Saturday, July 22, 2023

Gutsick Gibbon on C14 (First Half of the Video)

Gutsick Gibbon on C14 (First Half of the Video) · (Second Half of Same Video)

Radiocarbon Dating Precludes Young Earth Creationism (Diamonds, Dinos and Coal) | Bite-Sized Busts
Gutsick Gibbon, 6 July 2021

3:09 Dead sea scrolls are after the fall of Troy, so I expect the original carbon 14 content to have reached and started mildly fluctuating around 100 pmC.

Confer Flood, 2957 BC, carbon dated to 39 000 BP. The original carbon 14 content was lower in the pre-Flood world.

2957 BC to 1179 BC = carbon 14 is rising, and extra years by carbon mirage are getting fewer.

I think this is a consistent view of carbon 14.

4:03 I am obviously positing:
a) that a constant concentration is not factual, but more or less known (or insofar as I am wrong about details at least knowable in principle) over different parts of the Biblical timeline;
b) that the rise of C14 from Flood to Fall of Troy involved production rates that were higher, at times as much as ten times higher, but on average for all the period, five times higher;
AND that the higher production rate in part relate to the time of the post-Flood glaciation (ionising particles = cooling) and also to lowered lifespans (radioactivity = mutations).

4:52 And, unlike Setterfield, at least for carbon 14 I do not posit faster decay rates in the past, I have used the constant decay rate to calculate diverse gradations of production rates from Flood to Fall of Troy.

5:37 Dendrochronology gives a calibration, which for the last 3200 years shows wiggles.

This is sufficient to prove that C14 is not absolutely constant.

However, as I am discarding the dendro calibration in favour of Biblical calibration for previous times, it may be noted that dendro, like the other (often) lignine based method (written records) tends to become sketchier and sketchier the further back you go, because more of the evidence is totally lost, and more of what remains is in smaller fragments.

Hence, I state that before Fall of Troy, the concentration of C14 was less constant than the dendro calibration would have it.

6:18 This diagram about dendro is so pristine.

But it seems I saw some years, it only goes back to the 18th C AD - yes, in that range, dendro is very reliable.

14:33 Exactly how much more carbon would the pre-Flood atmosphere have had on my own view?

1) Part of the reason why the pre-Flood rise from possible zero to Flood year level was slower might be a slower production rate - less radioactivity, pre-Flood man living longer. This will be ignored now.
2) Supposing all of that slower build-up were explained as due to more overall carbon (12), what do I get? Expected concentration at 2242 years from creation = c. 12 pmC, actual concentration, 1.625 pmC.

12 / 1.625 = 7.385 times - that's all how much I need on this view pre-Flood carbon to have been higher.

Even less if other factors were more favourable (like a larger atmosphere - C14 formed higher up, with less N14 concentrations reaching there).

3) Snelling and I arguably differ on whether there were calcite caves in the pre-Flood world, I think there was, so, we probably differ on how much of the calcium rocks by now are due to the Flood. This is tentative on my part.