Monday, August 7, 2023

An Attempt to Invalidate my Flood Date?

Not sure, but Georgia Purdom (whether it was conscious or not) came to a conclusion contradicting mine about the carbon date of the Flood.

I'm here just dealing with the first story on this video, which if she reasoned right would overturn my finding, and I am contradicting her in all respect for her capacity as a genetician.

Scientists Revive Worms from THOUSANDS of Years Ago?
Answers in Genesis, 7.VIII.2023

2:34 Vegetation carbon dated 46 000 years?

As the carbon date for the Flood year is 39 000 BP / 37 000 BC, this means the find is a pre-Flood one, unless there is a reservoir effect.

2:41 My assumptions about radio-carbon:
  • its halflife can actually be tested. 100 years is a significant fraction of 5730 years.
  • the sample usually depends pretty much on the atmosphere, which is one sample which does not change C14 content all that rapidly.
  • this means there is a delay in changes of pmC (percent modern Carbon [14 ratio to Carbon 12])
  • thanks to this delay one actually can make fairly valid assumptions about C14 in the past, as far back as there is historical material to date it against
  • the Flood is historical, and my so far best way of getting at the Flood year in carbon dates is the tephra from Megavolcano Campi Flegrei, tephra means wood and grass and bushes and animals and people which were burned to ashes in lava flow, and so tephra, unlike lava, contains organic or formerly organic carbon, and it dates to 39 000 BP (my previous best way was : no Neanderthal or Denisovan dated to later than 40 000 BP).

I think this is a fairly sound and a fairly Christian set of assumptions. I don't see any point at which it would conflict with any Biblical text, apart from a very maximalising reading of Genesis 6:7, and forgetting that all Neanderthals and Denisovans we have found were below the face of the earth, not on it ... (but this won't find any grace with Anne Habermehl, I've corresponded with her ...)

2:48 "one ice age occurred, and it occurred after the Flood, so they have to be less than 4500 years old"

The cryptobiosis would suggest ice age.

But it's the plant material, not the revived worms, that have been carbon dated.

So, putting by the way the Flood at 2957 BC, as per a LXX chronology calculated by St. Jerome, while the worms would be younger than 5000 years, the plant material would be older.

Or, if both are younger, then there was a reservoir effect, but not sure if that works for plant material.

It's also possible the revived worms went into cryptobiosis much later, somehow getting down through cracks in the permafrost. The revived worms obviously ingested present day plant material after revival and can't be used for carbon testing their age relative to plant material.

No comments: