Thursday, June 8, 2017
... on Old Earth Creationist Takes on Age of Humanity
Age of Humanity
Reasons to Believe
0:46 Fossil and archaeology are two techniques which both depend on the further technique (mainly) of radiocarbon dating and, even worse in some cases, K-Ar (Potassium-Argon, does "excess argon" ring a bell?).
The technique using genealogy is for one thing a fuzzy one, it is parallel to a similar one in sound changes which leads to results that a linguist could easily discredit.
Radiocarbon is actually the least unreliable of the two or three and it can be explained from the view of Biblical chronology by a very low carbon 14 level back at Flood and a slow rise since then.
I did some mathematical models on this topic, here is my last one:
Creation vs. Evolution : Interim III, Flood to Abraham with Syncellus
Notice, that the percent modern carbon (14) as compared to present level was at most 86.572 is basically a given for Abraham in En Geddi. Genesis 14.
Here we have a fairly long Biblical chronology, not just LXX based, but a longer calculation in it, for instance than the Roman Martyrology which is also LXX based but would give a date more recent than 2000 BC for Abraham in En Geddi.
A shorter Biblical chronology means that carbon dated objects to 3200 - 3400 BC need even lower carbon 14 levels back when this happened. And you do need this dating, if En Geddi was inhabited then - and also because Elam is mentioned as a power. An alternative dating for En Geddi could be the neolithic instead of the chalcolithic, and this yields an even lower pmc level in the then atmosphere.
So, if you insist, as I hope you do, that Abraham in En Geddi and facing Elamites is historical, and insist the generations from Abraham to Christ are correct, not including any random gaps, you need between then and now, probably between then and Babylonian captivity, a rise in carbon 14 levels at least from 86.572 pmc to around 100 pmc.
With this need for a rise, which would not be cautioned by secular users of C-14, by secular archaeologists, why are you so eager to avoid the rise in C-14 levels which make other aspects of carbon dated archaeology and fossils fit into the Biblical chronology?
0:56 100,000 - 200,000 years ago ... not even carbon dated, at best K-Ar.
You know, how NOT to date a NZ volcano, if you catch the CMI reference ...
1:01 "at least 50,000 years ago"
That would be a bit before the Flood.
I take Europe's population was mainly replaced from Neanderthal to Cro-Magnon (with some Neanderthal admixture) at the Flood, Neanderthals being a separate line from Adam as compared to Noah's.
This replacement is dated to 40,000 BP, or 38,000 BC, so that would be the carbon date for the Flood year. The Biblical one.
I explain the admixture by Japheth's wife, saved on board Ark, having some Neanderthal ancestry, though her mother probably wasn't : Neanderthals have another form of mitochondrial DNA not found in modern humanity, which we are seeing after the Flood, so I presume there is no undue rashness in guessing she had no Neanderthal mother and the last pure Neanderthals were killed in the Flood.
1:21 symbolism : 70 - 80,000 years? That would be pre-Flood. If carbon dated.
And unlike the "100 - 200,000 years" this may be a dating with some relative value, as to sequence, even if its absolute one as to dates is off.
Where would you have this presumably pre-Flood symbolism? ... ah yes, coming.
1:29 caves in South Africa ... OK.
2:26 swiftness or slowness of change in markers is for one thing a fuzzy technique, but for another it has its basic calibration based on other false dates of how long ago certain populations emerged separate from each other and common ancestry.
So, clearly NOT a reliable argument against the Biblical timescale.
3:09 You can't talk of DNA "clock" as converging unless you have evidence it is clearly independent all the way through from for instance C-14.
On the contrary, its speeds are calibrated partly precisely from C-14 dates of past archaeological events. Like, say, landbridge of Siberia to Americas or earliest American human remains after that.
You presumably date that to 20,000 BP, that would be, in my table:
X 2988 BC
15.616 pmc 18 338 BC
3:54 giving data for Adam's like his being 230 when Seth was born and his living 700 years after that seems very superfluous if the genealogies are just theological constructs.
Fuzz, you need to ditch THOSE Biblical scholars, quicker than fast!