Saturday, June 10, 2017
... on Carbon dating
Creation v. Evolution: How Carbon Dating Works
1:02 Creationists, including Ken Ham, are not carbon dating denialists, or not all of us.
Ken Ham is in ICR which also involves RATE project in which people are involved looking for creationist calibrations of the carbon dating.
I'm outside that project, but heavily implied in that part, sir!
Now, Libby won a Nobel prize is not a scientific argument, precisely as Carducci won a Nobel prize is not a literary argument.
His half life is no longer used today. This means that half life estimates as such have changed due to a calibration undertaken from considerations other than Libby's discovery.
My calibration is also undertaken from considerations other than Libby's discovery.
I am using the now commonly accepted half life, the Cambridge halflife.
I am using a Biblical chronology based on LXX, shifting between St Jerome's and George Syncellus' Ussher type calculations, from one of my tables to the next. 50 000 or 51 000 BP sounds like pre-Flood. C. 3400 BC.
What gets dated as 3400 BC (like crude dating of Narmer) is more like 2000 BC. This means the carbon 14 level back then was low enough to correspond to the decay from 100 percent modern carbon that is to be expected for c 1400 years - in Abraham's day (yes, Abraham was contemporary with Narmer and probably his successor too) the pmc in atmosphere would have been c. 83.5 - 86.5 (depending on which chronology I use for Abraham).
3400 BC for real, the level would be at c. 1 pmc or somewhat lower. Which accounts for the 46 000 extra years. Actually as low as 0.383 pmc, according to this calculator:
By Flood, the level was roughly 1.5 pmc, corresponding to 40 000 BP, chosen for European end of Neanderthals and beginning of Noah's family a k a Cro Magnon.
1:36 "it's a constant" - only as constant as the carbon 14 levels in the atmosphere.
Which is where Creationists at a somewhat finer level of argumentation than in oral debate with Bill Nye get our wedge from.
Btw, you said 5730 years, which means you disagree with Libby on the exact halflife.
And the discoveries of the calibration which leads to this new one were obviously not made by JUST carbon dating things, but by taking into account things outside carbon dating.
Major difference : we take the Bible into account too, as reliable history.
2:08 tree rings, ice cores, corals - subject to so much variation as to be unreliable. Tree rings are not always annual. Ice cores need not be annual at all.
2:40 Libby measured even half life of C14 a bit wrong. How do you accurately measure a halflife like that of Uranium? Unlike C14, you cannot calibrate after historically dated objects.
A piece of coin with the image of KAICAP TIBHPIOC or CAESAR TIBERIUS can have blood sweat or tears on it and be carbon datable - and we know (probably) how along ago Tiberius ruled.
But you cannot calibrate any Uranium Lead half life in that precise way, because the halflife is too long.
Unlike and like the problem with a rising C14-level - you have a problem with knowing if all the lead (even of a particular isotope) was originally Uranium. In Potassium Argon you have a problem with "excessive argon" - an explanation invoked by people yourself about lava from Mount St Helen's explosion 37 years (and not half a million or two million years) ago. We just take excessive argon a bit further than you do.
3:43 Since 800 000 or 1.5 million years were, as you say, dated by a method we find disproven by Mount St Helen's, the data need not even be taken into account. I suppose your set never tried to make a parallel carbon dating ...