Sunday, January 17, 2021

How We Don't Know The Earth Is That Ancient - Part II

How we Don't Know the Earth is Deep Time Ancient (Answering First Part of a Video) · How We Don't Know The Earth Is That Ancient - Part II

Second half of this video:

How We Know The Earth Is Ancient
7th April 2020 | PBS Space Time

8:03 "Figuring out the initial content is typically impossible - at least directly"

Hear, hear!

5700 years? Thought it was 5730!

8:40 "resulting in a constant proportion of C-14 within the atmospheric CO2"

We know it is in fact not completely constant. And I here mean it is admitted by your side. Not just we Creationists.

Since Industrial Revolution it has gone down. 1950 carbon dates as 1750, until you fix that with calibration.

Between c. 760 BC and 450 BC, the uncalibrated readings are around 550. Since Rome was founded in 753 BC and became a Republic in 510 BC, carbon dates of earliest clear Rome have been taken - I'd say mistakenly - to indicate Rome was actually founded c. 550 BC, by Etruscans like the Tarquins. Just a few decades before going Republic.

See here for the calibration:

High-Precision Decadal Calibration of the Radiocarbon Time Scale, AD 1950–6000 BC
Minze Stuiver (a1) and Bernd Becker (a2)

9:11 "only accurate to about 10 half lives, around 50 000 years"

If as much.

If there was a change in cosmic radiation, leading to very low carbon 14 production up to Flood, very high from Flood to Babel, gradually lowering to present one after Babel, and Babel (real dates 2607 to 2556 BC, or a little narrower) is Göbekli Tepe (carbon dates 9600 to 8600 BC), the Biblical chronology is adequate.

Creation vs. Evolution : New Tables

So, sth carbon dated 50 000 years BP would be the centuries preceding the Flood (which happened 2957 BC).

9:23 710 million vs 4.5 billion years for two isotopes of Uranium.

Problem is - how do you even remotely double check such a half life against radioactive date matching historical one? With carbon, we can double check and do double check the 5730 years' halflife by such and such a number of years ago in 16th C. matching such and such a remainder c. 95 pmC.

With carbon, even 11 years and some fractions will get you down to 0.9986 of the content you start with, 5730 : 512 matching 512th root of 0.5.

But how do you get to check 1 386 718.75 years against recorded historic fact? You don't.

9:33 With both decaying to different isotopes of lead ...

Meaning the isotopes of lead found in contact with Uranium is then used to measure original content of Uranium?

This is lots less secure than "measuring" original content of C-14. For that one, not too far back (I disagree where limit goes), tree rings, and most definitely historic dates can by calibration imply that original content was near 100 pmC - or that it wasn't, if you accept the Bible as history. If you go back far enough.

9:58 Any lead in a zircon came from uranium?

CMI has answered a question involving this point (I don't feel I'm obliged to use only my own material in answering):

"My comment about the inclusion of uranium and exclusion of lead during the formation of zircon crystals was just a repeat of an assertion made by Dr Payne. Not being a chemist, a mineralogist or a metallurgist, I have no reason to dispute this claim and, hence, did not include any further discussion. I would note, however, that the efficiency of the exclusion was not mentioned (i.e. is 100% of any lead excluded from the crystal or, perhaps, less than 100%). Nor was there discussion about how well the experimental conditions that have been mentioned would have represented the situation within crystallizing magmas. Uniformitarians assume magmas crystallized slowly over millions of years under conditions of thermodynamic equilibrium. However, the biblical scenario suggests magmas crystallized quickly, and anticipates non-equilibrium conditions, and this would affect the way lead would have been incorporated in the zircon crystals."

More on radioactive dating problems
Published: 20 June 2015 (GMT+10) [feedback]

10:22 On same article, Tas Walker answers (quoted by author) for Concordia technique, that usually the curves do not match up. And if there were more than one metamorphic event, the intersection of curves is meaningless.

10:56 No, actually they did not prove that anything was many millions of light years away.

The series of such "cosmic distance scale" beyond "within Solar System, i e from alpha Centauri four light years away, depends on accepting Heliocentrism as true and then c. 20 (or 25?) arc seconds back and forth each year as "aberration" and after that the minor variations around that value as "parallax" both phenomena depending on Earth moving in space, the first in relation to light and the second in relation to light sources.

If instead it is light sources, i e stars, that are moved by angels, this distance scale drops flat down. This includes the "much older universe" you are talking about.

12:43 "several independent measures"

Many of which aren't even zircon ... here is what CMI answered back in 1982:

In Brief
This article is from Creation 5(1):17, June 1982

The complaint about not removing refuted clutter in "proofs" seems to remain since then.

No comments: