Ancient Atoms & Inconsistent Isotopes, Part 2

Looking at radiometric dating from another angle, as the case described above illustrates, exogenous radioisotopes can and do influence testing. True as that fact may be, it can hardly be said that all radiometric results can be blamed on such contamination. We are left then with a choice: either those samples that were unaffected by exogenous isotopes yielded good data, establishing valid dates for the sample tested, or alternatively, radioisotope decay rates can be directly altered through forces unrelated to pure contamination. Given all available evidence, I believe the latter to be true, and new research supports that position.

In 2009, it was reported that researchers discovered a statistical correlation between solar position and the radioactive decay of silicone-32 isotopes, specifically that decay was slower during the summer and faster during the winter. A year later, a group of researchers from Stanford University published similar results concerning other isotopes. 1

Later, in an effort to confirm the phenomenon, researchers contained radon-222 gas in a lead container and analyzed the radiative output from both inside and outside the housing. Upon examination, the researchers noted that changes to the radiation output of the isotopes were cyclical, corresponding to the relative position of the planet to the Sun. Commenting on the matter, the researchers said that the data “…implies a strong inter-connection between the seasonal and diurnal patterns. This in turn again implies a mutual connection to the rotation of earth around its axis and its rotation around the sun.” 2

While the mechanism behind solar corruption of radioisotopes was unexpected and largely unexplainable initially, now researchers believe that the actual catalyst for this phenomenon lies in neutrinos, neutral subatomic particles with almost no mass that travel close to the speed of light, originating from within the core of the sun. Peter Sturrock, Professor Emeritus of Applied Physics at Stanford University, an authority on the inner workings of the sun, noted that its core rotates at a given, predictable rate, and that one face of that core emits neutrinos more intensely than the others. As that face aligns with the Earth, it bombards the planet with a greater concentration of neutrinos than usual. Tellingly, this face focuses on the planet every 33 days, and corresponding changes in the decay rates of radioactive materials clearly correlate with this cycle. 3

There, of course, have been many who have tried to dismiss these findings, arguing that not only is there is no known explanation for neutrinos behaving in such a way, but that the results were likely the product of experimental mistakes or computer glitches, 4  yet for others, this was simply the latest evidence for a case against the stability of radiometric dating. As some have noted in their own reporting, there are examples of various radiometric testing methods, each utilizing different isotopes, yielding different ages from the same sample, 5 and similarly, fresh lava-borne rock, despite being observed forming, has frequently yielded radiometric ages vastly older than that which is known and observable. 6

Aside from solar neutrinos, another form of interference to radioactive decay has been discovered involving a process known as cavitation. Cavitation can occur as water flows fast enough to form vapor bubbles, and as these collapse, small yet powerful shockwaves are produced on a microscopic scale. According to the new research, cavitation may be able to affect the nuclei of some atoms while in heavily resonating solutions. In fact, during one 90-minute experiment, cavitation was used to massively increase the amount of decay in thorium by a factor of 10,000. 7

There exist yet other incidents that should diminish our faith in radiometric dating even further. For instance, what should we make of rapidly decaying radioisotopes, such as carbon-14, found in materials that are traditionally considered ancient? Carbon-14, as has already been noted, possesses a standard half-life of 5,730 years, and for this reason, it has become the standard radioisotope for determining the age of younger strata and artifacts. With its rapid decay rates however, carbon-14 is only effective in dating for up to 60,000 years or so, falling so low in concentrations past this point that it becomes largely indistinguishable from natural background radiation. Interestingly, carbon-14 has turned up in analyses of essentially every sample tested, whether ancient fossils, coal, oil, or others. 8

In fact, material from the Oligocene, Eocene, Cretaceous, Jurassic, Triassic, and Permian geological ages, ranging from 32 million to 150 million years in age (according to traditional mainstream ideology) have all been found to contain viable, measurable radiocarbon concentrations that correspond to levels expected in “ages” ranging from 20,700 years to 44,700 years. 9 Likewise, samples taken from ten separate coal beds in the United States, ranging in secular ages of 40 million to 320 million years, all were found to contain radiocarbon concentrations correlating to “absolute” ages of between 48,000 and 50,000 years. 10 Such examples of wide ranging temporal discrepancies are frequent in occurrence and diverse in the materials sampled, yet, as is typical with such things, these findings are either avoided, ignored, or otherwise catalogued as contamination errors by mainstream authorities. 

Diamonds too are an odd material in which to find detectable radiocarbon. Forged hundreds of miles beneath the surface of the Earth over the course of between 1 and 3 billion years, diamonds are the product of intense heat and pressure, brought to the surface through volcanic activity, and given their incredible durability, they are quite resistant to contamination and corrosion. The dense knitting of the specific carbon atoms within diamonds also prevents intrusion of modern atmospheric carbon-14. That fact is problematic for mainstream advocates, as it requires that two questions be asked: how did carbon-14, in levels equivalent to an “age” of 55,000 years, 11 come to be within diamonds, and when did this take place? Like so much else, it indicates that something other than the accepted model was, and is, at play.

– This was an excerpt fromRemnants of Eden: Evolution, Deep-Time, & the Antediluvian World.” Get your copy here today. God bless! –

References:

  1.   Thomas, M.S., Brian, “The Sun Alters Radioactive Decay Rates,” The Institute for Creation Research, September 3rd, 2010, http://www.icr.org/article/sun-alters-radioactive-decay-rates, retrieved August 21st, 2015
  2.   Steinitz, G., O. Piatibratova and P. Kotlarsky, “Possible effect of solar tides on radon signals,” 2011, Journal of Environmental Radioactivity. 102 (8): 749-765
  3.   Stober, Dan, “The Strange Case of Solar Flares and Radioactive Elements,” Stanford News, The Stanford Report, August 23, 2010, http://news.stanford.edu/news/2010/august/sun-082310.html, retrieved August 21st, 2015
  4.   Reference 38
  5.   Woodmorappe, J.,“Radiometric Geochronology Reappraised,” Creation Research Society Quarterly, 1979. 16 (2): 102-129
  6.   Snelling, A. 1999. “Excess Argon”: The “Archilles’ Heel” of Potassium-Argon and Argon-Argon “Dating” of Volcanic Rocks. Acts & Facts. 29 (1)
  7.   Cardone, F., R. Mignani R. and A. Petrucci, “Piezonuclear Decay of Thorium.,” 2009, Physics Letters A. 373 (22): 1956-1958
  8.   P. Giem, “Carbon-14 Content of Fossil Carbon,” Origins 51 (2001): 6–30
  9.   Dr. Snelling, Andrew, “Carbon-14 in Fossils and Diamonds, An Evolution Delima” answersingenesis.org, January 1st, 2011, https://answersingenesis.org/geology/carbon-14/carbon-14-in-fossils-and-diamonds/, retrieved August 17th, 2015
  10. J. R. Baumgardner, A. A. Snelling, D. R. Humphreys, and S. A. Austin, “Measurable 14C in Fossilized Organic Materials: Confirming the Young Earth Creation-Flood Model,” in Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Creationism, ed. R.L. Ivey Jr. (Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania: Creation Science Fellowship, 2003), pp 127–147
  11. DeYoung, D.B.,”Thousands… not Billions: Challenging an Icon of Evolution, Questioning the age of the Earth,” Master books, Green Forest, Arkansas, 2005, pp 45-62

 


Subscribe to the blog here at WordPress, like us on Facebook, or follow me on Twitter at @FOUNDRY_4

FOUNDRY4 is a proud member of the International Association for Creation

The IAC Logo

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s