My comments under this short disappeared immediately. Well, on refreshing the page, I could still copy them.
@creationministriesintl
[Why Carbon Dating Supports a Young Earth]
How do creationists explain 50,000-year carbon dates?
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/oelh_OHKnIs
- I
- As a young earth creationist myself (I use the chronology of the Roman Martyrology of Christmas Day, we recite He was born 5199 after Creation, 2957 after the Flood), I think I am doing a better job.
There is no reason why the Flood would immediately change the ratio of Carbon 14 to Carbon 12.
Burying lots of carbon (and the Flood did do that) doesn't automatically discriminate against Carbon 14.
It would however do for a more rapid rise on pmC, since that's a ratio and not an absolute quantity. An exactly same amount of carbon 14 added would make a proportionally higher impact as there was less overall carbon in the atmosphere.
Also, we are NOW not experiencing a more rapid production of Carbon 14 than starting some time after the Flood. On the contrary, the production slowed down from Flood (2958 BC) (or from some time after) to Fall of Troy (1180 BC). I consider that at some time between Flood and Babel (Babel being 40 of the years from 350 to 401 after the Flood, Noah's death to Peleg's birth), the production was c. 20 times higher than it is now.
- II
- The exact calibration for the year of the Flood would seem to have been "39 000 BP" / "37 000 BC" for back in 2958 BC.
Anything dated older than that is pre-Flood.
You get other calibration points at Babel (if you identify it) and at Genesis 14 (1935 BC dated as "3500 BC" as per archaeology of En Geddi).
We'll see about comments under the full video. But it is significant they gave a highlight to just reaffirm what I already told Baumgardner was wrong with their ideas on the specific topic.
Why Carbon Dating Supports a Young Earth
Creation Ministries International | 30 Oct. 2024
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gdv1yOa_OEM
- Mark, would you trust ages derived from this calibration curve? 17:30
- I would with caution, and I say that because even with all those factors taken into consideration, 17:38it is still, there are still assumptions which have to be made, and one of the most important is that the c-12 17:45c-14 ratio is known at time of the death of the creature concerned. 17:52
17:52 That assumption is actually taken care of by the calibration curve.
If you have a curve that says "750 BC dates to 550 BC / 2500 BP" that means, in 750 BC, the carbon ratio was 102.449 pmC.
That's exactly why I don't present my own calibration as a curve, but as:
- Real Year BC
- carbon ratio, so dated as "carbon year BC"
The two presentations are synonymous. It's just that curves are handier for small wiggles, with many calibration points, my own way is better with a huge carbon 14 rise, and relatively few calibration points.
Also, for the calibration curve I've consulted, the Industrial Revolution is duly taken care of.
1750 AD dates as 1950. 1850 dates as 1850. 1950 dates as 1750.
Carbon ratio went from 102.449 pmC (again) to 97.61 pmC, passing through the 100 pmC in 1850.
- So their diet affected the carbon-14 date reading? 19:55
- That's right, so we get a carbon-14 date couple hundred years earlier than the historical date, 20:00 but there's a very important lesson that emerges out of this and that is that the authority always goes 20:07 to the historical record, not to science. And if you think about it, 20:13 science is about observing things in the present. So we can understand how the universe works, 20:21 but you cannot observe the past. So in a very real sense, 20:27 dealing with historical events is actually outside of the competence of the scientist.
Totally agree, where there is one.
I had a similar case for the 30 dead people in the Mladec cave. On my previous calibration, the man or woman labelled Mladec 2 was dated to 22 years after the Flood. I forgot the age of Mladec 2, but unlike Mladec 1, a teen girl of anatomically like 17, the person could NOT have lived just 22 years after the Flood.
My first solution is this reservoir effect. If reservoir effect along modern fairly stable 100 pmC can give c. 200 extra years, how much will that be if the older carbon is really that much lower initially?
However, since then, I made a mistake when calculating on paper, looked into it, found the mistake palatable, precisely with Mladec in mind. Now Mladec 2 is instead between 2918 BC and 2884 BC, meaning between 40 and 74 years after the Flood in this chronology.
20:52 In the case of the Vikings, the atmospheric ratio was still pretty close to 100 pmC.
It was only an individual ratio, lower through reservoir effect, that wasn't known.
People living in Mladec caves would be drinking water rich in calcium carbonate which was from the Flood, and so would tend to get dated older.
22:15 I tend not to use coal or diamonds.
Bomb effect. I don't think it was nitrogen, but carbon 12, that turned into carbon 14 that place. Hence, the idea of "contamination" cannot be dismissed. It doesn't mean mixing with younger additions of newer atoms, it means the carbon 12 already in them upgrade to carbon 14 in sth like bomb effect.
I didn't like the look of "Doc Reasonable's" comment from 5 hours ago, so I answered ...
- Doc Reasonable
- @DocReasonable
- The prehistoric settlement of Gobekle Tepe is 12,000 years old, which means it's existed for twice as long as the entire universe according to the creatarded.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- @hglundahl
- 9600 BC is carbon date for the time of Noah's death, 2607 BC, if the carbon ratio in the atmosphere was c. 43 pmC.
8000 BC is carbon date for the time of Peleg's birth, 2556 BC, if the carbon ratio in the atmosphere was c. 51 pmC.
10 000 BC is actually a bit earlier than Göbekli Tepe, but it would be the last few years before 2607.
Back to video:
23:27 extra neutrons turning carbon 12 into carbon 14 might be easier than new atoms.
Skipping some:
31:01 So, you say that in Jesus' time, the magnetic field was 2.5 times stronger, and at the Flood 7 times stronger?
Ceteris paribus, this would mean that just after the Flood, carbon 14 would have been produced c. 1/7 as quickly as now.
That would not work. What we need for right after the Flood (and ensuing century) is not a SLOWER carbon 14 production than now, but a FASTER one. Up to when it reaches c. 100 pmC.
From Flood to Fall of Troy, the medium production of carbon 14 was c. 5 times faster than now. If you don't admit that the Flood was 2958 BC, but more recent, but still admit the archaeology of Troy, that means you need the time between that to be producing carbon 14 even faster than that.
31:20 The non-equilibrium and constant climbing is a claim from the 70's or so.
I think I'd like some methodology before agreeing, mathematically, it doesn't sit well.
Supposing at the fall of Troy the level was not c. 100 pmC, but only 80 pmC, 4/5, this would mean that to get the dates we get for the last 3000 years, we would need a halflife of 11 460 years instead of just 5730 years. It would work. The biggest bulge due to mathematical powers issues would be c. 200 years, less than the biggest bulges we see anyway. But I think there are samples that rule this out.
31:31 So we have more carbon-14 today, and because the sample shows less carbon-14, 31:39 it will appear to be older, if that makes sense.
It does. But not for the last three thousand years. Just for things before the Fall of Troy.
Historically, according to Eratosthenes who calculated the time from Fall of Troy to Alexander, Troy fell 1180 BC.
A pretty probable archaeological level would fit that bill, is dated to 1180 BC.
This means, unless the halflife is actually way longer than 5730 years, carbon hasn't been significantly rising since 3000 years ago.
And this in turn means, it needs to have risen faster before that. Flood to Troy, it would have taken c. 30,000 years to get that carbon rise with today's production, but it took only 1778 years. SO, carbon 14 was produced faster in that time span.
The Bible tells us it was a perfect creation, 31:57 pretty reasonable I think to assume there was no carbon-14 present in the biosphere right at the very beginning.
I would say there was carbon 14 further up, at least, and that since day 4.
Now, with today's production rate, from Creation to Flood in 2242 years, we'd have had c. 10 pmC or more. To think of it, 2242 years = decay to 76.246 %, which in today's levels means it is compensated by 23.754 pmC points. Corresponding for Masoretic Creation to Flood, 1656 years, 81.847 % and therefore 18.153 pmC points.
We only had 1.628 pmC.
1) There could have been more carbon overall, meaning each production unit counted less than it does now. 2 times the carbon = 1/2 count.
2) There could have been a lesser density of Nitrogen, if lots of Oxygen was united to Hydrogen to form water, at the Flood, so, if Nitrogen was just 50 % of the atmosphere instead of 78, that would mean automatically the radiation produces only 64 % of what it does now.
3) It would if so also have been a higher atmosphere, perhaps a bit denser to radiation.
I still think one would have needed a stronger magnetic field or less cosmic radiation before the Flood, or both.
At the Flood, we already had a low C-14 level, it would not have been lowered by burial of carbon.
After the Flood, we get the inverse, from Flood to Fall of Troy being 1778 years, that leaves a decay of 80.648 % and a compensation of 19.352 pmC. However, by the fall of Troy, we did not have 19.352 pmC, we had c. 100 pmC. I e, carbon 14 was on average produced 5 times as fast.
32:42 In 1656 years, the decay is 81.847 %. This means that for a stable level, the production in 1656 years is 100 - 81.847 = 18.153 pmC.
18.153 pmC dates to 14,100 BP, meaning the oldest carbon dates from the Flood would be 14,100 + 4500 in your chronology. 18600 BP.
If it were instead 2242 years, there is a decay of 76.246 %, so the addition in that time would be 100 - 76.246 = 23.754 pmC.
23.754 pmC dates to 11,900 BP, so the oldest dates would be 11,900 + 5000 = 16,900 BP.
33:37 We still have approximately the same amount of carbon-14, because that's coming, remember, 33:42 from outside the earth, the gamma ray's impacting our upper atmosphere, but less carbon-12, 33:47 so that would've led to an increase in the carbon-14 to carbon-12 ratio.
Correct. Over time. But not immediately. AND, we would be dealing with this alone roughly with today's production rate.
Remember, 101 years, the time from Flood to Babel on your chronology, it's a decay of 98.786 %, so a production of 1.214 pmC points.
Again, on your chronology Abraham was born 292 after the Flood, he was around 80 at Genesis 14. So, c. 372 years. The decay of that is 95.6 %, so the today's stable production level would be 4.4 pmC points. Add that to the Flood level, you won't get things dated to
just 1565 years older than they are, as we find.
Hence, it is absolutely necessary, between Flood and Genesis 14, as to a lesser degree, after Genesis 14, you had a faster Carbon 14 production than now.
35:13 Kenyon's carbon date for Jericho's occupation cessation: 1550 BC.
That's 79 years more than the actual date, 1471 BC, given an Exodus in 1511 BC. That's one of my calibration points, so, 1470 BC, the carbon ratio was 99.037 pmC.
Genesis 14 was c. 5 years (between 0 and 11 years) after the promise. This was 430 years before the Exodus, and so 470 years before the fall of Jericho.
Take away 5 years, it's 465 years.
Genesis 14, carbon level is 82.753 pmC, making 1935 BC date as 3500 BC.
Fall of Jericho, carbon level is 99.037 pmC, making 1470 BC date as 1550 BC.
Now, what exact production rate do we have between these? 465 years is 94.53 % decay, and therefore in today's production 5.47 pmC added.
82.753 * 94.53 / 100 = 78.226 pmC
78.226 + 5.47 = 83.696 pmC.
If we want 99.037 pmC, check
99.037 - 78.226 = 20.811 pmC.
20.811 / 5.47 = 3.805 faster production than today.
But as an interesting point of philosophy here, 35:54 because we know when those events took place from the historical record, 36:00 so we have an historical anchor point. So that, if you like, is like a calibration point, 36:06 that is if you believe it's historically accurate.
Indeed I do. I agree totally on the philosophical point, where I disagree is on the scientific detail. Also on which Biblical chronology is the correct one. Catholicism traditionally has three Biblical chronologies.
The Vulgate has the same chronology as the Masoretic version, so it is Ussher compatible, and the Haydock Bible (a Catholic precursor to the Scofield Bible) uses Ussher dates.
The Seventh Ecumenical Council mentions Christ incarnate 5500 after Creation, that's a Syncellus date.
The Roman Martyrology for Christmas day says Christ was born 5199 after Creation, that's taken from Historia Scholastica, taken from St. Jerome, same one who also did the Vulgate translation, who took the chronology up to Genesis 11 from Julius Africanus. That's the one I use.
Either way, if you want to compress my findings to suit Ussher dates or similar, you are free to use it that way, but it would be honest to refer back to my work and mark the disagreement.
Meanwhile, that would NOT work in favour of your theory of "carbon production rates are still rising" ... between Genesis 14 and Jericho's fall, they were 3.805 times faster than they are now. It's between Flood and Genesis 14 that you would get a compression of years and even greater production rates.
1935 BC = 82.753 pmC.
Flood in 2957 = 1.628 pmC.
Flood in 2348 = 1.512 pmC
Flood in 2957 BC = 2957-1935 = 1022 years for the rise.
Flood in 2348 BC = 2348-1935 = 413 years for the rise. Sorry, 372, and Genesis 14 wouldn't land on 1935, but on 1976 BC. 1524 extra years to get carbon dates of 3500 BC, and a level of 83.164 pmC.
Either way, if you have 2957 to 1935 to go from 1.628 to 82.753 pmC or if you have 2348 to 1976 to go from 1.512 to 83.164 pmC, you need a faster production than now, not a slower one.
The point of philosophy stands, but you are misapplying it.
So when you start with the Bible as the authority, 36:24 that historical account now gives us a data point with which we could calibrate the carbon dating method. 36:30 If you start with science as the authority, you end up saying, "Aha, the Bible's wrong,"
Guess what. I already did a Biblical calibration. My first try was back in 2016 and my so far latest update was in May this year.
The Bible makes it absolutely clear it was a total devastation of the surface of the Earth, 36:55 and when we look at the geological record and look at the stunning depth of sedimentary rock deposits, 37:01 it's clear confirmation of a global watery catastrophe, exactly consistent with the Bible's record of Noah's flood. 37:09 So if you take that into account, there cannot possibly be anything to do with Egyptian history or artifacts before the flood.
For Egyptian, correct. They are not just above the ground, like pyramids, but even in continuity with clearly post-Flood events, like Abraham's visit to the pharao.
Since Neanderthals are found in caves, they already were off the surface of the earth (either in caves or in rock tombs to which the Flood then added caves) before the Flood. Them being pre-Flood does not contradict the Biblical account.
Nor does a pre-Babel spread of people, since the dispersion may simply have added disunity to an already existing spread.
