Challenge for Fellow Young Earth Creationists

1) Φιλολoγικά/Philologica : Dating History (with Some Help from AronRa), 2) Creation vs. Evolution : Well, how about Mark Isaak? Too lazy to do his homework?, 3) Challenge for Fellow Young Earth Creationists, 4) Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : ... on AronRa's very poetic An Archaeological Moment in Time (plus something on "credentialism")


First, why don't I do it myself ? Because I am no Scientist. I write, sometimes about Science, but I do not do research using scientific ressources and apparatus and so on. Now, to the challenge:

The standard explanation why Carbon 14 datings sometimes stamp ex-organic objects as older than the Universe according to Usher or Martyrologium Romanum (Usher : 4000 c. before Christ, Martyrologium Romanum, based on LXX : 5199 b. C. – Russians – also based on LXX – make it even c. 5800 b. C.) is that with a very recent creation the buildup of Carbon 14-level in atmosphere only started at earliest back then or – ackording to one theory – even only after the Flood of Noah. Thus, carcasses which while breathing held less Carbon 14, seem very much older than they are if it is assumed they held same amount of Carbon 14.

I can only about say that an object that wass alive two thousand years ago should have more than half of the amount it has if it was alive yesterday. Half the amount would usually imply it was alive between five and six thousand years ago – except that if buildup of C14 level started late this will nearly be bound to be wrong.

So, the challenge would be to make a few alternative scales of C14 dating. Two or three for each Christian dating of the universe : one for C14 buildup starting at creation, one for it starting after flood, possibly yet another for C14 level disturbances due to pre-Flood atomic wars or nuclear disasters (check out Japan what Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Fukushima have done to C14 levels), and that for each dating of universe as 6000, 7200, 7500 (Byzantine) or 7800 years old.

That would also involve rearranging a few dates about Near Orient Archeology, I suppose – it seems the Troy which is supposed to be the one destroyed in Trojan war has been dated about 100 years older than destruction, though that could be due to things from before destruction surviving. If Schliemann made the correct identification, the misdating would be even more important, since the Troy of Priam is no longer considered Troy II but Troy VII.

I would very much be interested in such an alternatives-holding C14-table : and if we are right, I think it would be in principle possible. I do not know if halflife would need some reconsideration too : if for instance that would unduly interfere with Roman and therefore independently datable remnants.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Mairie du III, Paris
St Denis of Paris
9-X-2012