How reliable is the time-scale of the late Pleistocene and the Holocene, which the geologists are using now in their work? How reliable are the ages, which they have calculated from tree-rings in different parts of the world? And how true are the radiocarbon-dates, which they have published on the remains ancient human beings and on the remains of the woolly mammoth and its companions? What have scientists found out now about this?
Christian Blöss is a German Diploma-Physicist. And Hans-Ulrich Niemitz is a Germany Diploma-engineer and a professor for technology-history at the HTKW Leipzig. They have nothing to do with the Bible. They neither try to confirm the Bible nor to disprove it. They write in their book, C14-Crash, 1997 Gräfeling near Munich:
1. Radioactive C14 must arise constantly and uniformly in the atmosphere.
2. The atmosphere must have mixed itself through for a long time constantly and quite quickly and at the same time world-wide, so that uniform conditions prevail on the earth since ten-thousands of years everywhere.
3. C14 must have a half-life-time, which is clearly higher than 1.000 years, so that also in all other carbon reservoirs–oceans, humus etc – there will be everywhere a uniform level of C14-concentration.
Each organism represents, while it lives, an image of the isotope-composition of the atmosphere. Thereby it reflects the atmospheric mixture of the of mixture of the isotopes of carbon –C12, C13 and C14–, occurring naturally.
· When an organism dies, it finishes its metabolism with the outside world. It does not exchange then any carbon atoms anymore. While the C14-concentration in the outside world is supposed to remain always constant, it begins now, to decrease exponentially within the dead organism according to the laws of the radioactive disintegration.
· The longer ago it is therefore, that an organism has finished its metabolism [when it has died], the lower must be then its amount of C14-atoms, compared to the to the quantity of C12-atoms, which have not changed.
· How much this amount has decreased, one is able to convert directly according to the law of radioactive disintegration into the time, that has elapsed, since its metabolism with the outside world has ended.
· When the metabolism of a test-sample has ended, one is therefore able to calculate,
· if the remaining C14-radioactivity in the test-sample is known,
· if one has measured the present atmospheric C14-radioactivity and if one knows the half-life-time of C14.” - Blöss and Niemitz (1997:16, 17)
1. Measurability against the background-radiation: The C14-radiation, that must be measured, must be clearly stronger, than the cosmic and terrestrial background-radiation, in order to achieve a certain amount of measuring-precision and thereby about the precision, with which the age is determined.
2. Protection against contamination. The examined test-sample must not have had, while it was stored, from the time, when it died, until it was actually examined, any carbon exchange.
3. Spatial invariance through immediate distribution in the atmosphere, (‘simultaneousness-principle’): in all organisms, which are living simultaneously at different places, must have the same C14-concentration.
4. Organic invariance. In all different organisms, which are living simultaneously at different places, there must have prevailed the same C14-concentration. Their metabolism therefore must not distinguish in different ways between the carbon-isotopes.
5. Temporal invariance through constant C14-production and fast mixing-through, (‘principle-of-fundamentality‘): Also in the past, the C14-concentration is supposed to have always been the same everywhere. Only then one is able to state: ‘From a C14-value one is able to calculate directly its age.’ – (1997:16-18)
to 1. The problem of the background-radiation one is able to solve now. But the deviations from laboratory to laboratory are until today quite large. There is still no procedure, through with the laboratories will be able, to come systematically to comparable results.
to 2. The problem of the contamination is always there. That is why one must always correct this through chemical ablutions as well as by adding a corresponding mistake-contribution.
to 3. Officially, one knows only the ‘reservoir–effects’, that sometimes do lead to C14-contamination of certain organisms. Actually, however, a general ‚contamination’ occurs through the global and fast movements of the C14.
to 4. The organisms do incorporate the C14-atoms in different ways. That leads to age-drifts of up to 700 years. This effect of ‘isotope–fractioning’ one corrects, by measuring the C13-concentration, without really being sure, whether the incorporating-behavior during the millennia has remained the same.
to 5. The assumption about the temporal invariance of the C14-concentration in the atmosphere has fallen first, (‘Süss–effect’, ‚de-Vries-effect’ etc.) By applying consistently, but inadmissibly, prerequisite 3, they came to a globally valid calibrated curve. Through this, a C14-age now gets its last and at the same time most important correction.” –Blöss and Niemitz (1997:19, 21)
“The oceanic deep-water always contains a lower C14-concentration, than the water at the surface and in the atmosphere. That has to do with the way, in which it is flowing. ... Whatever C14 arises in the atmosphere, of this, more than 90% goes into the deep-water of the oceans, which is unsaturated, when compared to the atmosphere. It ‘lacks a multiple of the complete C14-content of the atmosphere.” (1997:35)
“The planetary carbon reservoirs are not in a homogeneous balance of production or diffusion and decay. The C14-concentration of the atmosphere depends in the most sensitive way upon the isotope-exchange at the ocean-surface. A simple calculation will show us that the C14 concentration in the oceans must only change by about 2 thousandth parts in 1.000 years, to change the speed of the C14-clock during this time by about 100%. The picture 1.10 (in their book) shows true-to-scale, how, during 1.000 years, the C14-concentration of the atmosphere must increase, (namely by about 12%), so that the measured C14-ages from this time period will appear about 100% too old. The calibrated-curves, which they are using now for C14, do demand a constancy of the isotope-conditions regarding the carbon in the oceans within 0.2 %o during about 12.000 years. This is a demand, that in this precision, cannot even be measured, to verify it!” – Blöss and Niemitz (1997:37)
“The naturally occurring isotopes of carbon are – C12 (98.9%), C13 (1.1%) and the ‘Radiocarbon’ C14 (1.5·10-10%).” (1997:41).
“An organism therefore meets in approximately each trillionth carbon-atom a representative of the radioactive isotope C14, in which we are here interested. Of these, about each ten-thousandth one disintegrates per year.” (1997:41)
“Actually, the data of the age of the same bones frequently scatter without a recognizable system by thousands of years. At the same time, these also do fluctuate more or less systematically within different areas of one single bone.
“In the southern part of China it very frequently happens that test samples with increasing layer-depth do show a younger C14-age (Zhimin 1991:198). The reason for this is seen in the contamination (= ‘impurity’) from the inter-layers of calcium-carbonate (CaCO3) of old groundwater, which contains no C14. This causes them – so they explain it – to become far more ‘senile’, than the age layers beneath them. The dating of mussels must even be rejected in the whole country, since they have arisen too often within C14-impoverished waters.” - Blöss and Niemitz (1997.47).
“The urgent demand of the C14-method, to take several test-samples, means, that one admits, that the simultaneousness-principle, that decides about the survival of the C14-method, is wrong.” (1997:53).
“All the great tree-ring-chronologies one has set up, by beginning with wrong assumptions, by depending upon the C14-method and by using corrupt C14-measuring data. Thus, the procedures for calibrating C14-data, provided by dendro-chronology (= tree-ring time-scale), are based upon a wrong construction principle. So they must fundamentally lead to wrong results.” - Blöss and Niemitz (1997:31)
“There do exist enough C14-data; but there is no C14-chronology encompassing the globe, because then the immanent inconsistency of the data would immediately become obvious.” (1997:127)
“Most C14-dates should only be used as footnotes. Thus, we do reach a point, at which all C14-data must be doubted. The bases of the method cannot be correct, if – as described – so many doubtful results arise.” - Blöss and Niemitz (1997:146)
That C14-method is a child of the 19th century
“Always and everywhere at the same time the natural forces are supposed to have behaved on the earth, just as we are able to recognize it here in this moment. Accordance to this concept of ‘actualism’, it suffices, if one knows the observable natural forces, in order to understand the course of all epochs of the geology and, to be able to explain them. ... This premise has been proved meanwhile, to be fundamentally wrong. Just as wrong is the thought that one is able, to find with the C14-method dependable absolute-data. ... The prejudice of the ever-lasting constancy of the condition-of-compatibilities has lured at first the inventors of the C14-method and then also their users onto a treacherous ground.” (1997:149)
The natural-philosophical roots of the C14-method
“The inhabitants of the earth could hardly survive under variable conditions and could not evolve at all. But since the earth is filled with many forms of life, one may assume that the earth is a place of peaceful life and steady evolution. Charles Darwin has found in this a central argument for his theory of evolution. According to it, the evolution of the species is the less unlikely, the smaller the steps are and the more undisturbed they occur.” - Blöss and Niemitz (1997:150)
“That C14-method was born in the sign of the natural history of the 19th century. It announces the continuity of evolution and the stability of the respective conditions-of-compatibility. Thus, the C14-method is only to survive, as long as one acknowledges this picture in society.” (1997:151)
‘One date is no date’
“One does admit that the C14-data of the same age test-samples are not consistent, despite previous meticulous corrections. They may deviate by several centuries, up to millennia. One tries to solve this problem, by bundling (= combining) the C14-data of several test-samples. Therefore the word about the winged word that one date is no date. To the obvious conclusion that there were not only different impurities, but also locally different C14-concentrations, one has not advanced until now.” (1997:167)
“We have intensively studied nearly two years long the C14-method and the dendro–chronology. That has, as we look back, continuously disappointed us, as far as the scholarly self-evident truth is concerned. We do summarize here the most important realizations, that confronted us with the question every time, namely: Which certainties have induced the scientists, to stick with their ‘truths’:
One cannot date the younger past with C14.
Libby's thoughtless ‘proof’ for the simultaneousness-principle and principle-of-fundamentality.
Partially, there are horrendous dating–deviations, also with test-samples from exquisitely developed archaeological places of discovery.
One negates the importance of the oceans as a lasting disturbance for the atmospheric C14-concentration; the C14-clock reacts highly sensitively towards the smallest alterations composition of the isotopes in the oceans.” (1997:218)
“Sediments and the so-called depth-water, as a reservoir of principally C14-impoverished carbon, almost contain 90% of the planetary carbon-reserve. And that surface-water of the oceans, that exchanges (the carbon) with the atmosphere,–where the C14 originates–like the atmosphere itself also–contains only 2% of the global carbon! At these system-transitions, one must expect, with locally different fluctuations, with larger amounts.
“The C14-science views the ‘reservoir–effects’ only ‘as isolatedly appearing contaminations’. Actually, the earth consists exclusively of local carbon-reservoirs, that do ‘contaminate’ and ‘decontaminate’ each other permanently reciprocally. That is why they lead to divergent C14-ages.” - Blöss and Niemitz (1997:305)
“The importance of a possible contamination, however, depends very strongly upon the actual C14-content of the test-sample, and, whether it is contaminated with ‘fossil’ or with ‘modern’ carbon. To the contamination with fossil carbon (definitely without C14), a fist-formula is applied...: Each proportionate percent of fossil carbon makes the test-sample –independent of its actual C14-content–about 83 years older.
“The reverse effect, the rejuvenation through contamination with modern (as well as recent) carbon, however, does not occur linear. In samples with a large C14-content the effect is small. With decreasing C14-content of the sample, the ‘rejuvenating effect increases much more. With a C14-content, that corresponds to a C14-age of 5.730 years (that is the half-life-time of C14), the rejuvenating-effect and aging-effect are just as large. Above this, the rejuvenating-effect then ascends rapidly.” (1997:319)
“This wrong dating is even more dramatic, if one has taken the corresponding small particles from moist layers. Then, they may be more than 20.000 years too old. (Evin et al. 1983:77). Also the contact with limestone can lead to considerable dating-insecurities. Mussels from a limestone-containing stratum, which have an estimated age of 2.000 years, had a date of about 5.000 to 14.000 years. (Deevey et al. 1959, 156).
“Similar problems, as with mussels, there are with the inorganic parts of animal and human bones. They have found out already very early that there are often completely anomalous isotope-conditions. This was caused by the exchange with groundwater that was over 1.000 C14S-years old (Taylor 1987:54f.). Deviations of over 10.000 C14-years are not rare (Irving/Harington 1973; Nelson et al. 1986). The accidental deviations between the individual organic components seem admittedly to be smaller. But they may still be centuries and in a few cases even several millennia. (Taylor 1998:61).” - Blöss and Niemitz (1997:327)
“Separate measurements of extracted humic acid and the relevant wood from the Pleistocene have produced dating-differences of far more than 10.000 years (Olson/Broecker 1961).
“One does need the wood for the calibration of the C14-data–especially, if it has not been felled, but dug out. It is really drenched with ‘hard’ water, (with water containing carbonate). ... In this context, one should also mention that all organic solvents may also indirectly contaminate the test-sample. These can lead to wrong datings of several 10.000 years (Venkatesan et al. 1982).” – Blöss and Niemitz (1997:331)
“A C14-date yields principally no historic date. But it only forms the starting point, from which one may only calculate back the radiometric past of the test-sample. When this could actually have started, one can only reconstruct, if one knows completely (without any gaps) the radiometric past of the atmosphere.” (1997:359)
“It should have become clear that one is fundamentally not able, to calculate the time of death or the time, when the metabolism of the organism, used as an archeological test-sample, has ended. This time one is only able to determine, if one appraises temporal moments, in which the atmosphere and the viewed organism have had the same C14-concentration. The long half-life of C14 is there admittedly favorable. But when describing a postglacial of approximately 12.000 years of length, it was found, however, in the context with bigger fluctuations of the C14-concentration, to be unfavorable or even impractical.” (1997:359)
Too high age through sudden C14-undersaturation
· When the C14-content of the oceans is reduced, when ‘fossil water’ of cosmic origin is fed into it (Blöss 1991:76, 89). This, one could call in regard to the earth a ‘deluge-thesis’.
· When the carbon-dioxide CO2 of the oceans becomes more soluble, because the temperature has changed.
Another possible cause, why the C14-content of the atmosphere permanently enriches itself, lies in an increase of the C14-production. It may be based on external or internal changes.
· The C14-production may, for example, increase, if the earth’s magnet-field becomes weaker or when the density of the nitrogen increases in this region of the atmosphere.
· It may also be caused, when the cosmic radiation increases, for example, when the activity of the sun changes. - Blöss and Niemitz (1997:381)
“An organism can only have a higher C14-age, than the organisms, which have died before it, if, since the time, when it died, the atmosphere was enriched with carbon dioxide, that contains only little C14 (is impoverished in C14). Only in this way, one is able, to explain the dendro-chronological short-term oscillation of the C14-concentration in the atmosphere, that especially has an intermittently recurrent retrograde (opposite) course of the C14-age.” - Blöss and Niemitz (1997:392)
See also Hans Krause, The Mammoth and the Flood, Volume 3 (1997:51, 115), “Dating collagen” and “Dima analyzed”. Also in my website.