John Baumgardner's Model for carbon 14 raise

Quote:

Just a brief comment relating to the ¹⁴C dates of more than 5 kyr for human bones and artifacts. In my chapter on ¹⁴C in the 2005 RATE technical report, I pointed out that the significant quantity of accelerated nuclear decay during the Genesis Flood would have generated a significant quantity of ¹⁴C in crustal rocks. This ¹⁴C would have outgassed from the crust during the centuries following the Flood, increasing the atmospheric ¹⁴C concentration from about 0.01 pMC at the end of the Flood to near the modern level by, say, 1500 BC. That history of atmospheric ¹⁴C levels would have the effect of producing falsely inflated ages as one goes back in time beyond about 1500 BC.

Disagreements and possible problems for his model:

• 1) I think the ¹⁴C level at the end of the Flood was c. 1.4 pmC. Not 0.01 pmC.
• 2) Baumgardner himself considers fossils from Flood to range from carbon ages 44 000 BP to 20 000 BP (from memory), and this means the extra years range from 15 500 to 39 500 - or original ¹⁴C level from 0.841 to 15.335 pmC. Perhaps he means those with 15.335 pmC at Flood are remains with unusual nuclear activity, but that would leave any carbon in crustal rocks at 15.335 pmC at most too. Of which 58.022 % would be left now, accounting for only 8.898 pmC out of 100 today. Or of which 88.606 % would have been left 1000 years later, in 1500 BC, accounting for only 13.588 pmC out of 100 back then.
• 3) If he thinks concentration of ¹⁴C in crustal rocks was far superior to 15.335 pmC, where are the fossils with those higher original pmC?
• 4) I have another theory on why ¹⁴C levels rose: by divine fiat or by obedience of sun's angel, cosmic rays were turned on to max, effecting three things:
  
  
  • a) ice age (see Correspondence of Hans Georg Lundahl : With Jay L. Wile on C14 Build-up)
  • b) lowered life spans (exposition to milliSieverts higher than present was bad, and this would be how God realised the project of Genesis 6:3)
  • c) rapid rise in ¹⁴C levels.

However, the model he gives might give more room for tables of calibration corresponding to his chronology (both as to Masoretic and as to Neanderthals after Flood, perhaps even as to Exodus and taking of Jericho after Hyksos, though I doubt it), it does not in any way invalidate my tables (Roman Martyrology, 40 000 BP as carbon date for the Flood in 2957 BC). I have no deep quarrel, I am just saying, and I think my points 2 and 3 above would argue against the crustal rocks explaining all of it./HGL

Carbon level / years correspondence, as per
Carbon 14 Dating Calculator
https://www.math.upenn.edu/~deturck/m170/c14/carbdate.html