”
method, all ages are based on uniformitarian assumptions about the date and order
in which fossilized plants and animals are believed to have evolved. Most people
are surprised to learn that there is, in fact, no way to directly determine the age of
any fossil or rock. The so called “absolute” methods of dating (radiometric
methods) actually only measure the present ratios of radioactive isotopes and their
decay products in suitable specimens – not their age. These measured ratios are
then extrapolated to an “age” determination.
The problem with all radiometric “clocks” is that their accuracy critically
depends on several starting assumptions, which are largely unknowable. To date a
specimen by radiometric means, one must first know the starting amount of the
parent isotope at the beginning of the specimen’s existence. Second, one must be
certain that there were no daughter isotopes in the beginning. Third, one must be
certain that neither parent nor daughter isotopes have ever been added or removed
from the specimen. Fourth, one must be certain that the decay rate of parent
isotope to daughter isotope has always been the same. That one or more of these
assumptions are often invalid is obvious from the published radiometric “dates”
(to say nothing of “rejected” dates) found in the literature.
One of the most obvious problems is that several samples from the same
location often give widely divergent ages. Apollo moon samples, for example,
were dated by both uranium-thorium-lead and potassium-argon methods, giving
results, which varied from 2 million to 28 billion years. Lava flows from
volcanoes on the north rim of the Grand Canyon (which erupted after its
formation) show potassium-argon dates a billion years “older” than the most
ancient basement rocks at the bottom of the canyon. Lava from underwater
volcanoes near Hawaii (that are known to have erupted in 1801 AD) has been
“dated” by the potassium-argon method with results varying from 160 million to
nearly 3 billion years. It’s really no wonder that all of the laboratories that “date”
rocks insist on knowing in advance the “evolutionary age“ of the strata from
which the samples were taken — this way, they know which dates to accept as
“reasonable” and which to ignore.
More precisely, it is based on the assumption that nothing “really exceptional”
happened in the meantime. What I mean by “really exceptional” is this: an event
theoretically possible, but whose mechanism is not yet understood in terms of the
established paradigms. To give an example: a crossing of two different universes.
This is theoretically possible, taking into account modern physical theories, but it
is too speculative to discuss its “probability” and possible consequences.
Could such an event change radioactive decay data? Could it change the values
of some fundamental physical constants? Yes, it could.
Is it possible that similar events have happened in the past? Yes, it is possible.
How possible it is? We do not know. We do not know, in fact, what would be an
exact meaning of the “crossing of two different universes”.
In addition to considering the idea of cataclysms that could have destroyed
ancient civilizations more than once, there is another matter to consider in special
relationship to radioactive decay: that ancient civilizations may have destroyed
themselves with nuclear war.
Radiocarbon dates for Pleistocene remains in northeastern North America,
according to scientists Richard Firestone of Lawrence Berkeley National
Laboratory, and William Topping, are younger-as much as 10,000 years
younger-than for those in the western part of the country. Dating by other methods
like thermo-luminescence (TL), geoarchaeology, and sedimentation suggests that
many radiocarbon dates are grossly in error. For example, materials from the
Gainey Paleoindian site in Michigan, radiocarbon dated at 2880 yr BC, are given an
age by TL dating of 12,400 BC. It seems that there are so many anomalies reported
in the upper US and in Canada of this type, that they cannot be explained by ancient
aberrations in the atmosphere or other radiocarbon reservoirs, or by contamination
of data samples (a common source of error in radiocarbon dating). Assuming
correct methods of radiocarbon dating are used, organic remains associated with an
artifact will give a radiocarbon age younger than they actually are only if they
contain an artificially high radiocarbon keel.
Our research indicates that the entire Great Lakes region (and beyond) was
subjected to particle bombardment and a catastrophic nuclear irradiation that
produced secondary thermal neutrons from cosmic ray interactions. The neutrons
produced unusually large quantities of Pu239 and substantially altered the natural
uranium abundance ratios in artifacts and in other exposed materials including
cherts44, sediments, and the entire landscape. These neutrons necessarily
transmuted residual nitrogen in the dated charcoals to radiocarbon, thus explaining
anomalous dates. […]
The C14 level in the fossil record would reset to a higher value. The excess global
radiocarbon would then decay with a half-life of 5730 years, which should be seen
in the radiocarbon analysis of varied systems. […]
Sharp increases in C14 are apparent in the marine data at 4,000, 32,000-34,000, and
12,500 BC. These increases are coincident with geomagnetic excursions. […]
The enormous energy released by the catastrophe at 12,500 BC could have heated
the atmosphere to over 1000 C over Michigan, and the neutron flux at more
northern locations would have melted considerable glacial ice. Radiation effects on
plants and animals exposed to the cosmic rays would have been lethal, comparable
to being irradiated in a 5 megawatt reactor more than 100 seconds.
The overall pattern of the catastrophe matches the pattern of mass extinction before
Holocene times. The Western Hemisphere was more affected than the Eastern,
North America more than South America, and eastern North America more than
western North America. Extinction in the Great lakes area was more rapid and
pronounced than elsewhere. Larger animals were more affected than smaller ones, a
pattern that conforms to the expectation that radiation exposure affects large bodies
more than smaller ones.
The evidence that Firestone and Topping discovered is puzzling for a lot of
reasons. But, the fact is, there are reports of similar evidence from such widely
spread regions as India, Ireland, Scotland, France, and Turkey; ancient cities
whose brick and stone walls have literally been vitrified, that is, fused together like
glass. There is also evidence of vitrification of stone forts and cities. It seems that
the only explanation for such anomalies is either an atomic blast or something that
could produce similar effects, which we will get to soon enough.
- Radiometric dating (secularnewsdaily.com)
- The Technical Side of Research [The Weizmann Wave] (scienceblogs.com)
- New study adds urgency to abalone recovery (caseagrantnews.org)
- Radiometric dating (richarddawkins.net)
- The FFRF goes after more creationism in public schools (whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com)