Asteroid, Göbekli Tepe, Carbon Dating

Johnny Proctor

shared a link

10 mars, 19:33

How do any of these fantastical fictions even merit a 'news report'? This is 100% speculation with no facts, no evidence, no witnesses, just guys who believe in myths and models who try to shoehorn their pet theories into geological tables. And this is one of the more tame reports.

Giant asteroid apocalypse 13K years ago was witnessed by ancient humans, experts believe
By Chris Ciaccia | Fox News
https://www.foxnews.com/science/giant-asteroid-apocalypse-witnessed-by-ancient-humans

JA

Gobekli Tepe: check that out as it was a controversial find with alleged drawings of a comet impacting- supposedly linked to mass extinction of Mega fauna such as mammoths and an alleged unknown civilization

Johnny Proctor

I have no confidence in their dating methods. Its 10% science and 90% speculation and computer modeling. Its a priori theses looking for evidence to support them.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I date Göbekli Tepe as ending 401 years after the Flood, when Peleg is born.

Like other LXX reading would make it 529 after the Flood.

"I have no confidence in their dating methods"

Carbon 14 can be used on samples with historically known age and be confirmed by that.

In other words, we should have confidence in the residues and in the halflife.

However, the problem is, what was the original ratio in the atmosphere back at a given time.

With a growth of C14 ratio rapidly after Flood and still through Babel / Göbekli Tepe, slowing down between Abraham and Joseph, between Joseph and Exodus and reaching stable at least by the time of King David (unless his time had even above present level), we can recalibrate the carbon dates.

I have made several tables, each tentative per se, but apart from a recalibration with Genesis 14 as carbon dated 3500 BC, I'd see no problem with using the tables as such, give and take a little due to that problem (I had guessed 3200 BC would be a good guess for its carbon date, as per proto-dynastic Egypt in Genesis 12).

Johnny Proctor

But all these estimates studiously ensure they exceed the biblical record of 6,000 years of human civilization, begging the question whether the Bible is reliable history or not. And that is the point: their claims exist to oppose the biblical record even if only by a few thousand years. Unless we discern the endgame here, we can uncritically accept their assertions in good faith when they are not acting in good faith but against faith.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

My tables do NOT exceed 7220 years.

A carbon date like 9600 BC is only partially an estimate.

It is estimating an original C14 ratio of 100 pmC, but it is reading a remaining ratio of 24.58 pmC.

So, my tables are about how much the real original pmC was, namely in this case c. 42 pmC.

Now, 24.58 pmC / 42 pmC = 58.524 % and the point of reading present pmC is getting percentage of original ratio.

Let's then treat 58.524 as a pmC value, and we get: 4450 years.

2430 BC is actually a bit later than what I place Babel's beginning in, but I just took up 42 pmC off the bat.

More like 2607 BC.

9600 BC in carbon date - 2607 BC in real date = 6993 extra years.

6993 extra years = 42.916 pmC.

24.58 pmC / 42.916 pmC = 57.275 %

57.275 pmC = 4600 years

2580 BC, fairly close to 2607 BC, which I consider the real date for Babel beginning or within few years of it.

"Unless we discern the endgame here, we can uncritically accept their assertions in good faith when they are not acting in good faith but against faith."

Thousands of learned men are using C14 about much more recent objects which have nothing to do with opposing the faith. Rembrandt ceased painting 351 years ago.

This means a painting where organic material in the paint is over 95.843 pmC is a fake.

This is a much more typical use of C14 than what you think of, and it works.

Johnny Proctor

Hans, you know what I mean. When people suggest that they have reliable dating for artifacts over 100,000 years old (they say), I just roll my eyes. Without corroboration of other dating metrics such as your Rembrandt example, they speculate based on decay rates that have proven very unreliable.

Ever since my pilrimage to Geocentrism (which is really a pilgrimage to the Church Fathers) I have learned to never doubt the claims of Scripture that are opposed by emprical science. I understand your endorsement of the scientific method within the time span of the biblical record, but I can't follow you a minute outside of those well-established parameters.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I am not going outside the Biblical chronology.

Learn to read.

A carbon date of 9600 BC = (or comes little after) a real date of 2607 BC = death of Noah, 350 after the Flood. I do not say 9600 BC is a reliable or an unreliable date, I say it is an erroneous date obtained by a part reliable (half life, measure of present carbon) and part unreliable (assumption of original 100 pmC) method, and I then proceed to eliminate the unreliable part, so that carbon dates like 9600 BC shall be translated to real dates of 2607 BC.

Or carbon dates of 3500 BC to real dates like 1935 BC.

The article as such was for carbon date 13 000 YA = 11 000 BC. Within end of or just after Noah's post-Flood lifespan. I e, a real date around 2607 BC.

Johnny Proctor

I don't think we're in disagreement. My forte is theology, not geology or paleontology. I approach these topics from a theological perspective. And I do appreciate your efforts to align the most reliable radiological dating methods with the biblical record. But as I shared above, when I made this (unsought) pilgrimage to Geocentrism and through it was brought to the realization that I had been deceived by the secular sciences and even those Catholics beholden to them, I made a decision to always give revelation the benefit of the doubt.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

You are not even in any conflict here.

I have very cearly said I accept Biblical chronology as the correct one. There is no correct date before 5199 BC (or some would go as far as 5509 BC).

It's not the Bible's chronology I'm reinterpreting, it's the carbon dating calibration.