Under a Creationist Video on Carbon Dating

Under a Creationist Video on Carbon Dating · Dialogue under Same Video

I consider myself the main expert on this precise Creation Science Project, if not yet accepted as such by others. So, I keep up with others and see what they can contribute ...

C14 Dating - Christian Dating for Free ( CARBON DATING )
Trinity Vandenacre | 13.XII.2019
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MzpCEpVKg6M

I

0:19 When Flood of Noah happened, by adding together generations in Genesis 5 to get how long it was after Creation or in Genesis 11 to get how long it was before the birth of Abraham.

"When" that is in carbon dates ... depends on how much carbon 14 there was before the Flood, when the creatures buried in the Flood or on my view human races gone extinct in the Flood actually got their carbon from.

II

4:34 It slowly decays both in the dead animal and in the atmosphere. And in the live animal too.

It's just that in the live animal and in the atmosphere, you have factors replacing it.

Apart from that what you say so far doesn't seem to merit the consternation Viced Rhino expressed.

III

6:12 Every living animal does not have the same ratio, since some animals replace the carbon by sources of old carbon, like mussles and other shellfish, or even fish eating these.

The carbon 14 is always breaking down - in living organisms too - and this is why carbon that has gone through living organisms for 2 centuries or so, which can be the age of carbon in certain shell fish is indicated in its already ongoing breakdown of carbon 14. If you live exclusively on clams, one could carbon date your cut off finger nails to the Rococo ...

IV

8:02 In fact, C12 is not breaking down.

In carbon dating, you don't try to measure all the C14 and all the C12 in the entire atmosphere, you are measuring their proportion in vastly smaller samples.

Btw, any burning of fossil fuels with very much smaller amounts of C14 would tend to lower the C14 ratio to C12.

This means, when you carbon date the value "present ratio" is corrected to not reflect the effects of the Industrial Revolution.

V

10:20 Let's put it like this.

In a modern sample, C14 is supposed to be (I'm going with your value rather than checking for exactness) 1 in ONE trillion atoms of C12. In a sample that's supposed to be 5730 years old the C14 is supposed to be 1 in TWO trillion atoms of C12. In a sample that's supposed to be half as old as that, the C14 is supposed to be 1 in ONE POINT FOUR ONE FOUR trillions.

Somehow, modern samples and archaeology seem to be able to actually work out which is which.

10:39 A radioactive atom is not all that easy to miss.

VI

11:33 Yr yddwyf fi'n hoffi coffi.

A good lesson in Welsh to remember.

As far as I recall, it was not a question, but a statement but google translate is not agreeing (nor is it competent in meaning and language, really).

For statement, it gives "Rwy'n hoffi coffi" but as far as I can see that is just colloquial for "Yr yddwyf fi'n hoffi coffi."

Ah, this is more like what the question would be:

"Ydw i'n hoffi coffi?"

= leave out initial "yr".

VII

12:27 Half lives are not a method of measuring, they are derived from measures.

For instance, Libby had somehow determined the half life of C14 to 5568 years. It is 5730 years. How do we know? Because of measures in historically known objects.

A quarter of 5730 years is 1432 years. A half to the power of 1/4 is 84.09 %. And a quarter of 5568 years is 1392 years.

The reason we have 5730 and not 5568 years as the half life is, for instance, that 84.09 % of present ration C14:C12 is not found in objects from AD 628 but in objects from AD 588. This might be inexact as at any specific point of the past the atmospheric ratio may have been slightly above or below 100 pmC. But on average, the calibrations indicate that real halflife is not Libby's but what is called the Cambridge half life.

So, we only get a correct halflife by being able to measure the ratios in a sample.

VIII

13:15 The real problem with things supposed to be 5730 years old is, they arguably are from a time with considerably less C14 than now.

3710 BC is in pre-Flood times. Anything that old dates into tens of thousands of years, and what dates as 3710 BC is in fact from a time when - according to my tables Abraham was born. 2015 BC.

2013 BC dating as 3713 BC as per an original C14 ratio at 81.261 pmC.

This is one of the intermediate values, based on a value of Genesis 14 dating as 3200 BC when arguably I should have Genesis 14 dating as 3500 BC instead.


https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2019/08/scandinavian-stone-age-within-biblical.html

Referring back to:


https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2018/05/table-for-st-jerome-as-per-preliminary.html

IX

14:18 Assuming C14:C12 has been the same - well, confirmed by measures for recent centuries, I would think last 3000 years, from King David's time, with minor fluctuations.

B U T not confirmed by any history and infirmed by Biblical history if you date pre-dynastic Egypt to pre-Flood. So, pre-dynastic Egypt arguably had less C14:C12.

X

14:59 If a sniffer detects 0.236 pmC, meaning a carbon date of 50 000 years, I suppose it is measuring pre-Flood material that had perhaps 0.472 pmC or a bit more when living material.

That had 0.472 pmC or a bit less, I must correct myself, when there is less time since the thing was in a living organism, there must have been less of it for same amoount left, since there is a greater proportion left of what there was.

XI

16:26 Pretty well confirmed by recent C14 dates (like sth like last 3000 years).

Together they present both a stable and identic half life and a stable (for this period) C14 proportion to C12 (which is where the change is likelier to have come).

XII

16:50 You enumerated three separate "assumptions" for what is basically one: same ratio of C14:C12.

The main in-correctness in this would be changes in C14 if it built up faster in the past.

If Flood buried lots of C12, for instance, it meant it sped up the breakthrough of C14 being produced, but that happened once. Its reversal in industrial age seems to be so far marginal.

XIII

17:16 And carbon atoms in the caffeine too ... Yr yddwyf fi'n hoffi coffi and I think I am going to try to get some (don't know how you say that in Welsh).

XIV

18:12 Thank you very much for bringing up Armitage.

Not the only thing that can be said, but a very good point!

XV

19:44 About 5000 years ago ...

XVI

20:11 - 20:22 "if carbon dating is so easily messed up by contamination, that every time we measure anything that is supposed to not have carbon-14 in it, but does, it's actually contaminated"

Obviously, I do not believe contamination is that easy. The enemies of Armitage are more like desperate.

XVII

23:08 "the assumption that" C14 / C12 "has always stayed the same"

Very good point. Thing is, it should be possible to make some kind of table for how C14 was rising over Biblical / real years so that the later you go, the more accurate the C14 dates get.

I did several ones. They have one thing in common, except the contrasting one, namely, the C14 needs to have been over centuries or more than 1000 years after the Flood produced faster, up to 10 times faster, than it is produced now.

A higher amount of cosmic radiation would cause THAT and ICE AGE and MUTATIONS leading to shorter lifespans.

23:56 It is not really clear how volcanic eruptions and some more could damage the magnetic field.

On Heliocentric theory, it is supposed to exist thanks to iron core of earth rotating each day, and that would mean as long as days stayed the same, magnetic field would likely stay the same.

However, one can well imagine God putting the magnetic field on a weaker setting - how it is supposed to be formed is, to me, an untestable theory.

XVIII

26:11 As you mentioned wanting to do one for U-Pb, I have done one for K-Ar, if you are interested?