Gutsick Gibbon on C14 (First Half of the Video) · (Second Half of Same Video)
If part 1 was about my own work in face of the Evolutionist principles, this part 2 is about reviewing and partly defending other Creationists which Gutsick Gibbon is trying to and sometimes succeeding in refuting on some points.
14:48 No, the ages here are NOT close to 50 000 BP, let alone 60 000 BP.
15:43 Two stages of the answer.
a) you said yourself that carbon 14 is placed into the samples tree ring by tree ring - however, one may consider that a tree is not likely to be 8000 years old before it dies, B U T
b) as per my views, carbon 14 would be building up in the atmosphere over the lifespan of the tree, meaning, not only is C14 deposed at different times in it, but from different atmospheric concentrations.
As for "other wood" and Geochron, I somewhat wonder why this is younger than my carbon age for the flood.
16:03 At least the ANSTO dates are both well within what I would expect from a flood sample. Actual carbon date 39 000 BP, but as wood is not grass, it contains older carbon than that, during a buildup.
Yeah, I know 37,800 is younger than 39,000, but notice error margin.
37,800 + 3,450 = 41,250
Obviously, for the younger Geochron age, I think I'll go for contamination as well.
17:52 I am not unaware of the reservoir effect.
I am also not Kent Hovind.
I actually use this to explain the carbon dates of the Mladec cave[s].
Carbon date 30 000 BP according to my tables would be just few decades after the Flood and not sufficient people would be present on earth to give us that graveyard. However, the people drinking calcium rich water, perhaps eating fish and shellfish there, would have ingested sufficient old carbon to appear older than they were. We know from examples in more recent human history that this can involve a difference of centuries. So, instead of two decades after the Flood, the Mladec caves would be at least a century later, or half that amount. But date to that time by reservoir effect.
24:19, by contrast, Aardsma in 1994 seems to have taken into account results involving mass spectrometry, namely in the works cited here:
(7) David C. Lowe, Problems associated with the use of coal as a source of "C-free background material. Radiocarbon 31:2(1989) 117-120.
(8) Fred H. Schmidt, David R. Balsey, and Donald D. Leach, Earty expectations of AMS: greatar ages and tiny fractions. One failure? - one success. Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research 829(1987) 97-99.
This seems to be prior to the RATE project:
A Search For Radio Carbon in Coal
Gerald E. Aardsma, Institute for Creation Research, 1994
https://digitalcommons.cedarville.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1312&context=icc_proceedings
The paragraph leading to the footnotes is this one:
These results seem to conflict with more recent measurements using the accelerator mass spectrometry (AMS) experimental technique. For example, Schmidt et a/. (8) reported finding 14·C in anthracite at levels greater than 1.5x10^-15 14·C/C , Vogel et al. (11) reported finding 4.8x10^-15 14C/C, and Gurfinkel (4) reported values greater than or equal to 3.6x10^-15 14·C/C. Finally, In a recent paper, Lowe (7) stated that it is fairly common for AMS labs to find 14·C present in coal in the range of 2.0x10^-15 to 4.5x10^-15 14·C/C.
29:17 "creationists don't adress it" ... you show a paper by Snelling from 2007.
How about this paragraph, actually adressing it?
These are all believed to be millions of years old, so would be expected to be radiocarbon ‘dead’ (meaning all detectable 14C has degraded back to nitrogen). However, for decades now, the radiocarbon literature has been full of examples of measurable amounts of radiocarbon, in supposedly ‘ancient’ (‘millions of years old’) samples. So ‘contamination’ becomes the catchword to explain all such ‘anomalies’.
"Carbon 14—still drawing a blank," a feedback answer by Gavin Cox, from 2020. On CMI.
He links back to an answer by Joel Tay from 2016, which I think erroneously states:
However, as you have pointed out, the same RATE project also found radiocarbon measurements in not just coal, but also diamonds. Diamonds, being primarily carbon and with atoms in a tightly packed crystal lattice, are quite impervious to contamination.
Yes, they would be impervious to contamination by added new carbon atoms, but not contamination by C-12 turning into C-14 at receiving radiation.
30:52 Look here, an author being very angry at his data being used for arguments he dislikes - why are scientists so often snowflakes?
How about the authors of the study showing why the interpretation by AiG or CMI of their data is untenable instead of claiming some kind of monopoly on interpreting data they already made publically available?
"This is OUR data! This is not what WE intended to prove by them!"
In debates on the internet, it happens all the time, myself or the other guy is confronted with an interpretation of invoked data conflicting with what one intended. So what?
Is making a non-creationist scientist angry by such means some kind of sacrilege to you?
31:32 "dozens of independent dating methods that corroborate one another"
This is outside C-14-dating as such.
It is also often pointed out by creationists that on site after site samples with different dating methods contradict.
It is also a fact that Evolutionists have a stake in chosing the older interpretation of each method, like 50 % U and 50 % Pb being due to decay of an original 100 % U rather than an original content of near 50 % / 50 %. It is also a fact that C-14 is the only dating method that has practical uses that would conflict with known data if tests were wrong too routinely (K-Ar also conflicts - when Creationists use that method on recent volcanic activity, but that is not routine).
31:19 "they are rarely repeatable with actual accurate proper methodology"
By now this has been repeated very often by Creationists, and I know someones who have a stake in disqualifying their methodology, whether it actually is bad or not.
32:21 As you mentioned human historic records ... when we go as far back as beyond Fall of Troy, the Bible is pretty unique in accurate chronological information well presented - like even if it has text problems making the distance from Adam's creation to Abraham's vocation between 3400 years and less than half that.
If you like, you may put that down to a scribal tradition weeding out conflicting versions, but in Egypt or Sumer, there actually are conflicting versions, so, like dendro, history is not a very great way to boost a constant 100 pmC (+/- peanuts) even prior to Fall of Troy.
33:04 I would agree my second half has been surface level, since it has dealt with discussing instances.
My first half however has gone some way to actually give a principled different approach to C-14, consistent with both Biblical chronology and the actual data (if not the interpretations favoured by the scientists presenting them).
34:07 I'd obviously reply by asking what exact sample you pretend matches so many independent methods of dating.
I think for some samples I would be stumped, I have made C-14 my speciality, neglecting others and leaving them to Snelling (not so with C-14, as you may have noticed), but for some I would have a hunch, and I also wonder how long your list would be.
Were you aware that the Mungo woman has conflicting dates, C-14 and Thermoluminiscence? Yes, C-14 for two types of tissue gives two ages close to each other, but not sufficiently close, and that is c. 20 000 BP (like "midway" in Noah's remaining lifespan after the Flood, in my recalibration), it's only Thermoluminiscence which gives 40 000 BP.
Hat tip to Tas Walker for the info, by the way. And no, his conclusion is mainly to discredit "dating methods" overall, mine is to recalibrate "20 000 BP" into c. 2834 BC, with an atmosphere having c. 15.8863 pmC back then. So, I am not just repeating his process of thought, I am just taking his data as good - like I would usually even for an Evolutionist scientist.
No comments:
Post a Comment