Ice Age after Flood, Carbon 14 and U-Pb

I kind of fail proving my point on the latter, but here is the debate:

Q

Did Noah’s flood provide the perfect temperature for the ice age to occur? Is that because the temperatures on the planet were immediately cooled all over the world as compared to the warmer conditions before the flood?
https://www.quora.com/Did-Noah-s-flood-provide-the-perfect-temperature-for-the-ice-age-to-occur-Is-that-because-the-temperatures-on-the-planet-were-immediately-cooled-all-over-the-world-as-compared-to-the-warmer-conditions-before-the/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl-1

Answer requested by

Marc Bloemers

Hans-Georg Lundahl

amateur reader of it

Answered Apr 20

Two parts to my answer:

• 1. On CMI, it is more like the immediate result of the Flood would have been a lots warmer climate, leading to more precipitation, leading to the Ice Age. Ask Oard about this.
• 2. I have an added mechanism, namely the same higher radioactivity from space which shortened lifespans and lifted the Carbon 14 ratio by a faster production than now or than after the Ice Age (in and after Babel) led to ionising particles which are known to cool down the weather too.

I

Nick James

Apr 21

Amateur reader or amateur fantacist? Your science is entirely made up.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Apr 21

For the CMI theory on it, you tell that to Michael Oard:

Ice Age Mystery Solved!

“Michael has a B.S. and M.S. degree in atmospheric science from the University of Washington. He was a research meteorologist for 6 years at the University of Washington.”

Michael Oard - creation.com

For my own contribution to the mix, here is ionising particles:

… seems my source has, for the moment, at least, been mislaid … sorry.

Nick James

Apr 21

Oard is not that impressively credentialled, only having an MSc. Even more, I can not give any credit to a ‘scientist’ that posts on creation.com. The motivations of that site are entirely to promote a particularly unbelievable version of religion. Everything is twisted around proving the Earth is 6006 years old, despite there being zero support for that in real science. Real science, the one that uses ‘evidence’ and ‘testing’.

There are other, entirely satisfactory, explanations for the various ice ages and the ends of them.

Your point 2 is very dubious. There is no evidence to support that, no matter how well you write it. There is zero chance that Noah was 900 years old - the human body has evolved to only support about 120 years, max. As you know, evolution takes millions of years and there are no hints this has happened. Further, there is zero geological, biological, hydrological or meteorological evidence supporting a global flood. There are also several record-keeping civilisations that did not notice a global flood. Ever.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Apr 21

“Even more, I can not give any credit to a ‘scientist’ that posts on Creation | Creation Ministries International.”

Oh dear, that shows some bias on your part.

“The motivations of that site”

Do not change the quality of the papers given. Something which you seem to be unaware of.

“are entirely to promote”

To promote with good science, actually.

“a particularly unbelievable version of religion”

I don’t find it “particularly unbelievable.” I also don’t find evolutionary theism another version of religion, I find it another religion.

“ Everything is twisted around proving the Earth is 6006 years old, despite there being zero support for that in real science. Real science, the one that uses ‘evidence’ and ‘testing’.”

In history, real evidence is texts from the past.

And when you say “everything is twisted” you imply that the kind of theories you are better familiar with are a given, a basic, like water being wet, that 6006 years (though I haven’t seen that figure) is somehow counterintuitive like the sea being yellow. That is not a fact, just because there is some evidence and some testing that can seem to support the other view.

“There are other, entirely satisfactory, explanations for the various ice ages and the ends of them.”

If there were more and if they had the kind of explanations you imply they would be insatisfactory, due to the conflict with the 4000 - c. 5500 years of maximum time span before Christ.

“ There is zero chance that Noah was 900 years old - the human body has evolved to only support about 120 years, max.”

By now, yes. If you read through what I have to say, that is due, mainly, to the higher radioactivity right after the Flood up to Babel, and even afterwards, leading on the one hand to an ice age, and then to rapid rise of carbon 14 levels, but intended to precisely shorten the life spans. A human body now is at 120 or even 90 about as worn down as it was at 950 for Noah. Our genes are worse due to this.

“As you know, evolution takes millions of years”

• No, I don’t know it, I know it is a claim on your part and you have not substantiated it to my satisfaction;
• The thing supposed to take millions of years involves added functionalities;
• The thing needed here would be a degradation of some (mainly repair) functionalities. It takes one mutation to degrade a function, like all men are born with a usually intact gene for lactase production, but with exactly one mutation, the other gene or part of this gene which says to cut that production is non-functional, and those with the mutation continue (thanks to the intact, non-mutated part) to produce lactase up to old age.

“and there are no hints this has happened.”

None that you bothered to look up.

“Further, there is zero geological, biological, hydrological or meteorological evidence supporting a global flood.”

Tons of sediment is geological evidence supporting the flood. Survival of part only of the Neanderthal and Denisovan genomes and apparently none of Homo erectus is biological evidence for the kind of bottleneck the Ark would constitute. For the other two, elaborate.

“There are also several record-keeping civilisations that did not notice a global flood. Ever.”

How good records do you suppose you have from non-Hebrew civilisations that on the usual chronology are supposed to collide with the Flood?

Nick James

Apr 21

Do you actually know any science or have you simply swallowed creationism hook, line and sinker?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Apr 21

I have been reading science on an amateur level on and off since even before I was a Christian.

There was actually a time when I took Big Bang, multicentrism (i e Heliocentrism for our solar system), development of Sun and planets from a disc of rotating gas, abiogenesis, microbes to macrofauna, ape to man, for “science”. And I know about as much as was available to a young boy in books sometimes intended for older persons than himself.

If you mean by swallowing creationism hook line and sinker accepting it without reserves, yes, I do, and so do you for the opposite paradigm. You very much do not want scientific considerations, unless they favour your paradigm. You read my link so sloppily that you thought it led to only one other page, when it led to two. And still does.

Arno Kleber*

Apr 25

Yeah, the amateur level really shows🤣🤣😉

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Apr 26

Thank you!
I’d not like anyone to think I was bored!

*Arno Kleber =

University Professor, Physical Geography 1999–present
Habilitation Doctorate in Paleoclimatology & Soil Science (pedology), University of Bayreuth Graduated 1993

In the international Quora, I mainly deal with the geoscientific (e.g. geologic column, fossil record) and physical (radiometric numerical dating) aspects of creationism mainly seen from my posts in the space evolution and creationism. My personal background in evolutionism (ie evolutionary biology) does not go very deep: I once gave a lecture in Geography of Vegetation because the original teacher unexpectedly left the university and I found no substitute in time, though this recruiting was my task as vice dean. Though, after reading much literature, learning from other Quorans, and based on my general expertise from 40 years of addictive research and teaching, I think I'm able to make some educated notions on the fact and the theory of evolution.

In the German Quora, my main topic is climate change, and I have also written a popular book on this with Springer (due in April 2022). In addition, the administration of spaces on Geology and paleoclimate is another task.

Remember this, he'll be back.

II

Nick James

Apr 21

Thanks for that. The critical line in that paper is ‘However, it turns out that none of these hypotheticals are occurring in reality…’

It is true there is a slight effect on cloud formation by cosmic rays, but their levels are not high enough to make much difference. They may vary somewhat by solar or Earth magnetic field fluctuations, but these are not large.

There is the slight problem that if the water had, as claimed, arrived from ‘the heavens’, it would have heated the surface of the planet past boiling point. Not good.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Apr 21

“in that paper”

In fact, the two quotes are from two papers. Tell me from which paper? When I found a reference gone, I had to find one again quickly, found two and didn’t read all through.

“There is the slight problem that if the water had, as claimed, arrived from ‘the heavens’, it would have heated the surface of the planet past boiling point. Not good.”

First, there is no indication how much came from start from the heavens compared to what came from the fountains of the deep.

Second, the boiling point is a temperature. If you get heat to a kettle of water to its boiling point, you raise the temperature to the boiling point. But if you add more heat, there will not be an even hotter water, there will only be more that boils off, while the remainder is still stuck at 100° C. There have recently been a video by a Dutch engineer and by some others answering the “heat problem”.

Nick James

Apr 21

The single link you provided led to a page full of text. The item I quoted came from that page of text.

I believe the reference is to the amount of energy this water would deliver to the surface of the Earth. If you continue heating water, what happens? Steam. If you add more energy, what happens? Any other water is turned to steam. If you add more energy, it gets hotter and hotter. The boiling point is simply the maximum temperature for liquid water at normal pressure. Steam, you can heat it to about 3,000K and it will start to split up to hydrogen and oxygen. At 3,500K most of it has split,

I have no idea what your “Dutch engineer” is talking about or what “heat problem” they are addressing..

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Apr 21

“The single link you provided led to a page full of text.”

No, it led to TWO of them, and I am asking WHICH ONE. There were two links on it, with two quotes.

The Dutch engineer and others have been answering precisely that kind of points. Heat can move by:

• radiation
• convection
• conduction

And this means that it can not just move into the water, but also out of the water.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Apr 25

My bad, by the way.

I had had a knock on the head the week before answering. Here is the full sentence which was in my second quote:

However, it turns out that none of these hypotheticals are occurring in reality, and if cosmic rays were able to influence global temperatures, they would be having a cooling effect.

In other words, it’s not the cooling effect that’s denied, but the warming one (“none of these” referring to causality scenario within “warming” effect).

III

Nick James

Apr 21

Amateur reader or amateur fantacist? Your science is entirely made up.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Apr 21

As said, I was missing the reference, I now made a new post linking to two references for radioactivity -> more clouds and colder weather:

Radioactivity and cloud cover - two quotes

Arno Kleber

Apr 23

The size of the effect of cosmic rays on temperature has been withdrawn by the original author of this idea and explicitly quantified as “tiny”: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-017-02082-2

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Apr 23

Ah, thank you … but what if the cosmic rays were more numerous, like giving 10 times as fast a production of C14 as now?

Arno Kleber

Apr 23

This hasn't happened during the last 40,000 years. I would not trust remarkably older ages if they were derived from radiocarbon or at least radiocarbon alone.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Apr 25

That presupposes that the carbon age “40,000 years” corresponds to a real date 40,000 years ago.

I would say 40,000 carbon years are in fact 5000 years ago, in 2957 BC, that being the year of the Flood, and the atmospheric level being 1.4 pmC.

Up to Babel, starting 350 years later after Noah died, carbon 14 rose c. 10 times as fast as now, and this is the ice age with the younger dryas. By 2607 BC, carbon 14 had reached c. 43 pmC, and the carbon date for then is 9600 BC / “12 000 years ago”.

Arno Kleber

Apr 25

I am talking about calibrated ages, of course, according to the standard calibration curve:

Source: INTCAL13

There are so many more dating methods beyond radiocarbon which support, allow calibrating, or supplement the established datings. Btw, the ice age consisted of 51 glacials with the waxing and waning of huge glacier bodies - no chance to fit them into your time frame.

Where have you got your adventurous dates from? Are you dating yourself and with which lab (I am in the dating business, so it’s interesting for me which lab fabricates such data).

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Apr 26

I use dates published and confer them with Biblical event related objects so dated. I am not running a lab, I am reinterpreting what labs present. Or whatever is available of that on the web, for instance an internet article stating La Ferassie 1 or 2 or El Sidrón being 40 000 years old, since that would be when the Flood was, unless you find Neanderthal body parts (not Neanderthal style tools) from more recent times.

The standard calibration curve is based mostly on what methods prior to written history?

Because tree rings like the other (usually) lignine based (written) calibration facility tend to get scarcer and more fragmentary, the further back you go. Unlike very old manuscripts, they are also not copied before getting lost by deliberate literal reproduction of what they say. And for other radioactive methods - how much Pb was there in that sample? How do you confirm with written history that the halflife is right? With C14 there is a non-trivial discrepancy between what Libby found by lab experiments and the Cambridge halflife. The latter is there because one could confer - significant fractions of 5730 years are within written memory.

Arno Kleber

Apr 27

I start at the end. Libby’s (1949) half-life was 5720 ±47 years, which is very close to the current 5,730 ±40. His original data were revised after measurements by Engelkemeir et al. (1949) to 5568 ±30 years. Since the early 1960s we know that Libby’s value was much closer to reality. However, for uncalibrated age designations, we still use that wrong value to keep the dates comparable to the old ones. Since we quite exactly know the error, we could correct this easily, but since everyone publishes the calibrated dates alongside, not only this error but that coming from the twiggling production rates can be eliminated.

This leads me to your question regarding dendrochronology and how the calibration is derived beyond this. The former now reaches back 13,900 cal BP (BP means before 1950). The dendro data I am aware of are the German one (uninterrupted 12 411 yr.) and the one that was used for the first calibration attempts, the Bristlecone Pine (Pinus longaeva) chronology, which reaches back for more than 9000 yr, with several living trees from different areas having ages of around 5000 yr.
For the older part of the timescale, the current calibration attempt IntCal20 comprises statistically integrated evidence from floating tree-ring chronologies, lacustrine (mainly annually layered varves) sediments, speleothems, and corals, the latter two dated by U-Th disequilibrium dating, a very trustworthy method for these types of material, and electron-spin resonance dating. Another tool based on fully different physics are stable cosmogenic nuclides.
Further reading: The IntCal20 Northern Hemisphere Radiocarbon Age Calibration Curve (0–55 cal kBP)
Marine20—The Marine Radiocarbon Age Calibration Curve (0–55,000 cal BP).

Regarding your question “how much Pb was there in that sample?” The presence of any primordial or later contamination can be measured in the case of U-Pb dating, because in a non-discriminating environment (such as the crystallization of a zircon mineral from a melt), lead is always accompanied by non-radiogenic ²⁰⁴Pb.
Later loss of lead is easily detected as it always induces discordance between the two independent clocks used for U-Pb dating. If it is about Pb-Pb dating, as it is used for not discriminating material such as meteorites, the content of ²⁰⁴Pb remains constant over time, whereas the radiogenic isotopes accumulate; therefore, the ages get more and more trustworthy, the older a specimen is.

“How do you confirm with written history that the halflife is right?” Since the bible clearly states the half-lifes of uranium, us Christians know for sure…
No, kidding aside. I have something better than man-written history: the four forces known in Physics (yE creationism clashes with Physics) and the fact that nuclear power plants and bombs, which heavily rely on ²³⁵U half-life, do work.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Apr 27

“This leads me to your question regarding dendrochronology and how the calibration is derived beyond this.”

I wasn’t asking about dendro. I was asking if you were referring to dendro.

Cambridge, Minze Stuiver and the colleague gave a C14 calibration reaching back 6000 years based on dendro. I count more recent half believeable, but even so there may be circularity between C14 and dendro before 2000 years back. However, Rome in 753 dated as 550 BC confirms their calibration, since all dates from 760 to 450 do date around 550 BC. This breaks the circle. No such luck for “13 000 BP”.

“because in a non-discriminating environment (such as the crystallization of a zircon mineral from a melt), lead is always accompanied by non-radiogenic ²⁰⁴Pb.”

Assumption … however, I am not at all positive that the proportions are always the same in lead apart from this, and I am not at all positive either that all the situations you base it on are non-discriminating. That is a question I largely leave to the RATE project.

“Since the bible clearly states the half-lifes of uranium, us Christians know for sure…”

No, but the US history clearly states the date of the ink on the US constitution. Or the leather (with a few years back in time for the beast to live first) of a boot on a soldier skeleton of Ghettysburg. Medieval history says when the coffin of St. Louis IX should be from, or when his bones should be from, should they carbon date that, and that’s also a confirmation.

There you have written history confirming the age of carbon dated things. And this good documentation basically goes back to the days of Christ and a bit more. That’s exactly why I do believe the Cambridge calibration by Stuiver : since 750 ought to date as 550, and oldest layer of Rome as a city has that precise date.

“I have something better than man-written history: the four forces known in Physics”

Idiocy. Unless you can very clearly document that Libby’s original result was what you said and 5568 was a revision. But even if you can, it’s still hazardous, for the reason stated. You can’t check it against history, with halflives into billions of years, you can’t check anything by dating from Ghettysburg.

Back to carbon, I am as said trusting Minze Stuiver at al about three thousand years back and ancient historical sources (Greek for Troy and Biblical) beyond that.

Arno Kleber

Apr 27

No assumption at all, just Physics and Mineralogy - all well lab-tested. What you are positive to or not is not really relevant as soon as you cannot provide evidence. Fun fact: the oldest zircon yet dated is absolutely free of ²⁰⁴Pb, excluding any contamination.

You may read about the original Libby constant even in Wikipedia, but it is irrelevant as we have calibration, as a side eliminating errors from different half-life estimates. And if I read your eloquent passages about history and dating correctly, you do not challenge dendro. So I don’t get your point, giving back the nice idiocy word.

Which reason have you stated that which of my statements is hazardous? What do you mean with hazardous?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Thu 28.IV.2022

“What you are positive to or not is not really relevant as soon as you cannot provide evidence.”

What you pretend is hardly relevant as long as you don’t present evidence. That the isotope 204 is not a product of decay may be physics, but that all other isotopes always are products of decay is not physics, it’s an assumption.

“but it is irrelevant as we have calibration”

My precise point is that calibration from known history is possible for C14 and impossible for U-Pb. And, up to your claim, that calibration was necessary to get the correct halflife. If you say the info on Libby’s first calculation being close to now accepted halflife is now on the wikipedia, that would then have been added after I consulted it. I will pay heed to the reference given.

After checking:

The half-life of carbon-14 is 5,730±40 years.[27] Libby realized that when plants and animals die they cease to ingest fresh carbon-14, thereby giving any organic compound a built-in nuclear clock.[26] He published his theory in 1946,[28][29] and expanded on it in his monograph Radiocarbon Dating in 1955. He also developed sensitive radiation detectors that could use the technique. Tests against sequoia with known dates from their tree rings showed radiocarbon dating to be reliable and accurate. The technique revolutionised archaeology, palaeontology and other disciplines that dealt with ancient artefacts.[4] In 1960, he was awarded the Nobel Prize in Chemistry "for his method to use carbon-14 for age determination in archaeology, geology, geophysics, and other branches of science".[30] He also discovered that tritium similarly could be used for dating water, and therefore wine.[26]

Willard Libby - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Willard_Libby#Radiocarbon_dating

Simply right now no reference at all to “his” (according to you) “original value,” any more than to his pre-Cambridge (possibly really original) value of 5568.

Arno Kleber

Thu 28.IV.2022

Yeah, this seems difficult to understand: If there is no ²⁰⁴Pb present, there is no primordial or later contamination with lead, then all lead is radiogenic. If there is noteworthy ²⁰⁴Pb, then the dating gets more accurate the older a specimen is, because the contamination remains constant whereas the radiogenic isotopes enrich with time.

Who came up with the crazy idea to calibrate U-Pb, the method used, e.g., to determine the age of the oldest minerals on Earth, with historical data, given that uranium half lives are orders larger than humans even exist?
Half-lives are measured in laboratories, they do not need calibration with less accurate historical data. (The calibration of radiocarbon dates is needed because of the varying cosmogenic production rate, not because of not knowing the ¹⁴C half-life.)

Thanks for the (almost) confirmation of Libby’s original value published in 1949: https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.110.2869.678
He or his group didn’t measure themselves, but referred to measurements in The Half-Life of Radiocarbon (C¹⁴).

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Fri 29.IV.2022

If there is no ²⁰⁴Pb present, there is no primordial or later contamination with lead, then all lead is radiogenic.

Sounds like an assumption.

“Who came up with the crazy idea to calibrate U-Pb, the method used, e.g., to determine the age of the oldest minerals on Earth, with historical data, given that uranium half lives are orders larger than humans even exist?”

Myself. Given the change from 5568 to 5730 from calibration.

Your first link says “check with samples of known age,” exactly my principle. Using in my case Bible for known age of certain older carbon dates, and in your case nothing for known age of long half life samples.

Your second link says “Some of the problems of absolute O2C14 has been found to be 5720±47 years by means of the use of mass spectrometrically analyzed” - oh, there were problems?

If it changed from 5720 to 5730, it’s less of a change than 5568 to 5730, but still a change. And between them a previous change down to 5568, using an application of my principle of checking with samples of known age.

Arno Kleber

Fri 29.IV.2022

“Sounds like an assumption” no it's an observed fact.

“checking with samples of known age” is exactly what calibration does.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Sat 30.IV.2022

• 1. It depends on how you classify observations. “All swans are white” can stand, if all black swans observed are pretended to be not swans. And if all isotopes of lead except 204 are supposed to be radiogenic, and no non-radiogenic lead lacking 204 to exist.
• 2. Yes, that’s the exact reason you and I have different calibrations on carbon 14, since we disagree on what constitutes “known age” and why neither of us has a calibration in U-Pb and why I think this has a need to be pointed out.

Arno Kleber

Sat 30.IV.2022

Its that simple: Yet, no magma has ever been measured to be free of ²⁰⁴Pb. Even if one exists, this would 1) corrupt a single rock unit, but all other U/Pb ages would remain rock solid, and 2) a significant contamination would shift the two ages away from one another (aka discordance), so it would easily be detected that there is disequilibrium. We daters usually do not base important conclusions on discordant ages.

U-Pb does not need calibration, whereas radiocarbon does, because the daughter products are stable and because, therefore, the primary relationship of the uranium isotopes does not play a role for the age determination, which (beyond about a billion years) relies on the relationship of the two pertinent lead isotopes alone.
So, for instance Ar/Ar (which also needs calibration) could be calibrated using U/Pb.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Sat 30.IV.2022

“Yet, no magma has ever been measured to be free of ²⁰⁴Pb.”

Since a vulcanology that’s fairly recent, right?

“would shift the two ages away from one another (aka discordance),”

This is above my head, I’ll admit it, I have some confidence in Tas Walker not simply rambling:

Do creationists cherry-pick discordant dates?

Like U/Pb, Ar/Ar is no doubt not calibrated by historically known dates (like dates known from written or oral traditions with a bearing on chronology and a probable reliability).

Arno Kleber

Sat 30.IV.2022

The Herculaneum & Pompeii eruption for instance has been Ar/Ar dated, just one example.

We have solidified magma that is more than 3 billion years old, if this is recent for you, then ok.

I have often debunked the argument in your link. I will seek one of my posts as I'm back at my computer.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Sun 1.V.2022

And a few other volcanos have Argon dates that are way off.

I highly doubt that the margin error on Pompeii eruption was so close that one can consider this a valid calibration.

“We have solidified magma that is more than 3 billion years old, if this is recent for you, then ok.”

You have solidified magma that you suppose 3 billion years old.

Suppose a supply of that precise isotope (204) started to dominate lead supply by volcanism back in the flood, but not all of the lead from then were from that supply, to mention one scenario off the cuff?

Looking forward to your link.

Arno Kleber

Sun 1.V.2022

The 2σ of the Pompeii datings were 80±66 AD determined in 2004, and ±7 determined in 2011.

Yes, “a few other volcanos have Argon dates that are way off”, is true. I had to cope with such material in the Jemez Mtns., New Mexico. However, they found the failure of the mica minerals used for dating, found a workaround, and their current dates are in full agreement to our U-Pb dates (with the expected difference due to the different mineral-closure times): Capability of U-Pb dating of zircons from Quaternary tephra: Jemez Mountains, NM, and La Sal Mountains, UT, USA. However, the main part of your phrase is a few. This does not compromise all other dates.

We “have solidified magma that” we do not “suppose 3 billion years old”, but we know they are more than 3 gyr old, among them the oldest one I have dated myself, which did not contain non-radiogenic lead and the two decay clocks yielded concordant ages.

Your phrase “Suppose a supply …” does not appear to make any sense. Can you explain?

It will take some time until I get to my computer. So I respond off the cuff to Do creationists cherry-pick discordant dates?
“No, it is not cherry picking. Those sorts of results [discordant ones] are normal, but you would not know that by the way the results are presented in the literature” may be true for some old literature (“a real-life example that played out in the scientific literature over half a decade or more”). Since quite some time we are urged to always present the entire set of analyses, or we cannot publish such results, we would get rejected in the review process. Typically people are not aware of these data because they are in so-called “supplementary material”, just because the length of the tables would exceed the permissible extent of a paper given by most journals.
“The point is that you need to know the initial conditions of the parameters you are measuring, and what happened to them all along the way” is wrong regarding U-Pb dating, because there are two independent clocks and, therefore, the measurement of lead isotopes alone (we also measure uranium as a routine, of course, though not needed) is absolutely sufficient to arrive at an age. We have nothing to assume, only three lead isotopes need to be measured.
“creationists examine the raw dates and show that they conflict with what they should be” is asinine, because discordant dates (disagreement of the two independent U-Pb clocks) are obviously compromised.
I do not comment much on the personal experience report of the author, who either had a incompetent advisor at university, who was not able to advice the MO how age data need to be interpreted, or he lied about or forgot what his teacher really told him.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Mon 2.V.2022

With your fairly low opinion about him, you have given me a better clue about your bias than with the actual arguments.

As said, when we get outside carbon dating, and into this, the matter is somewhat above my head.

Arno Kleber

Mon 2.V.2022

Who do you mean with “him”?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Mon 2.V.2022

This Do creationists cherry-pick discordant dates? has for author : Dr Tas Walker - creation.com.

Arno Kleber

Mon 2.V.2022

How high do you rate the opinion of a layman pretending expertise?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Tue 3.V.2022

Inventio Crucis

I don’t know if you are a layman, I think you said you weren’t, I know for one thing, there is such a thing as amateur expertise, I consider that as my case, and for another, Tas Walker is in fact B.Sc. (Earth Science with first class honours) and therefore he’s not even a layman - other than the original sense : he’s not a Catholic (or Orthodox) priest.

I'll now supplement my relative failure by contacting (or trying to contact) Tas Walker.

While he has so far not answered, here is an update from the thread:

Arno Kleber

Tue 3.V.2022

Inventio Crucis

Sorry, but with a mere Bachelor degree - a degree almost everybody has - a person still is a layperson. One starts becoming an expert either when half the way through to a PhD in a (usually limited) field of science, or during professional work in a relevant position. So, let’s look whether Walker’s professional work could have substituted a pertinent PhD and make him an expert in numerical dating: “He has been involved in the planning, design and operation of power stations for over 20 years with the electricity industry in Queensland, Australia. He has conducted geological assessments of new fuel supplies for power stations across Queensland and has been involved with new mining proposals, including the effects of geological factors on the cost, reliability and quality of the coal produced.
Tas has also been involved in the planning of a large hydro-electric development which required evaluation of geological conditions and their effect on dams, water reservoirs and underground power station structures.” Not a single hint to dating experience - he’s a layperson in this field. This is evident from the text which you cited as well - It teems with faults.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Wed 4.V.2022

For now, he’s the best I have.

Once Kent Hovind was the best I had for carbon dating.

I was challenged on a problem of radioactivity in connexion with the needed much higher production of C14 to account for 2957 BC dated as 20 000 - 50 000 BP (now narrowed down to 40 000 BP, dinos dating 20 000 are either from post-Flood land slides or in Morrisson, the C12 - > C14 process was triggered by Uranium).

I spent about a month until I had a decent solution, which I have improved since.

First try : Datation de Carbone 14, comment ça carre avec la Chronologie Biblique - Decent solution : Avec un peu d'aide de Fibonacci ... j'ai une table, presque correcte - Present stage of improvement : New Tables

…

As for your distinction between layman and expert - knowledge is not a sacrament, there is no ordination needed to obtain it.

In relation to what I already have in C14, any problem on the part of U-Pb or Pb-Pb you can bring up is to me simply an anomaly. Sth which will be solved sooner or later.

And obviously, even more so in relation to the Christian truth - but it would have shocked you so much, German as you are, if I had brought that up first …

Arno Kleber

Wed 4.V.2022

You might have a look at RATE project.

It is maybe up to you to be shocked: I am Christian. My Pope explains: if science and our interpretation of the bible contradict, our interpretation of the bible may be faulty.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Wed 4.V.2022

It costs money, and I have no appartment to send it to.

Interesting attitude from Antipope Bergoglio, with a reference, this might be another proof he never was validly elected.

As it stands, it can obviously be supplemented in a way that makes sense to a real Catholic : if the Bible and our understanding of science conflict, the understanding of science may be faulty.

Arno Kleber

Wed 4.V.2022

That’s why science always makes progress. Science as well as modern Christianity know or should know that they may err in their interpretation of observed, measured, or written facts. Science has rigorous methods to identify errors and cope with them (eg Popper’s falsification). However, exegesis must do so, too. Regarding the age of Earth or evolution, the latter obviously was necessary rather than the former. There is absolutely no serious doubt possible that Earth is old and that evolution is a fact (and the Theory of Evolution the best existing explanation for the facts). And almost all religions worldwide acknowledge this.

Regarding ¹⁴C vs. U/Pb you may note that the former covers mere 75,000 yr at best, whereas ²³⁸U has a half live quite close to the age of Earth, ie, even if you could discriminate against the former, U/Pb stands strong, and it does not matter if you could make 30,000 out of 32,000 or whatever, if the whole system is >4.4 billion years old. ¹⁴C covers just a fly speck of Earth history and it need some assumptions, as we talked about in this thread, which do not apply to U/Pb, respectively the validity of which can be easily controlled (by measuring ²⁰⁴Pb and calculating concordance).

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Wed 4.V.2022

“There is absolutely no serious doubt possible that Earth is old”

Like 7500 years as opposed to just a day, you are right … Biblical history gives this.

Now, I said “history” and you said “manmade” … some things are both manmade and godgiven. Like a valid Mass involves the baking process to make a host, the vinification process to make wine, both performed by men (and highlighted by the Novus Ordo offertory), and you have certain words and gestures also performed by a man, namely a priest.

Do the manmade elements make a mass invalid (apart from the question whether a man can make a whole new liturgy, as Fr. Cekada argued one can’t)? No.

The fact that historic transmission is in the hands of men does not make it not in the hands of God.

What did Fr. George Leo Haydock add about this in his commentary on Genesis 3?

Concerning the transactions of these early times, parents would no doubt be careful to instruct their children, by word of mouth, before any of the Scriptures were written; and Moses might derive much information from the same source, as a very few persons formed the chain of tradition, when they lived so many hundred years. Adam would converse with Mathusalem, who knew Sem, as the latter lived in the days of Abram. Isaac, Joseph, and Amram, the father of Moses, were contemporaries: so that seven persons might keep up the memory of things which had happened 2500 years before. But to entitle these accounts to absolute authority, the inspiration of God intervenes; and thus we are convinced, that no word of sacred writers can be questioned. H.

Ergo, God’s gift of inerrancy to final redactor-author Moses is making use of human acts. Man’s memory as well as other mental faculties is not “totally corrupt” as the Calvinists of the Dordrecht synod would have had it. Ergo, we can trust Biblical history (by the way, I am not using Vulgate chronology which can be approximated by Ussher, but the chronology of the Roman martyrology for Christmas Day, obviously the old rite).

“Regarding ¹⁴C vs. U/Pb you may note that the former covers mere 75,000 yr at best”

The precise reason why I accord the method an at least relative correct directionality of the chronology. It’s so short, it can be checked with actual history.