Why Evolutionary Dating Methods Are a Complete LIE
Answers in Genesis Canada | 1 March 2024
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oxkhKF6L4eg
44,000 to 45,000 years old wood?
Sounds like my calibration is confirmed.
The wood was obviously pre-Flood, is obviously stuck on mud from the Flood. But in my calibration, back in 2958 BC, the year of the Flood, the carbon 14 level was a bit higher than 1.6 pmC, meaning the Flood year crops would date to 39 000 BP. So, I'm not suprised that the carbon date is a bit older than that.
1:06 Carbon 14 has a pretty good track record for recent centuries, like the last 3000 years and some more.
6:01 If I do believe carbon dating can be calibrated validly, it's because:
1) what we measure is different, it's a ratio, we never dealt with a lump of 100 % carbon 14 in the first place
2) the atmosphere being fluid tends to equalise the proportion over short time, meaning "the height of the candle" tends to be equal for samples from the same age
3) the exceptions to this (reservoir effect and bomb effect) need certain physical things to be present (diet of fish, water supply with old carbon in calceous rock, remains of whatever exploded in a radioactive way)
4) the uncertainties kind of cancel out.
Showing what the last means is like this. For 1179 BC, when Troy fell, excavations at Troy (Hisarlık) reveal a carbon date close enough to 1180 BC.
This is of course possible (my main theory) if C-14 decays at 5730 years' halflife and samples started out with 100 pmC. But supposing the halflife were 11 460 years instead, it would work out just fine, provided the initial amount was 80 pmC instead. However, I think there are recent samples that allow to exlude the idea of a halflife twice as long.
7:03 I don't think Nitrogen 14 atoms in samples are even used in carbon dating.
There are samples from 1950, they are accepted as dating as if 200 years old (due to fluctuation in Industrial Revolution, and the samples from two hundred years before that, from 1750, actually date as 1950, meaning the carbon 14 level was a bit high.
The measure is not of parent element to daughter element, but parent isotope to the non-radioactive isotope. So, carbon 14 to carbon 12.
Accelerator mass spectrometry (AMS) is a modern radiocarbon dating method that is considered to be the more efficient way to measure radiocarbon content of a sample. In this method, the carbon 14 content is directly measured relative to the carbon 12 and carbon 13 present. The method does not count beta particles but the number of carbon atoms present in the sample and the proportion of the isotopes.
This is from the presentation of Beta Analytic, who unlike me actually do carbon dating.
Since carbon 13 is also a small amount, this basically means carbon 14 to carbon 12. Now, I must admit, I do not know how carbon 13 enters the game. One reading would be:
Carbon 13 + Carbon 12 = Carbon non-14. One measures Carbon 14 in relation to Carbon non-14 (most of which is Carbon 12).
So, a daughter element of Nitrogen 14 (if that is the case, when small I heard or thought I heard Carbon 14 decayed to Carbon 12) is not measured. This is a unique feature among radiometric dating methods. I don't think it's a bug. Nitrogen 14 could (if that's the daughter element) come from atmospheric Nitrogen that never became Carbon 14. Most Carbon 12 (and vastly so, and if this is the actual daughter element) would be the Carbon 12 that God created probably at Genesis 1:1.
7:43 Does this refute my calibration?
Marlstone Rock Formation
Thickness 10 metres (33 ft)
A thickness of 10 metres could actually be accounted for by post-Flood landslides.
So, 20 000 years old, 18 000 BC, this would mean the real date is between 2725 BC and 2712 BC, respectively dated as 18,786 BC and as 17,081 BC. Around 240 years after the Flood.
No, I don't think this refutes my calibration.
8:40 No, the "impossible dates" don't show that C-14 is very unreliable, because they are only impossible to the Evolutionist.
The explanation of "bomb effect" / "contamination" is only needed by the Evolutionist.
To a YEC, the C-14 dates are perfectly possible and don't discredit the method as such, if one only makes a Biblical calibration for it. Which I did.
My interpretation of Biblical chronology isn't mine own, I simply use the chronology of the Christmas proclamation.
5199 after Creation, 2957 after the Flood, 2015 after the Birth of Abraham, 1511 after the Exodus, formerly also stated 1179 after the Fall of Troy, 1032 after the anointing of King David ... and a few more, Christ was born, angels greeted Him. This is what Catholic priests have been reciting up to Vatican II (or perhaps a bit longer) and what Traditional priests still recite, in the context of the Midnight Mass.
If we are 7200 + after Creation, the original amount of C-14 should be reduced to 41.855 % of the original amount. If we are 5000 + after the Flood, the original amount of C-14 should be reduced to 43.63 %, assuming the halflife of 5730 years is correct. Carbon 14 should be detectable, unless it was completely undetectable to start with.
So, if at the Flood, the carbon 14 level would have dated fresh things to 34 000 years old, most places in the world, the remaining level would date the things from the Flood to 39 000 years old.
9:28 My recalibration very much does NOT say that.
The starting ratio "1 in a trillion" (if that's the correct value) is technically also known as 100 pmC. This had never been the starting ratio for things prior to the Fall of Troy. That event is the first event for which we have archaeological evidence and historic evidence completely agreeing with the carbon dated archaeology. Prior to that, the Fall of Jericho is dated to 80 years before it really happened. If God used the Santorini or Thera eruption to provide some material for the Ten Plagues, the Exodus is dated to about a century before it happened.
Btw, sorry, 1510 after the Exodus, the Exodus was in 1511 BC, because Jesus is born in 1 BC, while 1 AD starts with His circumcision (provided that Denis the Short got the date correct).
So, the modern typical ratio, corrected for pre-Industrial values, is technically also known as 100 pmC.
At the Hallstatt plateau, when it starts in 750 BC, the carbon date is 550 BC (which has led archaeologists carbon dating too early to assume the founding of Rome was "mythical" in the popular sense). This means, the level was then higher than 100 pmC. That's outside my calibration, that's accepted standard calibration, which I just gratefully note. But it was not much higher than 100 pmC, 101 or 102 pmC or so. At the end of the Hallstatt plateau, when it ends in 450 BC, it still carbon dates to 550 BC. The level is about as low as at the Exodus. But these are vaccillations since the "100 pmC point" which I place at 1179 BC or Fall of Troy.
11:21 Two questions:
1) you showed a diagramme for Carbon 14, but was it included in the article?
It's partly behind a paywall, so I don't know.
2) His method involves a freezing to zero [0° K, not F or C) ... are there cases in which this could have massively happened to Carbon 14 during the actual history of Earth as opposed to his lab experiment?
13:19 A Biblical creationist need not say both weren't working, he's fine with saying the carbon date uses the wrong calibration.
Ask me. I'm a Biblical creationist, and I say the carbon date is working just fine once you recalibrate:
44 000 YA > 39 000 YA
45 000 YA > 39 000 YA
> 39 000 YA carbon =
> 5000 YA Biblical
so, some time before the Flood. If you bathe your babies, what happens when you throw out the bathwater?
15:06 None of the Carlsbad Cave dates were less than 70 000 years, so none of them was carbon 14.
Not a debunker of carbon 14. To paint a picture of a total carbon 14 debunking YEC or Biblical Creationist, there was an oil painting from a modern course in oil paintings that carbon dated to 10 000 years old. Obviously the painting was NOT that old, so the method is bogus ... not so fast, acrylic paint (which is used in oil paintings along genuine oil paint) actually does contain old carbon, mostly from the Flood, extracted in the form of petrol. So, that's not a debunking of the method. Certain white pigments would also involve old carbon.
15:47 I actually am trusting the Bible from Genesis 1:1 to Apocalypse 22:21. All 73 books, and Daniel 3 including the song of the 3 young men.
Most of my anchor points for calibration are from Biblical events in a specific Biblical chronology, not the most typical edition of the LXX, but still a Biblical text.
How Genesis 11:3 fits into Göbekli Tepe is a conundrum, since we don't find things that are obvious bricks and bitumen, but there are ways to solve that.
a) If they were rooftiles, and 2563. chomer has more translations than mortar, the roofs could have been destroyed in fires or in a fire, especially if 2564. chemar was actual bitumen for making the roof water tight, since that's inflammable
b) 3843. lebenah and 2564. chemar could refer to other substances than ceramic bricks and bitumen and involve for instance stomped clay with burned chalk skeleta (objects of chalk have been found in the Tashtepeler area)
c) the bricks could be missing for some other reason, or be partially found in the Jericho of the time (yes, they had pavements involving ceramic bricks in Neolithic Jericho). After all, the "bricks" decision was independent of the "city and tower" decision.
The "tower the top of which might reach to heaven" was a rocket project which never got even to take-off. God interrupted it so that Wernher von Braun could have a go 4500 years later with better technology and understanding than Nimrod had.
Notice, there is no "lest" in the verse 11:7. Unlike 3:22 which has 6435. pen. The only 6435. pen in Genesis 11 is in the words of the ones deciding.
And the story doesn't necessarily begin with 11:1, that could be the end of the Table of Nations, and even if it were, the 3rd masculine plural of bə·nā·sə·‘ām (11:2) does not obviously grammatically refer back to kol ha eretz — we have no direct affirmation that the Babel builders were all of humanity. I think they were a certain international élite. The "lest we be scattered" isn't about the spread of mankind, it's about each regional leader staying too much with his people and getting too few contacts with the other ones, which would led to them scattering away from each other and out among their subjects.
UPDATE, debate, starting with two comments by Micamex, one by myself to the second of them:
- Micamex
- @2killnspray9
- American Protestants are a shame to all Christians...with their Young Earth creationist bullshit.
- Micamex
- Why protestants in this country are so often anti-science hardcore conspiracy theorists like this? And reading the Bible literally? Yes there are issues with carbon 14, but that's not eveen the only method used to mesure the age of something. And it is absolutely obvious that eart is way older than 6000 years old. How can someone believe this crap ??? Even the pyramids, the maya etc dates aat least from -4500 BCE that's already 6500 years old. Carbon 14 can measure until 55,000 years old with a 100 year precision and up to 100,000 before not being detectable. So we know that earth, even just with this method, is already minimum 100,000 years old.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- @hglundahl
- "conspiracy theorists"
I didn't see any conspiracy theory peddled in this video.
"Even the pyramids, the maya etc dates aat least from -4500 BCE"
Citing wiki:
The Maya are a people of southern Mexico and northern Central America (Guatemala, Belize, western Honduras, and El Salvador).[6] Archaeological evidence shows that by the Preclassic Maya (1000 B.C., approximately 3,000 years ago) they were building pyramidal-plaza ceremonial architecture.
I suppose you meant the pyramid like structures in Niger:
Preceded by assumed earlier sites in the Eastern Sahara, tumuli with megalithic monuments developed as early as 4700 BCE in the Saharan region of Niger.
Citing my tables:
- 2143 BC
- 72.688 pmC, dated as 4780 BC
- 2120 BC
- 73.82 pmC, dated as 4629 BC
So, the pyramids of Niger are in fact from between 2143 and 2120 BC, after Nahor was born but before Reu died.
No comments:
Post a Comment