... updating Kent Hovind on C14, part 2

... updating Hovind on C14 · ... updating Kent Hovind on C14, part 2

16:38

the wild carbon 14 dates, well, they were Egyptologists, and in early dynastic/predynastic times in Egypt, carbon 14 was still rising - which gives an "inconsistent half life" or, by a consistent halflife being assumed, inconsistent datings of earlier and later material, the inconsistent halflife being a mathematical impression given by the rise in C14 : while level is c. 45% of stable, but is mistaken for stable, you can take objects from a range of 2000 years, and earliest will give dates that are wildly off the medium as well as later ones doing so.

Also, the half life impression given if mistaking 45% of stable in rising for 100% of a stable level will be about half as long as the real halflife of C14 - assuming you get your impression from dating historically known objects, which we can do for last 2000 years.

That is what the last of these tables is about, see post:

New blog on the kid : Examinons une hypothèse qui se trouve contrefactuelle un peu de près
http://nov9blogg9.blogspot.com/2015/10/examinons-une-hypothese-qui-se-trouve.html

First of the tables says that starting with:

2957 (avant Jésus-Christ) 3/64 (du taux présent de C14)

And adding normals amounts of C14 each year (you said 21 pounds a year), you arrive in 2013 at:

2013 0.4572193977407785684036364330248471874682057649283872118718611542

Or 45.7% of stable level. Supposing the 45.7% of stable level were reinterpreted as 100% of stable level, but we still stuck with 5730 years' half life, you get NEXT table.

El Alamein gets dated as Ghettysburg and a lot of other funny stuff before that. That is the ultralong table. When abstracting the fun of it and just leaving percentages, reinterpreting consistently 457:1000, we would have had - third, shorter table - in 227 BC or 2242 BP:

0,5004891440422348718879843942245829632895718154101377462548512654

BUT the last table (which has no bold text and doesn't look like one) shows that attempts to date each date with appropriate half life for its known historic date gives the impression of a half life fluctuating, so that if you took a half life obtained from an object from ... I might want to look over the last table, it seems entries were garbled when copying from notepad to post. Or a hacker did sth.

Anyway, using the halflife obtained from oldest objects, I would date one from 2242 years ago to 2832 years ago.

And using the half life from a historically known object 2242 years ago, I would date the oldest one as younger than it was.

According to what Egyptologists said in your source*, that would mean Pre-Dynastic and early Dynastic Egypt was in such a situation. And this would mean not just that C14 was still rising, but that it was far below stable - so start of Early Kingdom is later than dated.

"Anyway, using the halflife obtained from oldest objects, I would date one from 2242 years ago to 2832 years ago."

Correction, after extracting the most relevant parts, of this last table, I am left with following:

177
177 158 164 158 161 158 155 153 152 151 147 146 146 145 140
0,9576032806985736427993411

317
354 317 328 316 323 316 311 307 304 301 293 292 291 290 280
0,9170040432046712238204

492
531 476 492 474 484 473 466 460 456 452 440 438 437 435 420
0,87812608018664973017524071974848340308374473844

632
708 634 656 632 646 631 621 613 608 603 586 584 582 580 560
0,8408964152537145285

807
885 792 820 790 807 789 776 767 759 754 733 730 728 725 701
0,80524516597462713669594825775751874729717135

947
1062 951 984 948 968 947 932 920 911 904 879 876 873 871 841
0,7711054127039703918185037524151107546814

1087
XV ? 1110 1148 1106 1130 1105 1087 1074 1063 1055 1026 1022 1019 1016 980
0,7384130729697496333631862712845828169251080005327764349276604255

1227
1416 1268 1312 1264 1291 1263 1242 1227 1215 1206 1172 1168 1164 1161 1121
0,7071067811865475

1367
1593 1426 1476 1422 1453 1420 1398 1380 1367 1356 1319 1314 1310 1306 1261
0,67712777346844633785740308077210918385225

1507
1770 1585 1640 1580 1614 1578 1553 1534 1519 1507 1465 1460 1455 1451 1401
0,648419777325504804988696971258036069

1612
1947 1744 1804 1738 1775 1736 1708 1687 1671 1658 1612 1606 1601 1596 1541
0,6209289060367419948223520717813389469537524230607602332341359

1752
2124 1902 1968 1896 1937 1894 1863 1840 1823 1808 1759 1752 1746 1741 1681
0,59460355750136050256511006950535375

1892
2301 2060 2132 2054 2098 2052 2019 1994 1975 1959 1905 1898 1892 1887 1822
0,569394317378345794903970704068264767562476012215343422414125

2032
2478 2219 2296 2212 2260 2210 2174 2147 2126 2109 2052 2044 2038 2032 1962
0,5452538663326287966544848412744322702549033080823284665

2102
2655 2378 2460 2370 2421 2367 2329 2301 2278 2260 2198 2190 2183 2177 2102
0,5221368912137068863531972179212530815462861493744144146237420433

2242 [227 av.J.C., daté comme min. 227, maxim 817 av. J.C., Âge Moyen 436 av. J.C.]
2832 2536 2624 2528 2582 2525 2485 2454 2430 2411 2345 2336 2329 2322 2242
0,5

In other words, since "dated age" right under real age to the left is using half life from latest dated age (177=177), and since last of "dated ages" is using half life from last of these (2242=2242 years ago), this means that of we were now just 45.7% of stable, any half life obtained by more recent datings would be giving us too old datings for less recent datings, and any half life from older datings will give the more recent datings too young an age.

Could this be what was happening to the Egyptologist? 

22:36

"how can you use RD as a resource"

Now, it is true that RD has less pre-publishing peer review than NG or sth, but it is also true that RD tends to have a flair on what are acceptable and non-acceptable bets for quoting from well known magazines like NG.

When it comes to wikipedia, it has more post-publishing review per article than either of above. And it is post-publishing peer review which tends to correct the mistakes.

Let's not be fooled by socially accepted "value stamps" on certain media.

25:45

J. P. Dawson - phone number, I can't test. Testing mail takes some time. The sites www.jpdawson.com and www.aaronc.com are down. There may be back ups for principal pages on wayback machine, but there is no back up I could find to content in articles.

26:33

Potassium Argon dating is a pure joke.**

Some of the facts you mentioned before were not carbon and perhaps not even Ka-Ar, like Moon Rocks. Some which were carbon could be explained either by reservoir effect (imagine you consistently ate wheat which was several thousand years old, from Harappa or Jericho - your C14 would sink after a while), which accounts for mollusks, penguins eating such, snail living in similar vicinity to much calcium carbonate with much old carbon. Or, other option which I forgot before finishing the sentence, by rising C14 levels and mathematic appearance of inconsistent half life.

But in closer range, and even in long range once you make allowance for rising levels, you can make some sence (outside forgeries) of carbo dates, including by systematic squeezing as per my table or Tas Walker's.

For potassium argon dating, no such making sense seems even possible.

The problems with potassium argon - and there come lots of late millions or hundred thousands of years - are immensely huger than with C14.

Footnotes

* T. Säve-Söderbergh & I. U. Olsson "C-14 dating and Egyptian chronology in Radiocarbon Variations and Absolute Chronology" Proceedings of the twelfth Nobel Symposium, New York 1970, p.35

** For those not knowing why I agree with Kent Hovind here, I refer to CMI

CMI : How do you date a New Zealand volcano?
by Robert Doolan
http://creation.com/how-do-you-date-a-new-zealand-volcano

and CMI : ‘I got excited at Mount St Helens!’
by Ken Ham
http://creation.com/i-got-excited-at-mount-st-helens