Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : Carbon Dates, Millions of Years - Not Same Thing · Creation vs. Evolution : If Joel Tay found the link in the comments too long
Agreements and disagreements with the video by Joel Tay and Scott Gillis:
Does Carbon Dating Prove Millions of Years?
3.IX.2020 | Creation Ministries International
- 8:27 Apart from Setterfield, who thinks that even speed of light in vaccum has slowed down, what are ths scientists who say "the decay rate has changed"?
- 9:38 Different initial ratio C14 : C12 is exactly my clue too.
Like, at the Flood, it was still no higher than ... 1.4 to 4 percent modern carbon (making carbon date of the Flood in BC 2957 from 40 000 to 30 000 sth BP).
- 10:25 I'd agree magnetic field was stronger pre-Flood, I suppose.
B U T, I would not say it is less strong now than any time before.
I have refuted the idea that a buildup with present rate of carbon 14 production could get us from 4 pmC to 100 pmC even from Flood to our time.
From 2957 BC to our time, the level would have risen only as far as 45 pmC, and that being taken as "100 pmC" would mean the half life would be read differently (it would be seeming to change over time, most realistically, if we allow maximum intelligence to scientists about it, and be much shorter than 5730 years, which I assumed to be the real half life).
This means, between Flood and present, there was a time when carbon 14 was produced quicker than now, so magnetic field would have been less strong (or cosmic rays stronger) back then.
- 11:06 "less carbon 14 created in the past"
= > less carbon 14 now (nearly all we have was created in the past).
Which would give us a lesser comparison rate.
This means, at some time carbon 14 must have been produced quicker than now, not slower. AND its result was a rapid rise in C14 at levels below the present one or pre-industrial one (not sure how much higher pre-industrial is than actual present).
I obviously agree about the net result of "inflated date".
But with a rapid rise, these inflated dates would be translatable back to Biblical, that is real, timeline, of which the rise and the less and less inflated dates are "functions."
- 12:01 Carbon dates from 20 000 to 50 000 BC, I do not agree all of these dates (given as typical by CMI, back at the dating of a Triceratops) are from the Flood.
Citing your site:
"A sample purporting to be from the Flood era would not be expected to give a ‘radiocarbon age’ of about 5,000 years, but rather 20,000–50,000 years. Indeed, that is consistently what one obtains from specimens of oil, gas and fossil wood from layers allegedly ‘millions of years’ old. The reason is: radiocarbon dating assumes that the current 14C/12C ratio of about 1 in a trillion (after adjusting for the Industrial Revolution) was the starting ratio for the objects dated. But this ratio would have been much smaller before the Flood due to the fact that the earth had a much stronger magnetic field. Because pre-and para-Flood objects would have started with a much lower initial 14C/12C ratio, the measured amount today would also be smaller, and be (mis-)interpreted as much older. See What about carbon dating? Chapter 4, The Creation Answers Book. Return to text."
Either some of the life forms had a carbon exchange working slow and had less carbon than atmosphere when they died in the Flood (trees live slower than small baby dinosaurs, for instance), or some of the younger carbon dates are from landslides after the Flood.
50 000 years would on my view be pre-Flood, and 20 000 BP / 18 000 BC, would be a bit more than a century after the Flood, according to my newest tables:
2845 B. Chr.
14.5681 pmC, so dated as 18 745 B.C.
2823 B. Chr.
17.2045 pmC, so dated as 17 373 B.C.
- 12:40 To my mind, based on a volcano on Hawaii where deepest lava under water is dated 2 million years, excluding present, the potassium argon would reflect how quickly the lava cooled during the Flood. With lots of water from all sides, quicker than now.
Other problem with potassium argon - how do you test such a half life? 5730 years implies that after 22 / 23 years (22.3828125, I think) you will have 99.73 or a little less percent left of what was originally there.
With millions of years, what is 1/256 of that? Probably too "long ago" to be testable by historic objects.
That a test is needed is shown by history of halflife - Libby said less than 5730 years, I think 5568 years, and his halflife is now replaced, after considering historico-archaeological record, by Cambridge halflife of 5730 years.