Adam When?

    While we have called attention to some of the frailties inherent with radiometric dating, this does not mean that dating by such methods is to be considered a lost cause. Our desire has been to make certain we do not allow assumptions to prevail which give conclusions contrary to that permitted within a Biblical framework. We have emphasized, for example, the presently extremely fragile basis for using Ar 36 as a help in potassium argon dating.

    The carbon 14 analysis of this volume is based upon certain assumptions. We believe that a number of these are very valid while some are less trustworthy. We believe we must accept the present information regarding the physics of C14 (half life method of formation, etc.), but the Biblical dates for Noah’s flood and the creation of Adam must be considered even more trustworthy. Therefore, some of the other assumptions in the application of C14 to dating organic material must be less reliable. A brief discussion of the most important assumptions follows.

    1. Equation 1 (T = 1.4 R - 1100) gives the approximate relationship between the true age and radiocarbon age for events which occurred before 250 B.C. Is this a trustworthy equation? Enough historical dates from the period 2000 B.C. to 250 B.C. are available to assure that this equation is approximately correct. If it is substantially correct, it clearly shows that C12 had been increasing during the several thousand years before Christ. It would have to be radically changed to effect the conclusions of this chapter. One of the major results of using the equation is that it shows that probably substantial quantities of C14 were deposited on the earth during the flood. If later investigation should show that such deposition of C14 from deep space was impossibility, it would appear to indicate that a much more careful look has to be given to the period from the flood (4990 B.C). to the earth’s division (about 3000 B.C., see Appendix IV). It is during this period of time immediately after the flood that

we have maximum changes in the earth. We have no present assurance that Equation 1 applies to a period earlier than 3000 B.C.

    2. We have provided calculations based on an estimate of 72% full C14 reservoir. If later refinements should change this up or down by a few percentage points

    3. We have calculated the pre-flood and post-flood CO2 and temperature conditions using several assumptions which could be erroneous.

a. We have assumed the pre-flood oceans to be about one half the volume of our present oceans. If this figure changes substantially, it should not effect the conclusions offered in this chapter. b. We have assumed, using Dr. Plass’s estimate, that if there is an increase of CO2, the ocean carbon would increase one half as fast as the land and atmospheric carbon. It is doubtful whether Dr. Plass envisioned CO2 changes as drastic as those set forth in this chapter. As we have seen, the carbon inventory of the earth before the flood could have been on the order of 10.5 g/cm. But if the ocean volume, where most of the carbon resides, were only on the order of one half as great as it is now, the impact on the world of this much carbon could be great. The C12 saturation level of ocean water must be considered; the pH content which is a factor of the CO2 in solution and which is directly related to marine life must also be considered. It could well be that C12 content of the oceans was not approximately doubled as we have suggested but that the increase was considerably less. Then, of course, the atmospheric C12 and the land C12 would have been substantially great than the four times the present which we have estimated in this chapter. Such increase in atmospheric and land carbon would accord very well with the other conclusions of this chapter relative to pre- and post-flood temperature differentials and pre-flood plants and animal abundance.

    4. We have assumed that a radiocarbon date of 12,000 B.P. (10,000 B.C.) is a record of the flood of4990 B.C. Perhaps a radiocarbon date a thousand or more years older should be more

nearly the radiocarbon date for the true flood date of 4990 B.C. It does not appear that a date older than 13,000 B.C. would be reasonable. In any case, whether a radiocarbon date of 13,000 B.C. or 10,000 B.C. is used, the conclusions offered in this chapter are modified in a small degree but they are not substantially changed.