Friday, July 27, 2018

Dr Grady McMurtry on Age of Earth - with comments, part one

On his videos (mirrored?), parts 1 to beginning of 3.

Why i believe in a young earth by ex-evolutionist Dr.Grady McMurtry Part 1
Arne Karlsen | 15.V.2016

5:29 stars - an economic way of responding is, stars are not millions of light years away.

Why i believe in a young earth by ex-evolutionist Dr.Grady McMurtry Part 2
Arne Karlsen | 15.V.2016

0:52 "none of them work"

Actually false.

Carbon 14 has a fair working outside usually detectable cases of reservoir effect for back since the carbon 14 level, the ratio of carbon 14 to carbon 12, is the same in the atmosphere.

0.989264 = 0.4990946242600414
0.9892564 = 0.500711737438632

This means, 64th root of 0.5 is between 0.9892 and 0.98925.

Now, 0.5 is "ratio remaining after a halflife" and it is also known as 50%.

1/64 of 5730 (halflife of carbon 14) is 89 and a half years.

And you DO get sth like 98.92 to 98.925 % modern carbon when you date objects of wood or leather from 90 years ago (a bit of a leeway for wood if tree was significiantly old when felled).*

32:nd root of 0.5 is 0.97858 - and for objects from 179 years ago, you tend to get 97.858 pmC.

You can check it over here:

So, carbon 14 relatively speaking does work.

You have exceptions like reservoir effect (bones of people who ate much fish or shellfish tend to look a few centuries older than they are, sea living creatures, creatures living near ice allround the year and so on). And like during the buildup period before the modern level was reached.

This means, dates like 9600 BC and 8600 BC (beginning and end of Göbekli Tepe) don't mean they are necessarily that old (they could well be from Biblical years of Babel), nor the distance is necessarily that long (if older date is significantly more inflated than younger one, 40 years can look like 1000), but they DO come in that order.

0:58 If Libby "admitted it didn't work" I'd like a reference.

It certainly did not work for his halflife, done by lab tests on decay, I presume, since the Libby halflife is abandoned, I just gave the Cambridge halflife which replaced it. Somewhat longer.

3:30 That Potassium Argon doesn't work seems fairly obvious, even before looking at your example.

How many hundreds of thousands or millions years is the lava dated to which covered 900 year old artefacts?

And that should be enough for refuting old age, since it is the most used radiometric method except carbon 14 and since the latter can be squeezed.

If Flood was 5000 years ago, we expect 54.616 % of what level there was at the time.

But if level was a very low one, 54.616 % of it can well be 0.792 pmC.

With Potassium Argon, you don't even need to account for relative accuracy.

45 000 years old charcoal? That would mean the charcoal is a bit older than 5000 years, a bit older than the Flood. Lava surrounding it 37.000.000 years? No accounting for Potassium Argon ...

98.929 / 98.917 pmC according to the carbon date calculator - for 89 / 90 years. Meaning 89.5 years should be between that ...


Hans-Georg Lundahl
7:11 Can you be sure all three samples are from same lava flow?

If you can, well, we may see why lava flows vary in correct height sequence, for instance at Laetoli.

There could be a question of how deep down it was in the water during the Flood, however that may influence argon capture or argon retention.

George Baxter
Radiometric dating is not really applicable to fresh lava. One of the key requirements for dating is that sample must not have changed. A lava is a liquid and argon is a noble gas, it will rapidly diffuse out of the sample. That will inevitably lead to a very low argon reading. If that is used to "date" the sample then it would be erroneously old. So it is wrong and misleading to use fresh lava samples as a "proof" that the technique is flawed

Hans-Georg Lundahl
I am sorry, but it is not a low argon reading, but a high one which translates as very old.

If fresh lava is flawed for the technique, how can you prove from it that the lavas you date (for instance in Laetoli) are not too fresh for it?

George Baxter
Yes. My error about the low value. The logic is still true though. The lava is not from a closed environment. The argon could have been from outgassing of the rocks/magma during the disturbance. You cannot reliably date lava via radiometric methods.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
I agree, lava cannot be reliably dated, but my point is, more argon gets caught lower down in the water.

This explains the APPEARANCE of reliability of the lava of Laetoli.

Why i believe in a young earth by ex-evolutionist Dr.Grady McMurtry Part 3
Arne Karlsen | 15.V.2016

1:38 On this video, I only have your word for speed of light not being a constant.

Sounds at least as good an explanation that stellar distances are not true, because the .76 arc seconds back and forth each year, measured for alpha Centauri against comparison of stars in the background are not parallax but proper movement.

In other words, most basic stellar distances closest to pure trigonometry are not known, and one therefore cannot deduce stellar distances by other methods based on this one either.

Your website, I'll have to ask you over FB.

Next time : rest of part 3, 4.

No comments: