mercredi 2 novembre 2016

A Fault in my Tables? A Plan for Improvement?

Creation vs. Evolution : 1) C14 Calibrations, comparing two preliminary ones, mine and Tas Walker's · 2) Radioactive Methods Revisited, Especially C-14 · 3) What Some of You are Thinking / Ce que certains de vous sont en train de penser · Great Bishop of Geneva! : 4) Carbon Dating of Turin Shroud and Hacking and Conventional vs Creationist Dating · Creation vs. Evolution : 5) A Fault in my Tables? A Plan for Improvement? · 6) Pre-Flood Biomass and More · 7) Advantages of a Shorter Carbon 14 Chronology · 8) Hasn't Carbon 14 been Confirmatively Calibrated for Ages Beyond Biblical Chronology? By Tree Rings? · HGL's F.B. writings : 9) Comparing with Gerardus D. Bouw Ph. D., Debating with Roger M Pearlman on Chronology · 10) Continuing with Pearlman, Especially on Göbekli Tepe and Dating of Ice Age

I cite IRC, article 117, John Baumgartner : Carbon Dating Undercuts Evolution's Long Ages

Routinely finding 14C/12C ratios on the order of 0.1-0.5% of the modern value—a hundred times or more above the AMS detection threshold—in samples supposedly tens to hundreds of millions of years old is therefore a huge anomaly for the uniformitarian framework.

Flood was 4973 years ago. That means since the Flood there has been a real decay of 54.795 %.

This means that the present values should be divided by 0,54795 to get what they were at the Flood.

or 0.182498403138972533990327584634 % or roughly 0.1825 %

or 0.912492015694862669951637923168 % or roughly 0.9125 %.

However, I had marked 3.90625 % as my estimate of medium value of organic material at Flood. Or in other essays 3.22265625 % or 4.6875 %.

This last number was from 3/64, a medium between 4/64 or 1/16 = 3 halflives extra = Flood items dated at 20,000 years and 2/64 or 1/32 = 4 halflives extra, beyond that.

This was based on an estimate in CMI. For instance note 4, quoted here:

A sample purporting to be from the Flood era would not be expected to give a ‘radiocarbon age’ of about 5,000 years, but rather 20,000–50,000 years. Indeed, that is consistently what one obtains from specimens of oil, gas and fossil wood from layers allegedly ‘millions of years’ old. The reason is: radiocarbon dating assumes that the current 14C/12C ratio of about 1 in a trillion (after adjusting for the Industrial Revolution) was the starting ratio for the objects dated. But this ratio would have been much smaller before the Flood due to the fact that the earth had a much stronger magnetic field. Because pre-and para-Flood objects would have started with a much lower initial 14C/12C ratio, the measured amount today would also be smaller, and be (mis-)interpreted as much older. See What about carbon dating? Chapter 4, The Creation Answers Book. Return to text.

On this page:

Triceratops soft tissue
More dinosaur soft tissue found and carbon dated
Joel Tay | Published: 19 November 2016 (GMT+10) | Feedback archive → Feedback 2016

I admit, I do not know which of the ballparks (20,000 years to 50,000 years or 0.1825 to 0.9125 %) is more correct, and also, I was perhaps overdoing the amount of leaning toward 20,000 years rather than 50,000 years.

Also, I do not know exactly where to put Tower of Babel in the LXX version of the Biblical chronology used by St Jerome. As Masoretic/King James based has 325 years between Flood and Abraham, it has ToB very early after Flood. I have on site a table in which Peleg lived the years Anno Diluvii 529 - 868. But it is not the same text that St Jerome had, since it has Abraham even further away from Flood than in St Jerome's version.

1070 – 1245 Anno Diluvii in this table, but the Chronology of St Jerome has Abraham born Anno Diluvii 942. So, I don't know exactly how much I should squeeze in lifetime of Peleg. Perhaps St Jerome simply did not count Cainan, since the difference of 128 years for Abraham's birthday correspond to the 265-135 difference for when Shelah was born, if Arphaxad's son was Shelah himself or Cainan.

But I don't know for certain that this is how St Jerome counted, though in that case, he would have had a predecessor in Sextus Julius Africanus, after what I have read somewhere. On the other hand, Sextus Julius Africanus is "by the wikipedia(ns)"* said to have come to the conclusion Earth was 5500 years old at Incarnation:

Africanus wrote Chronographiai, a history of the world in five volumes. The work covers the period from Creation to the year AD 221. He calculated the period between Creation and Jesus as 5500 years, placing the Incarnation on the first day of AM 5501 (our modern March 25 1 BC).[7] (Note that this dating implies the that the birth of Jesus was in December, nine months later.) This method of reckoning led to several Creation eras being used in the Greek Eastern Mediterranean, which all placed Creation within one decade of 5500 BC.

In St Jerome's chronology, Christ is born "Anno a creatione mundi, quando in principio Deus creavit caelum et terram, quinquies millesimo centesimo nonagesimo nono" (Anno Mundi 5199). The Christmas chronology does NOT date His Birth after Tower of Babel, so I don't know exactly where to put it. Obviously, the confusion of tongues could be chronologically confusing as well. And, unlike Creation and Flood, it was not the kind of act of God which directly led up to Incarnation. Rather it led up to certain aspects of praeparatio evangelica, which are intimated by the words "Olympiade centesima nonagesima quarta; ab urbe Roma condita, anno septingentesimo quinquagesimo secundo; anno Imperii Octaviani Augusti quadragesimo secundo, toto Orbe in pace composito,".

I would, as mentioned in other articles, identify Tower of Babel with two things:

  • in reconstruction, an attempt not at a super sky scraper, but at a rocket, of which lower parts are thrown off and do not reach into heaven; but with the bad plan of fuelling it with Uranium, which God prevented;
  • in archaeology, probably, Göbekli Tepe, on which some have stated it looks like a launching ramp. And I agree.

However, this means a certain date perhaps a bit before 529 after Flood, perhaps a bit before just 401 after Flood, would correspond to a carbon date of 8000 BC for when it was abandoned. With deduction of 401 from Flood reaching back BC, we get an extra of 5428 years, which is a carbon 14 percentage of 51.86 %.

This means, carbon levels had to rise from 0.5475 % to 51.86 % in 401 years.

In my Fibonacci inspired rise table, I had 358 years for a rise from 3.90625 % to 62.75068 %. And this meant, supposing only direct proportionality to be taken into account was cosmic radiation, a cosmic radiation per year at Flood of 20 times the present, which is a little more than the total background radiation of Princeton. With a rise to only 51.86 % in a somewhat longer time, this is of course even lower.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
All Souls' Day

* That anonymous lot!

Aucun commentaire:

Enregistrer un commentaire