Monday, February 21, 2022

Someone Took Me for an Evolutionist

For context, see
by Gutsick Gibbon, a k a Erika.

Vlad Tepes
Creationists: "You can't trust the dating methods!" Also creationists: "Look at this city found in Israel that dates to the time of King David! Hooray for Bible!"

(omitting several, also by Kevin Johnson)

Hans-Georg Lundahl
City dating to time of King David - carbon 14.

Now, there is clearly a time from which that method is reliable. Directly.

The previous times where the direct reading is unreliable would be while C14 was building up in the atmosphere, and not bc of any inherent flaw in the theory as such. They can therefore be used with reinterpertation - one which I am proposing one version of.

Kevin Johnson
@Hans-Georg Lundahl ”any flaw in the theory…” did you not realize you call it factual and a theory at the same time? C14 works some say to 400 BC. Just what someone said. But it also dates live mosquitoes over 100k years old. Ten year old lava rock as millions of year using isotopes and some other dating methods. Not sure what your comments is trying to say but it uses equations that are fraught with assumptions.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
@Kevin Johnson The vast majority of datings are within limits reliable from a certain BC date on. Those that aren't are fairly easy to account for by either radioactive contamination (samples dating 3000 years into the future - after a nuke bomb test or at Harrisburg, forgot which) or by reservoir effect.

I used to set that date from which it is true at Babylonian captivity, a destruction of Jerusalem occurring in 593 BC and carbon dated to 593 BC. I am now pushing the limit back to Fall of Troy, in 1179 / 1185 BC. Dated historically by Eratosthenes and archaeologically at level Troy VI (a or b, I think b).

Before that, you have a majority of dates that diverge between real dates and carbon dates, because the C14 content in the atmosphere was still rising and had not yet reached the "present" level (the usual for the last 3000 years, not the one for last 200). A lower initial level = extra years, instant age before the sample starts actually aging.

Kevin Johnson
@Hans-Georg Lundahl you have some good knowledge but how do you know what the c14 was in the Earth’s atmosphere say 6,000 years ago? Big assumptions, no?

Hans-Georg Lundahl
@Kevin Johnson In Neanderthals from just before the Flood, c. 5000 years ago, there was the C14 needed for them to carbon date as 40 000 BP. This means that there was 1.4 pmC, 1.4 % of the C14 content we would have had if it hadn't been for the industrial emissions of old carbon.

And this means, there was some C14 present already before the Flood.

I would say the first C14 atom was created on day IV, when light from the Sun including the cosmic radiation shone on N in the atmosphere. But I9 can't prove it, since we don't have organic "fossils" from Creation Week. I can only assume it theologically from the fact that C14 exists and therefore should be one of the things present already in creation week.

But for Neanderthals from before the Flood, it is fairly well proven by the fact there still is c. 0.7 pmC (carbon date 40 000 years old).

Kevin Johnson
@Hans-Georg Lundahl Buddy, Neanderthals are humans, inbred that developed traits similar to aborigines in Australia. Already proven. Your whole argument is hogwash!!

Hans-Georg Lundahl
@Kevin Johnson I am sorry, but I was not aware that "pre-Flood" translates to "non-human"?

Also, suppose Neanderthals were post-Flood, and that their traits are due to inbreeding making an echo chamber for accumulating mutations, how long after the Flood would we have them, and why would that year after the Flood have a carbon age of "40 000 BP"?

It makes more sense the buildup happened slow before the Flood (slower than now) and fast after the Flood (faster than now) and Neanderthals are a pre-Flood race of which half breeds or quarter breeds came on board an essentially Cro Magnon Ark. Dito for Denisovans.

It is also a bit weird when someone says "big assumptions" about C14 being at least present on some level (perhaps not detectable now) 6000 years ago, when C14 is created and everything created needs to be present in Creation Week, but when it comes to a specific YEC scenario other than that, you say "already proven" ...

Kevin Johnson
@Hans-Georg Lundahl you use “suppose” & it “‘makes more more sense.” You assume I am saying things that I am not. You do not know the oxygen levels before the Flood or the “Ice Age” (for you) and therefore all your assumptions are wrong. Carbon dating puts a live seal at 1,300 years, go figure. You cannot prove, only assume c14 half-life is 5,730 unless you use unprovable equations! How convenient. Your whole worldview FAIRH is based upon ASSUMPTIONS, GUESSES, and IT SEEMS or is PROBABLE. You believe a State-Funded religion, your interpretation of data is NOT science but your opinion. You do not see that?

@Hans-Georg Lundahl you may be misunderstanding me as far as c14. Of course c14 was here at Creation. But at what level.

You all claim life started with oxygen! Impossible but you evolutionists claim it.

If the Earth is as old as you assume, why have we not reach c14 equilibrium?!?!

Hans-Georg Lundahl
@Kevin Johnson "Carbon dating puts a live seal at 1,300 years, go figure"

Yeah - the seal ate lots of shellfish that got lots of old carbon from chalk in the water.

"You cannot prove, only assume c14 half-life is 5,730 unless you use unprovable equations!"

A halflife of 5730 years means a remainder of 90.776 % after 800 years. And if 800 years ago - 1220 - the pmC was 100, the pmC in samples from 1220 should have 90.776 pmC. I think that is exactly what they have, according to my look at ...

High-Precision Decadal Calibration of the Radiocarbon Time Scale, AD 1950–6000 BC
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 18 July 2016
Minze Stuiver and Bernd Becker

The mathematics is 0.5 to the power of (800/5730) and the calculator makes that 0.90776070536.

Of course, the carbon level could theoretically have been lower and that would mean the halflife were longer, or higher and that would mean the halflife were shorter. But evidence from things not involving reservoir effect tend to show a great probability of C14 having the named halflife. As confirmed back to the Fall of Troy, a bit before King David.

"You believe a State-Funded religion,"

I do not believe Evolution, not even OEC, and I don't think Pope Michael's Vatican in Exile gets state funding from federal or state of Kansas.

"Of course c14 was here at Creation. But at what level."

Arguably close to zero. 0.000 and some zillion more zeros before you get to ... 001 of present amount. Even so it would with present relative production rate have reached c. 12 - 13 pmC at the Flood 2242 years later. It only reached 1.4 pmC, if Neanderthals are from just before the Flood.

"You all claim life started with oxygen! Impossible but you evolutionists claim it."

I'm not an Evolutionist, I'm a YEC.

"If the Earth is as old as you assume, why have we not reach c14 equilibrium?!?!"

If the Earth is as young as I presume (7200 years) why have we. Because arguably we have. Supposing we were still rising, the halflife would be longer. For instance, with twice the halflife, the level at Fall of Troy would have been around 81 pmC, not 100. Longer halflives still = lower levels at Troy. And lower levels at Troy = longer halflives. The easiest is, we did reach equilibrium at Fall of Troy, 1179 BC.

The reason it took so fast is, after the Flood, it rose with a production 10 times the present one. The cosmic rays for that also helped to produce the post-Flood Ice Age and decrease human lifespans.

Kevin Johnson
@Hans-Georg Lundahl you were raised on Piltdown & Nebraska man, should I expect anything less?!?!

Hans-Georg Lundahl
@Kevin Johnson You are getting a bit too edgy to actually see whom you are talking to.

No, when I was raised on Evolution prior to ma raising me Christian, with occasional homeschooling, Nebraska and Piltdown were already out of fashion.

I was after that raised on, among other things, Edgar Andrews From Nothing to Nature - as you may know, first a Swedish edition and then the English original versions combined a book from two earlier writings in English by the author.

Now, as said, I cannot rule out totally C14 is still rising, but that would mean the halflife is longer than the apparent, tested from historically known samples, halflife of 5730. If Fall of Troy saw an atmosphere of 82.727 pmC instead of c. 100 pmC, for us to get 68.438 pmC (which is about what we get from the relevant level), the halflife can't be 5730 but must be 11 460 years.

Obviously this makes the rise from Flood to Troy (1772 years in the Biblical chronology of Roman martyrology) less steep, but not all that much, assuming halflife 5730 and Troy 100 pmC, the 1772 have in medium 5.124 as fast a production of C14 as now, but assume 11 460 and Troy 82.727 pmC, the C14 production over same 1772 years would in medium be 4.239 times as fast - not much gained.

I disagree with people who say "Diamonds are a Creationist's best friend" - but carbon dating is not as bad ... it actually does give a relative dating of events between Flood and Fall of Troy, even if the "absolute dates" need a translation to get into the correct and Biblical timescale.

@Kevin Johnson Little question, when you see a long comment ending in "See More" - do you click those words? Otherwise you could miss what I'm saying, as I am long winded.

Kevin Johnson
@Hans-Georg Lundahl I figured you were raised by religious parents that forced you to join the evolution religious cult.

You use the word “tested” but should really say FAITH IN cause you cannot really test them without a baseline. You cannot prove anything except BELIEVE it is real sir. You do not know the oxygen levels of the Earth at 6,000 but can assume, guess, or BELIEVE. Just realize, you have FAITH in a RELIGION… no proof.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
@Kevin Johnson Nope, you were wrong.

My father was absent, but 7DA. My stepfather was Evolutionist, so were my grandparents. He didn't last, gramp died, ma moved away from granny when I was 8 1/2, raised me Christian and allowed my to ditch Evolution at my own time - achieved at age 10.

When a Yoruba statue in wood from 1400 is more valuable than a recent one, they do use C14 to see the age of it.

I get my carbon levels for the past from identifying Biblical events in remains, comparing carbon dates with real dates, and taking the carbon level back than that explains exactly the excessive "instant age". Evolution has nothing, zilch, nada, nothing - wait, I already said nothing - and nihil at all to do with it. I am not the least "deep time".

No comments: