Wednesday, July 27, 2016

... on Radiometric Dating with Tony Reed


1) Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : ... on Geological Column · 2) ... on Radiometric Dating · 3) Creation vs. Evolution : Guy Berthault's Results May Not Prove the Flood Factual, They Prove it Possible · 4) back to Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : ... on Radiometric Dating with Tony Reed · 5) ... on Presentation of my Inquest on Geological Column, with Tony Reed · 6) ... on Flood Stories vs Tony Reed

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Carbon 14 dating?

You might enjoy this:

Φιλολoγικά/Philologica : Letter A of ex oriente - I - preliminary to recalibrating
http://filolohika.blogspot.com/2016/02/letter-of-ex-oriente-i-preliminary-to.html


Tony Reed
What was I supposed to enjoy?

Hans-Georg Lundahl
A Creationist redating of Natufian etc. cultures.

Using one of my own recalibrations of the C14 method.

As you may know, if only x is left, that means so many thousand years old. 35% > 8000.

So, if at a certain period there were only 35%, organic things that were breathing back then (wood or other plant derivatives felled orharvested back then, dead or killed men or animals), they get 8000+ years "for free" - by the dating method not taking possibility of C14 rise into account.

Now, I did one scenario of at what pace this could have happened, in French essay here:

New blog on the kid : Avec un peu d'aide de Fibonacci ... j'ai une table, presque correcte
http://nov9blogg9.blogspot.com/2015/10/avec-un-peu-daide-de-fibonacci-jai-une.html


And I used that exact scenario to readjust Natufian into the Biblical timescale. In the English essay I just linked to.

Tony Reed
Imagine that.

You calibrated your measurements to coincide with your preconclusion and then present them as if I should be surprised that they coincide with your preconclusion.

Well done.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
No.

I am just showing that C14 CAN be calibrated so as to agree with Biblical chronology.

I am giving more than one redating (though I linked only one to you here) according to that table, so far neither of two things has happened:

  • 1) I have not found something in my conclusion which I considered totally absurd;

  • 2) an evolutionist archaeologist having access to my redating has not either found anything he considers absurd (or nothing apart from my departure from evolutionist scenario).


In other words, I have proven (preliminarily and so far) that Carbon 14 levels in old objects CAN be reconciled with Biblical timescale. In other words, I have proven that C14 has not disproven the Biblical timescale.

Tony Reed
+Hans-Georg Lundahl
Like I said. You calibrated it to match your predetermined conclusion. Ignoring the fact that this calibration also affects items of known age and that your recalibration can not be cross-checked with other dating methods.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
"Ignoring the fact that this calibration also affects items of known age"

Such as?

"and that your recalibration can not be cross-checked with other dating methods."

Can - in any historically known item - your calibration of C14 be so cross checked?

No comments: