If Joel Tay found the link in the comments too long

Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : Carbon Dates, Millions of Years - Not Same Thing · Creation vs. Evolution : If Joel Tay found the link in the comments too long

From a Flood in 2957 BC to present, there are 4977 years. In 4977 years, the decay is to 0.548236 of 1. This means that the production rate which now makes the level stable would replace 0.451764 of present carbon 14 ratio, that being 45.1764 pmC.

In my case, I presumed in my early days around the problem that the atmospheric level at Flood was 4 pmC, leaving after this time 2.1929 pmC.

Add 0.451764 and 0.021929, you get 0.483693 or 48.3693 pmC.

Suppose the atmospheric level at Flood was 16.2438 pmC - the exact level to get 15 023 extra years so as to get by now 20 000 years before present (youngest level of carbon dated objects like fossil fuels or dino bones that can be even possibly tied to the Flood). This would by now reduce to 8.9054 pmC, adding up, with the production, to 54.0818 pmC.

Joel Tay's "lower rate of carbon production" may be valid for up to Flood, if it was at 4 pmC (I now prefer 1.4 pmC), but not even, if it started out at zero and was at Flood 16.2438 pmC (which would leave his Triceratops horridus story as a pre-Flood démise, or the animals would be very old indeed and exchanging the carbon in their bodies very slowly).

If at the Flood and after it was even as low as at present, we would not now have the present level. We would have only half of it. We cannot even say it reached present level just recently, since carbon dates for last 2000 - 2500 - 3000 years fairly well match the archaeological predictions of history. Nebuchadnezzar's sacking of Jerusalem is carbon dated to 590's or 580's BC, whichever it was, and this means the level was already the modern one - unless you prefer saying the finds are really from Antiochus Epiphanes' sacking of Jerusalem, centuries later. That would mean too low a carbon level to get carbon date close to real date. This would be the position of Damien Mackey, or just general skepsis.

But in fact, whether you count Babel as Göbekli Tepe, carbon dated to 9600 at lowest excavated level and 8600 at highest one, BC of course, or as lowest level of Eridu, dated 5400 BC, you need to get nearly half the job done between Flood and Babel. With 350 years between Flood and beginning of Babel, or 401 between Flood and end of Babel, and Göbekli Tepe, you get a production nine to ten times faster than at present from Flood to Babel. But with 101 years from Flood to end of Babel, and Eridu lowest level as Genesis 11, you get a production that's 87.401 faster than at present, if Babel started 40 years before its end (61 years from Flood to that "Babel"), or 55.619 times faster than at present, if Babel started 5 years before its end (96 years from Flood). And this can be checked by mathematics.

Any assumption you make gives some test implication, one of the limits on them is, stable level has to have been reached already. This in turn can be checked by the use of carbon 14. Imagine a Rembrandt hitherto unknown or having disappeared is found. Style - Rembrandt. Signature - Rembrandt van Rijn. Brush strokes too close to those of the master to detect a difference. But all this could be made by a forger.

Now, Rembrandt died 1669. 351 years ago. This means if the painting is carbon tested for 95.843 pmC or less, it is genuine. But if it is carbon tested for 100 pmC, it's a modern forgery. Carbon dates associated with materials from the time of Tiberius seem to match the historically predictable age of these. And the sack of Jerusalem, if that by Nebuchadnezzar too.

You simply cannot get this by posing present rate of carbon production as the historically highest one, it must be radically lower than an earlier, post-Flood, one, to get this.

As this is post (including drafts) 666, pray for me, all readers, not to be the Beast, nor to take his mark.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
Nativity of the Blessed Virgin
Mother of God Mary
8.IX.2020