If Toba and Campi Flegrei were both in the Flood, why is Campi Flegrei my carbon date? ·
Inaccurate Reasoning in CMI
Radiocarbon dating “inaccurate”
Published 11 Feb, 2025 | First appeared in Creation 40(4) | Page 11, October 2018
https://creation.com/en/articles/c14-dating-inaccurate
On the other hand, the calculated ‘dates’ are much too old compared with the time they were actually buried (c. 4,500 years ago).
So far agreed, except the actual Flood date in 2957 BC is more like c. 5000 eyars ago. But watch the reasoning:
This is because age calculations need to calibrate for the fact that vast quantities of carbon-containing plants and animals were buried during that cataclysmic, global Flood.
Fact, correct. Causal connection, not so.
This would have drastically upset the atmospheric 14C/12C balance.
Nothing like it. Not immediately.
Can we get a hint on where they got wrong?
Also it would have upset the biosphere’s balance because lots of 12C would have been buried.
14C would have been buried with
12C
in the exact same proportion as just before the Flood. The immediate post-Flood atmosphere would have had
soon enough less carbon,
overall, since increase in living creatures would deplete part of what the pre-Flood carbon cycle had left in the atmosphere.
And this
soon enough less carbon would lead to making an equal carbon 14 (
14C) production having a greater impact. So, suppose N tonnes of
14C were created in 3000 BC, before the Flood, N tonnes of
14C were created in 2900 BC, after the Flood, those N tonnes would lead to faster increase in pmC, since pmC isn't amount of
14C, also not
14C/
12C ratio, but percentage points of the
14C/
12C ratio we call "modern carbon" or more precisely "corrected for pre-industrial values".
Suppose 50 years after the Flood, the amount of carbon
overall was already just 1/2 of the pre-Flood share of the atmosphere. That would make, by itself, even with no other factors, the pmC point additions go 2 times faster than 50 years before the Flood.*
The cause of initial low carbon 14 content in misdated organic material is therefore not that the Flood buried more carbon 14 than carbon 12, proportionally, but that the pre-Flood buildup of carbon 14 was slower. This means, a post-Flood rise was needed to arrive where we are at.
Whether the Flood date in carbon as per Campi Flegrei was 39 000 BC or 34 300 BC, that's because of how high (still much lower than today) the carbon 14 had climbed by the time of the Flood.
- Alt. I
- 2958 BC
- 1.6277 pmC, dated as 37 000 BC
- Alt. II
- 2958 BC
- 2.8567 pmC dated as 32 350 BC
For Alt. I, I consulted Newer Tables,
Flood to Joseph in Egypt. For Alt. II, I calculated the alternative number of extra years, then used that in proportion to the halflife and then that as exponent to 0.5.
32 350 - 2958 = 29 392 extra years
0.5^(29 392 / 5730) = 0.02856725266
In fact, it seems the
Creation Answers book on CMI has it right. Here is the quote, words following those quoted in the footnote:
14C is continually being produced, at a rate that does not depend on carbon dioxide levels (it comes from nitrogen). Therefore, the 14C level relative to 12C increased after the Flood. So, the 14C/12C ratio in plants/animals/the atmosphere before the Flood had to be much lower than what it is now.
So, I suggest they read their own resources a bit more thoroughly. Meanwhile, this is one of the factors, and this one would allow for an increase in the speed of added
14C other factors being equal. But if they weren't equal, the speed could increase first for some other reason (I've suggested a higher input of cosmic radiation, leading to both the Ice Age setting on quicker and to the shortening of human life spans) and
then drop.
Either way, the
14C/
12C ratio has increased since the Flood, and if in 1950 it was somewhat lower than actual 100 pmC, that's still way higher than for instance 1.6277 or 2.8567 pmC.
The correct reason about low initial pmC is therefore not that the pmC was
lowered by or after the Flood, but that it was very low just
before the Flood. 35 to 61.4 times lower. And even in the subsequent part when it's rising, up to when it reaches 100 pmC, it will still have been lower and therefore still give a mirage of extra years, be dated earlier than the actual date when it was alive, plant or animal.
Meanwhile, the wording allows the apparent inference that the rate of carbon 14 production has been constant or (if we look at magnetic field, previous paragraph) increasing. I reject that proposition. It has, after an initial post-Flood increase and thus rapid rise in pmC decreased. If it had just been the same, starting with 3—4 pmC at the Flood, we would now have a c. 45 or 49 pmC level and the carbon 14 still rising. Could that be? No, when we compared the known artefacts with organic material to the carbon levels, we would then have had to conclude for a half life of 2000 + years, not 5730 years. Of course, if 5730 years itself were such a mirage, a halflife of 11 460 years plus a rise would give approximately the same effect over the last 3000 years. But I think the halflife is probably better measured than allowing for that.
And if the production had been constantly rising in speed, the carbon dates in the middle would be way older than they are.
Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
St. Severine of Noricum
8.I.2026
Apud Noricos sancti Severini Abbatis, qui apud eam gentem Evangelium propagavit, et Noricorum dictus est Apostolus. Ejus corpus ad Lucullanum prope Neapolim, in Campania, divinitus delatum, inde postea ad monasterium sancti Severini translatum est.
* Or, suppose the concentration of carbon was 16 times higher before the Flood than x time post-Flood:
Also, the Genesis Flood would have greatly upset the carbon balance. The Flood buried a huge amount of carbon as fossils, coal, oil, and gas. Then plants regrowing after the Flood absorbed CO2, drawing down the atmospheric CO2 to what it is today. Indeed, the pre-Flood atmospheric CO2 concentration was 16× today’s.
Then the pmC would at x time post-Flood, other factors being equal, have a 16 times faster pmC add than before the Flood.
Let's see what that makes. 2262 years. 0.5^(2262 / 5730) = 0.76061357994 (76.061 pmC); normal replacement = 1 - 0.76061357994 = 23.939 pmC / 16 = 1.496 pmC. Pretty good match for my immediate pre-Flood values 1.6277 or 2.8567 pmC. But if we had just had 16 times faster, i e today's production since then, 2957 + 2026 = 4983 years, 0.5^(4983 / 5730) = 0.54728586164 = 54.729 pmC, normal replacement = 45.271 pmC. We would be on 46.09 pmC, not 100. With the problem as described in the text, in the paragraph "Meanwhile" ...
