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 cannot take credit for coming up with the idea of biomass being vastly greater before the Flood. It belongs to John Baumgardner, Ph.D.*
What difference would this make? Lots more carbon in the atmosphere (and less nitrogen, nitrogen isn't stocked down in the earth, so more biomass meant more of the nitrogen, same total quantity as today, stocked in living creatures and less of it free in atmosphere), along with lots more oxygen (I presume, and I also presume for my part, part of that oxygen is now water after making an oxyhydrogen bang with hydrogen "waters" above that firmament when "the flood gates of heaven were opened"**) - that lots more carbon in atmosphere and less nitrogen, means even an equal production of new 14C from nitrogen hit by cosmic radiation of even same intensity would result in a lower 14C ratio in relation to the 12C.
And since biological material doesn't just swell the proportion of carbon so as to include more 14C, a lower 14C ratio meant, even with equal amount in total, which probably there wasn't, less 14C in each pound of living flesh, less 14C stocked in bones or possibly preserved soft tissue.
But of course, with less nitrogen in the air and much more nitrogen in living things on earth, while also less 14C was being formed, even with an equal amount of cosmic radiation.
That also would radically have altered 14C ratio downward. Even if the cosmic radiation was as great. Either counting it in relation to incoming radiation from space or in relation to protecting magnetic field. But on top of that it could even have been smaller with a stronger magnetic field, if for instance the flood gates of heaven would have included magnetic field as then stronger used by God for preventing too early formation of Brown's gas (in my scenario).
However, there is a hinch here.
If the rise in 14C ratio depended solely on the very sudden disappearance of much carbon along with biomass, we would have had a very sudden rise in 14C formation. And its reflection in living organisms.
On the other hand, in this scenario, there would also have been a more gradual rise (in time with decomposition of nitrogen from animal or plant bodies and evaporation of it from trapped bodies - I am supposing decomposing nitrogen is released again into atmosphere and not trapped forever as ammoniac - this is science somewhat beyond my level), and therefore a gradual rise in what the cosmic radiation had to hit.
This in its turn would have contributed to the rise of 14C in ways that involved less cosmic radiation beyond ours than I had presumed in my previous studies. So, the cosmic radiation just after Flood might even have been lower than the total background radiation at Princeton, and we still get the kind of rise in 14C which I describe in the table on the Avec un peu d'aide de Fibonnacci, and its modification in my previous essay on the subject.
More, I am not at all sure biomass could even have been as great as 100 times what we have now. If there was more oxygen (which on my view got down into the Oceans) and relatively less Nitrogen, that would not necessarily have made Earth able to support 100 times as much biomass as we have.
There might also be one hitch in Baumgardner's reasoning behind the 100 times***:
The Bible, by contrast, paints a radically different picture of our planet's history. In particular, it describes a time when God catastrophically destroyed the earth and essentially all its life. The only consistent way to interpret the geological record in light of this event is to understand that fossil-bearing rocks are the result of a massive global Flood that occurred only a few thousand years ago and lasted but a year. This Biblical interpretation of the rock record implies that the animals and plants preserved as fossils were all contemporaries. This means trilobites, dinosaurs, and mammals all dwelled on the planet simultaneously, and they perished together in this world-destroying cataclysm.
No, Evolutionists, the hitch is not trusting the Bible.
The hitch is this: for the trilobites, dinosaurs and fossile mammals actually preserved, this is certainly so.
But Evolutionists have projected each of the categories into a whole Earth fauna with LOTS more than is preserved.
We cannot really count on all that many T Reges, all that many Allosauri or Brontosauri. Or Dimetrodontes or Trilobita. Oh, sure, the ones we find, and certainly some order of magnitude more, but hardly as much as it would be if all the Evolutionist visions of faunae were piled onto each other as contemporary. And dito of florae.
So much for what I understand the argument of Baumgardner as meaning, if accepted and just added to my previous ones.
Now I'll discuss three scenarios, two with very huge pre-Flood and one with smaller pre-Flood biomass.
Let's start with the smaller one. Say it was twice as much as today, if even that. It became mainly fossil fuels, like coal, petrol and natural gas. Much of it has already been used up.
Have you noticed that the atmosphere is nearly as rich in 14C as before? The level hasn't dropped down to the presumed pre-Flood level - or to the actually proven pre-Flood level. I am presuming the amount released into atmosphere as gasses outweighs that tied down as plastic.
If that is all there is to the biomass from before the Flood, the argument is gone for Baumgardner. Also, petrol and other mineral resources will soon be up. That is not a disaster, for fuel one can use wood or dried cowdung. Or even dry seaweed, perhaps. And petrol per se is not among the things that make an acre more productive as arable land.
see enumeration on
New blog on the kid : More from wiki Arable land
Other possibility (purely speculatively, without testing other consequences which might falsify, just taking the cue from Baumgardner), it was much larger, if not 100 times, 50 or at least 20 times the present. In this proposed case also, most went down into Earth, mineral carbon is very far from depleted due to this being much larger. If all were burnt, it would make a huge difference in the atmosphere and 14C would drastically sink. Because the new total level of Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere would be very much greater.
In and of itself, that would not be a disaster, it would restore levels of pre-Flood carbon dioxide. But it might flood parts of the Earth and dry out parts of the Earth.
Since Earth has since Flood much more water in the Seas, dry land after Flood depends much more on water not rising.
This part could be a non-possibility right there, if seas encroaching that much on land contradict:
Jeremias (Jeremiah) 5:22 Will not you then fear me, saith the Lord: and will you not repent at my presence? I have set the sand a bound for the sea, an everlasting ordinance, which it shall not pass over: and the waves thereof shall toss themselves, and shall not prevail: they shall swell, and shall not pass over it.
Unless God's keeping of this word involves us not burning too much petrol. Not "depends on", God has promised, but averting that we burn too much may be part of God's keeping this promise.
Third scenario, here also biomass was much larger, but it has gone into the seas, the carbon cycle of the seas, carbon dioxide streaming upward to the algae and cyanobacteria, biomass and dead biomass gravitating in steps to the deep, took care of far more than ever the fossil fuels.
This retains the argument of Baumgardner, but leaves the environmental issue as with a low pre-Flood biomass scenario. As, therefore, no big deal.
It also helps to explain the reservoir effect of dating things that live off lots of sea food. Though for this, it is enough that the carbon cycle of the Ocean is mainly distinct from that of the atmosphere. Mainly, it cannot be totally so.
But let's count a bit on biomass again.
I proposed that biomass 100 or even 50 times as great would involve Nitrogen being more tied up in organisms. Wouldn't that also be the case of Carbon? And wouldn't that in its turn have made the carbon that was forming as 14C rather more dominant in the pre-Flood atmosphere, making the 14C/12C ratio in atmosphere and therefore in living things much higher?
That would destroy Baumgardner's argument.
Or, suppose, small scenario, carbon cycle in atmosphere certainly totally outweighs that tied up in biomass, and did so nearly as much before the Flood, that would have left the 14C/12C ratio before the Flood about equal to now, if otherwise as much 14C was forming.
That is why I think we need, as Creationists, to presume less overall 14C was forming up to Flood. Either less cosmic radiation was produced, and stars and Sun obeying God started doing more of it just after Flood, or magnetic shield was far stronger and was suddenly weakened after Flood, or both.
And the kind of rise in 14C which has been seen since the Flood (and it is a gradual rise, you cannot squeeze all the stone age into the first decade after Flood, since then there lived only 8 adult persons, all born after Flood were as yet babies) means that more 14C was being added just after Flood (though gradual, it was arguably rising much faster after Flood than before stabilising), both more than before the Flood and more than even now.
Taken with the magnetic shield only, this gives a scenario of:
- very strong shield Creation to Anno Mundi 2242, year of Flood
- very weak shield just after Flood
- gradual strengthening of the shield from 2242 to sth like anno Mundi 4700, that is 500 BC.
- since then a stable level of 14C depending on a half strong shield.
And here I am contradicting "mainstream Creationist" scenario for magnetic shield, amn't I?
Sarfati's diagram from 1998 or from 2014 (article's writing date and update date) shows a maximal but decaying intensity up to Flood. Then a sudden drop at Flood with some reversals even, then fluctuations up to Christ, then a steady decay up to now.
This steady decay up to now would involve more 14C forming, and the decay keeping up with it less. And this would mean we would be in a growing 14C/12C ratio.
Not so, I have proven, in my essay Examinons une hypothèse qui se trouve contrefactuelle un peu de près, that this would mean that if halflife were calibrated by actual dating results, these would be shortening the halflife radically. As well as making it inconsistent : you would not be able to use the halflife calibrated by one histoirically datable object to accurately date one from a different century.
This means, I have to be very sceptical about Sarfati's model for the magnetic field. Now, he is giving a reference as an argument.
In the 1970s, the creationist physics professor Dr Thomas Barnes noted that measurements since 1835 have shown that the field is decaying at 5% per century1 (also, archaeological measurements show that the field was 40% stronger in AD 1000 than today2).
From: CMI : The earth’s magnetic field: evidence that the earth is young
by Jonathan Sarfati | March 1998; updated August 2014
Footnote 1 K.L. McDonald and R.H. Gunst, ‘An analysis of the earth’s magnetic field from 1835 to 1965,’ ESSA Technical Report, IER 46-IES 1, U.S. Govt. Printing Office, Washington, 1967.
Footnote 2 R.T. Merrill and M.W. McElhinney, The Earth’s Magnetic Field, Academic Press, London, pp. 101–106, 1983.
No actual indication as how Merrill and McElhinney derive their view on Earth's magnetic field 1000 years ago is given, and the analyses ranging 1835 to 1965 could be a temporary trend.
I am not saying I am absolutely right here, but for the moment I can't see exactly how I could be wrong, if on the one hand datings of historically well dated objects (i e last 2500 years) confirms known dates and stable half life, and on the other hand 14C rose very steeply after Flood planing out up to then.
Hans Georg Lundahl
Our Saviour's Basilica
of the Lateran in Rome
Update next day:
I forgot (such was my lack of sleep) to add that if there is anything at all in a minor way with the argument of Baumgardner, it is at least enough to push the 14C from a pre-Flood value as per Baumgardner 0.4% to my initial post-Flood values of 3-4.sth %. Especially as the pre-Flood value would be the somewhat higher 0.43% of present, if replacing his equation:
With this more realistic pre-Flood 14C/12C ratio, we find that a value of 0.24 pmc corresponds to an age of only 4200 years (0.004 x 2-4200/5730 = 0.0024 = 0.24 pmc).
With this: we find that a value of 0.24 pmc corresponds to an age of only 4973 years (0.004379975236037067013526 x 2-4973/5730 = 0.0024 = 0.24 pmc)./HGL
* "However, uniformitarian assumptions are inappropriate when one considers that the Genesis Flood removed vast amounts of living biomass from exchange with the atmosphere—organic material that now forms the earth's vast coal, oil, and oil shale deposits. A conservative estimate for the pre-Flood biomass is 100 times that of today."
ICR : Carbon Dating Undercuts Evolution's Long Ages
by John Baumgardner, Ph.D.
I must admit that in the following words he gives a somewhat possible alternative explanation to my model:
"If one takes as a rough estimate for the total 14C in the biosphere before the cataclysm as 40% of what exists today and assumes a relatively uniform 14C level throughout the pre-Flood atmosphere and biomass, then we might expect a 14C/12C ratio of about 0.4% of today's value in the plants and animals at the onset of the Flood. With this more realistic pre-Flood 14C/12C ratio, we find that a value of 0.24 pmc corresponds to an age of only 4200 years (0.004 x 2-4200/5730 = 0.0024 = 0.24 pmc)."
Obviously we are not talking the same timescale, not exactly, since he considers Flood centuries more recent than I do.
** This scenario, however, I can take credit for, see my debate with GreedyCapybara:
"I have my theory that both atmosphere with Oxygen and a Hydrogen vault were made as the air (oxygen) separated waters below the firmament (H2O) from waters above it (mostly H2 which is "instant water" if you add oxygen and a spark) and that some of both atmosphere and hydrogen layer were used up to make flood water."
Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : ... on Flood with GreedyCapybara7 (snappy version)
http://assortedretorts.blogspot.fr/2014/01/on-flood-with-greedycapybara7-snappy.html *** Quote from article cited above.