In Response to Ken Wolgemuth on Carbon

In Response to Ken Wolgemuth on Carbon · Ken Wolgemuth, Part III · Ken Wolgemuth part IV

A

Ken Wolgemuth

16.X.2024

Creation’s Story by Geology – by Ken Wolgemuth
Radiocarbon Dating for Biblical Archaeology: C-14–Part 1

Many people, including Christians, have heard of “Radiocarbon Dating” as one tool in science to determine the passage of time in years. This is correct, but very few understand how it is done. It is of particular interest to Christians, because it is applied in Biblical archaeology. So many archaeological findings provide evidence that the Old and New Testaments of the Bible are authentic descriptions of Bible times. One example I will come to is the radiocarbon dating of the Dead Sea Scrolls. I will gradually demonstrate the evidence of C-14 decay back to 40,000 years ago, which is evidence that the earth is older than that.

C-14 is produced in the stratosphere continuously by cosmic radiation causing neutrons to hit nitrogen-14 atoms, which knocks out a proton forming a C-14 atom. These combine with oxygen to form CO2 that is taken into tree leaves and plants by photosynthesis. The C-14 gets into the tree ring wood from this process. With the food chain, C-14 gets into the bones of animals. Once a tree ring grows in the tree trunk, and animals die, no more fresh C-14 gets in the bones. Then the C-14 decays back to N-14 with a half-life of 5,730 years. I will explain half-life with diagrams later.

[omitting for now but not objecting to the diagrams, but not the following ones]

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Best Contributor

Most I agree with.

"I will explain half-life with diagrams later."

Already know how they work, and agree they work in the way usually thought and not the Setterfield way.

BUT ... I take objection to two statements.

"It is of particular interest to Christians, because it is applied in Biblical archaeology."

Basically true for anything since King David, but misleading when applied to for instance the times of Abraham. Carbon dated 2000 BC (the whenabouts of his birth) would be Early Bronze Age IV to Middle Bronze Age I. In reality, 1935 BC (80 years after his birth) is carbon dated to 3500 BC, which is in the late Chalcolithic.

As per the carbon dates of the reed mats of the evacuation of temple treasures from En Geddi.

"I will gradually demonstrate the evidence of C-14 decay back to 40,000 years ago, which is evidence that the earth is older than that."

You have just made a time-loop from 1935 BC to 3500 BC. Did Abraham access Sodom and Gomorra via the Tardis?

B

Ken Wolgemuth

25.X.2024

Hello to you who are connected to my Profile. This is Part 2 of the sequence related to Radiocarbon Dating, that will include examples from Biblical Archaeology. My first posting will always be on my Professional Page with the photo. I invite you to follow me there.

Creation’s Story by Geology – by Ken Wolgemuth
Radiocarbon Dating: Cross-Dating: C-14–Part 2

This Part 2 explains the Cross-Dating process, with one example of real C-14 data measured from German Oak species in Europe. That data extends back to 14,000 tree-ring count, and years Before Present, BP. In the future, I will explain the significance of the blue solid lines on both sides of the squiggly red line.

I also show the concept of how we can establish evidence that a mammoth lived thousands of years ago. Later I will show the Calibration Curves which are named IntCal13 and IntCal20. The meaning is International Calibration, and the year each was published.A reader of Part 1 pointed out that there are also other radiometric dating methods that can be applied to igneous rocks, with atoms and isotopes that are also radioactive like carbon-14, but with very long half-lives (HL). Examples are Potassium-40, HL 1.25 billion years; Uranium-238, HL 4.5 billion years; and Rubidium-87, HL 48.8 billion years. I may share that part of Creation’s Story in the future.

I commented twice

I and II, plus added to two other men's comments, III

I

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Seems very confidence inviting as long as you look at this very schematic view.

Hohenheim are world wide experts.

Jonathan Baker

Hans-Georg Lundahl also invites confidence if you look at the raw data, such as what you shared.

More so when you consider than these chronologies comprise hundreds to thousands of overlapping tree-ring segments—not just two. For example:

SCIENCE.ORG : 2500 Years of European Climate Variability and Human Susceptibility
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.1197175

Hans-Georg Lundahl

My point was that the "overlap" is a somewhat sketchy affair.

Jonathan Baker

Hans-Georg Lundahl how? Not when you have hundreds of samples overlapping with statistical significance.

Not to mention, individual tree rings can be radiocarbon dated and tested for proxies like d13C to validate the correlations

Jonathan Baker

[inserted here from II]

Hans-Georg Lundahl the example you gave is quite excellent demonstration that the overlapping of tree-ring chronologies is robust. What are you talking about? 🤔 Although it’s worth pointing out, this is NOT a plot of only two samples overlapping. Each curve is a composite of multiple samples from two different regions, different tree species. And their overlap is statistically robust. I think you need to spend more time looking at the raw data (which are public) before arriving at such erroneous conclusions.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

The further back, the less is left of each sample and the fewer samples.

"this is NOT a plot of only two samples overlapping. Each curve is a composite of multiple samples from two different regions, different tree species."

Hohenheim hasn't been genius on communicating what it is exactly that they are showing. I may have looked in haste, but I do read German ...

"And their overlap is statistically robust."

Even if that is statistically robust, once samples are fewer and shorter further back, it becomes circular with the radiocarbon dates.

"the raw data (which are public) before arriving at such erroneous conclusions."

As I mentioned, I tried consulting Hohenheim, and it didn't look very informative, they aren't sharing all that much to the online reader.

Jonathan Baker

Hans-Georg Lundahl if you want an explanation of how it works, read papers on tree-ring chronologies, rather than simple copying a figure that you don’t understand. The purpose of the university page is simply to explain the basics and provide an illustrative example, which they did.

There are fewer trees for ring chronologies further back in time, but so what? They still number in the thousands and are more than robust.

What do you think is circular with regard to radiocarbon dates? Those overlapping segments are validated to be overlapping by yielding consistent 14C activities and temporal signals. In other words, independently corroborated reconstructions.

YEC has zero explanation for this, as you’ve shown.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I'm sorry, the page from Hohenheim does not have any link to lots of papers.

I have tried to get access to a research access page as independent researcher, but got denied.

I do not have the means to get a subscription to lots of papers I don't believe in, and what I could get for free doesn't encourage me to believe in it.

Your comment is equipollent to "trust us who can afford to pay" ... well, no.

[To clarify to less disingenious people, it is circular if insufficiently well identified fragments get their identification from radiocarbon, and then this is used to validate radiocarbon. I would say "insufficiently" begins some time 3000 years ago.]

Jonathan Baker

Hans-Georg Lundahl you don’t need a subscription to access them, you just need to know how to do it 😉

How do you know you “don’t believe in” the papers you never accessed? Sounds suspicious…

The page from Hohenheim is just one of dozens explaining the process (U of A, for example??). Textbooks also do a fine job and are freely accessible at any uni library. You don’t have an excuse not to track down detailed explanations.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I believe there is excellent reason why their conclusion is wrong.

History trumps searching diverse types of tracks.

Hohenheim is not just "explaining the process" they are in fact doing it and have the samples or largest collection of them.

Textbooks give no more than the very schematic diagrams shown already above by Ken Wolgemuth. The thing I'm going after with a screenshot from Hohenheim.

"You don’t have an excuse not to track down detailed explanations."

You have claimed that the matching is much better than the diagram would seem to suggest, that implies you already have detailed knowledge of this.

How about providing it?

I already know the process in principle, it's just how reliable it is.

II

Hans-Georg Lundahl

The mammoth has 6 remaining pmC.

After 23 000 years, 100 pmC would decay to 6.19 pmC.

In my tables, the carbon date 21 000 BC is:

2738 av. J.-Chr.
11,073 / 11,069 pcm, donc daté à 20 938 av. J.-Chr.

It is the very node between the slow initial carbon 14 buildup after the Flood and the much quicker one between then and Babel. Note, "carbon 14 buildup" is not a misunderstanding of decay.

The buildup in the atmosphere means that, between Flood and Fall or Troy, the closer you get to the present, the closer the initial values of any sample gets to 100 pmC. Inversely of course, the further back you get, the lower it gets and the more extra years that involves. The buildup is not from the process of decay, but from the process of carbon 14 formation in the high layers of the atmosphere.

That process was on my view sped up, and this does NOT conflict with a constant half life of 5730 years.

2738 + 1950 = 4688 years.
0.5^(4688 / 5730) = 56.717 % (of initial value)
11,069 pmC * 56.717 / 100 = 6.278 pmC

Precisely what we find in the mammoth, a few decimals apart.

Jonathan Baker

Hans-Georg Lundahl Not all mammoths have 6 pmC—they vary by more than an order of magnitude, because they spanned ~40,000 years within the limits of radiocarbon dating. These disparities undermine the alleged 'post-flood buildup' of atmospheric 14C.

A further test is the corroboration of the 14C chronologies not only from tree rings but U-Th dating of corals and speleothems. Why should these correlate if historical 14C were the result of some 'post-flood buildup'?

Further tests are the corroboration of 14C chronologies with ice-core and various lake data (e.g. Ammersee, Lake Van, Dead Sea, and a thousand others). In particular, Δ14C and 10Be as a function of solar irradiance / geomagnetic moment.

All of this precludes that atmospheric 14C built up in the last ~5,000 years.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"These disparities undermine the alleged 'post-flood buildup' of atmospheric 14C."

Not really. See the sketchiness of the overlap of two samples pretended to be overlapping.

"not only from tree rings but U-Th dating of corals and speleothems."

U-Th would be pretty iffy. First, the halflife is so long, that it's virtually impossible to observe it. It's a bit like if you told me the earth we live on were a very, very huge elephant back, even apart from travellers' narratives (corresponding to Biblical history on my view), I could reply, "well, if so, the elephant is so very, very, very big, we can't observe it."

Second, there are radioactive processes that would speed up the decay of either Uranium or Thorium (nuclear plants and atomic bombs use them), and unlike for carbon, the radioactivity would not ALSO increase the parent isotope.

Third, as to the correlation, I have it from Creationists who regularly read science papers it is sometimes pretty blatantly imperfect, they have conflicting dates ... but even if that were cherry-picking, which I think it is not, the correlation could have at least during the Flood been arranged by demons, who were probably acting as God's executioners outside the Ark and its surroundings and probably could have obtained permission to prepare for an end times deception.

"In particular, Δ14C and 10Be as a function of solar irradiance / geomagnetic moment."

My point is precisely that the build-up was sped up by more cosmic radiation, which would not have just increased the carbon 14, but also the Beryllium 10, and which was mainly aimed at shortening the lifespans after the Flood (see Genesis 11 lifespans for results) and also caused the Ice Age much more rapidly than is usually thought by the YEC community.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Jonathan Baker "Not all mammoths have 6 pmC—they vary by more than an order of magnitude, because they spanned ~40,000 years within the limits of radiocarbon dating."

Perfectly accounted for by my tables.

40 000 BP comes from the Flood, and the atmospheric level back then would have been at 1.628 pmC. I only showed the relevant exerpt for the 21 000 BC dated sample. Here is the full post, but it is in French, however, if you take into account that "pcm" = "pmC" and that the pmC I give is for when the sample is from, not what remains in it today, you should be fine:

New blog on the kid: Mes plus récentes tables de carbone 14
Wednesday 1 May 2024 | Posted by Hans Georg Lundahl at 09:28
https://nov9blogg9.blogspot.com/2024/05/mes-plus-recentes-tables-de-carbone-14.html

Jonathan Baker

[see above, inserted in the tree ring discussion under I]

Jonathan Baker

Hans-Georg Lundahl I work at the lab where those half lives were determined. 😂 They are not really that long—about 245,000 and 75,000 years for ²³⁴U and ²³⁰Th.

We don’t measure the half life by waiting around for it to decay enough to measure a difference in the masses. That’s not at all how that works, so again, you e come to an erroneous conclusion naively.

Jonathan Baker

Hans-Georg Lundahl I have spoken with those very creationists and they made it clear they don’t understand those science papers about paleoclimate, especially orbital scale rhythms.

The correlation is not at all imperfect, and I’ve just spent the last two weeks getting almost 100 new dates, all of which exhibit a perfect correlation between Greenland, Europe, and Southeast Asia. You shouldn’t give so much credence to pretend experts who don’t work with producing these data. They are very good at misleading the public.

If the alleged buildup were caused by cosmic radiation, then we would see a clear disparity between 14C and U-Th ages in corals and speleothem. But instead, there’s nearly a 1:1 relationship back to 50,000 years. You seem to have missed this point!

In addition, you wouldn’t see the divergence between ¹⁴C and ¹⁰Be in ice core data if there were such a rapid buildup from cosmic radiation. We see that divergence because of carbon cycling in the oceans, but that makes no sense in the context of your post-flood conjecture.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Naively, admitted, but erroneously, you'll have to back up.

For ¹⁴C, you can find wooden spoons from 200 years ago, 500 years ago, 1000 years ago, and materials more readily historically parallel dated, and you can verify the different remainder pmCs. 90 pmC = 0.5^(n/x)?

5 years is too little to detect a difference, so, wait ... ²³⁰Th just possibly could be historically tested. It's just 13 times longer than ¹⁴C.

Now, you just claimed that you "didn't wait for it to decay enough" which presumably means you are not taking the historic samples as the main (or even a?) source of the half life.

Show how the method you actually use doesn't have a parallel flaw?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"you wouldn’t see the divergence between 14C and 10Be in ice core data if there were such a rapid buildup from cosmic radiation. We see that divergence because of carbon cycling in the oceans, but that makes no sense in the context of your post-flood conjecture."

This one's important, I had presumed it was a convergence.

You put it down to "carbon cycling in the oceans" and I could put it down to carbon cycling in fossil carbon resurfacing in the unstable environment the centuries after the Flood.

"I have spoken with those very creationists"

I'd like to see more like a written and detailed debate, and not just your word for it.

"they made it clear they don’t understand those science papers about paleoclimate, especially orbital scale rhythms."

I'd once again want more than your word for it.

Written or youtube registered, but preferrably written, public debate would be more to the point.

"we would see a clear disparity between ¹⁴C and U-Th ages in corals and speleothem. But instead, there’s nearly a 1:1 relationship back to 50,000 years. You seem to have missed this point!"

You seem to have missed the point that a speed up of decay in U-Th could very well have been carefully mnipulated by demons, as they were executing God's judgement during the Flood. AND had His permission to prepare for the end times delusion.

"You shouldn’t give so much credence to pretend experts who don’t work with producing these data."

Why would this be relevant?

"They are very good at misleading the public."

You may be very good at misleading yourselves AND the public. As far as I'm concerned, you are misleading a bigger part of the public than they are leading in a moderately correct direction.

Jonathan Baker

Hans-Georg Lundahl I can’t go through everything in detail at the moment (on the subway, on my phone), but a few things to note:

U and Th half-lives are determined by measuring the ratio of materials in secular equilibrium. That method is described in detail here (again, in the very lab where I am currently):

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0012821X13001878

This method can date materials accurately less than 100 years old, so yes, we do validate it with historical samples. I’ve contributed to a number of these studies, which I’d happily link later when I have time.

You can’t explain the divergence between C/Be in a post flood scenario, because of physical limitations on rates of oceanic overturning. It clearly undermines your alleged explanation for 14C buildup (which also could not happen on the scales you’re talking, given the size of that reservoir).

I’ve written at length on my interactions with YEC attempts to explain radiocarbon. You can read it for yourself, or I’ll link later. You don’t have to presume it doesn’t exist.

“…but erroneously, you’ll have to back up”

That’s easy. Your conjecture is plainly refuted by the Hulu cave 14C / U-Th chronology and the coherence between radiocarbon-, U-Th-, and laminated/carved chronologies for the LGM to present. Happy to link in detail (later). These chronologies should not corroborate in a “post flood rapid build up” of atm 14C. They do; so your idea doesn’t work.

Yes, I think it’s relevant that no YEC critics of radiocarbon have direct experience in 14C or even geochronology generally. There is no debate if they aren’t even qualified to assess the discipline.

If you’re seriously suggested that “demons altered rates of decay to deceive us”, then we can stop now because you don’t deserve to be taken seriously.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I'm not unhappy to stop with you.

The technical stuff involves other things than what I've been concentrating on, I'll try to consult some YEC experts in the field on it.

I was not suggesting that the interactions between yourself and other creationists do not exist.

Given your reading skills, I would as mentioned have wanted to see the interaction from both sides instead of trusting how you chose to sum it up.

An example is :

If you’re seriously suggested that “demons altered rates of decay to deceive us”, then we can stop now because you don’t deserve to be taken seriously.

I did not suggest that demons altered the normal rates of decay. I did suggest that there was a speeding up of decay, and that demons could have been involved in the execution of it and therefore also had an opportunity (granted them by God) to use the opportunity to get some samples prepared for you to mislead the public.

If you do not think this deserves to be taken seriously, are you a Christian?

Because, if you are, you should believe that demons exist (Matthew 8 ), that they engage in deceiving people through people (Apocalypse 13:13 f) and that they need permission from God to act (Matthew 8, again).

You should also prefer the chronology of the Bible over chronologies got at by very roundabout and even unhistoric methods, even if you think you have reasonably double-checked.

III

The following discussion was not reuploaded after Wolgemuth apparently reuploaded the initial status. I reposted the previous comments under the new upload. Only after did I discover that the original upload had not been taken down.

John Schutt

I wish that all Christians understood this, and that they also understood that an ancient earth does not negate a sinless, literal Adam.

Jeff Reichman

John Schutt Billy Graham provides some pragmatic advice along your same thoughts. “I don’t think that there’s any conflict at all between science today and the scriptures. I think that we have misinterpreted the Scriptures many times and we’ve tried to make the Scriptures say things they weren’t meant to say, I think that we have made a mistake by thinking the Bible is a scientific book. The Bible is not a book of science. The Bible is a book of Redemption, and of course I accept the Creation story. I believe that God did create the universe. I believe that God created man, and whether it came by an evolutionary process and at a certain point He took this person or being and made him a living soul or not, does not change the fact that God did create man. … whichever way God did it makes no difference as to what man is and man’s relationship to God.” Billy Graham: Personal Thoughts of a Public Man, 1997. p. 72-74

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Jeff Reichman Thank you for documenting how opposition to YEC is a Protestant thing!

Hans-Georg Lundahl

John Schutt what about an Adam too far back negating our historic certainty of Genesis 3 as a historic fact, transmitted by Adam over Noah and Abraham to Moses?

What about an Adam too far back negating God's goodness in keeping the implicit promise in His threat to the serpent?

On a YEC view with LXX based chronology, Redemption came within the SIXTH lifespan of Adam, just as Adam came on the SIXTH day of Creation week.

On an OE view, an Adam we all uniquely descend from would be so far back that Genesis 3 would be reduced to nearly myth as to reliability of transmission, while Genesis 5 and 11 show there is no reliability of prophecy if the genealogies are not literally true.

Also, God would very unreasonably long have delayed the Messiah.

Also, Adam and Cain could not have been farmers and Abel not a shepherd.

That's sufficiently much of a breakdown in theology.

Billy Graham didn't think that through, or some rumours he was a Commie are true.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Jeff Reichman "I believe that God created man, and whether it came by an evolutionary process and at a certain point He took this person or being and made him a living soul or not, does not change the fact that God did create man."

It changes what man is.

And what counts as man.

Human language cannot come about by an evolutionary process, and traditionally that's one sufficient criterium to classify a being as God's image.

Jeff Reichman

Hans-Georg Lundahl Is a Protestant thing? Not following.

John Schutt

Hans-Georg Lundahl Note that I didn't say a thing about the date of Adam. ALL evidence shows that the universe and earth are old. It doesn't mean that Adam was.

Jeff Reichman

Hans-Georg Lundahl Graham never stated nor has he ever state (that I am aware of) that man came about through evolution. He stated that it is possible that God usedwhat we call evolution for his purposed and then at some point made his a living soul.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

John Schutt With an Old Universe, Carbon 14 dates will imply, either that Adam was old, or that mankind ante-dated him.

The latter is as blatantly heretical.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Jeff Reichman "that it is possible that God used what we call evolution"

Human anatomy cannot exist in functioning populations without human language, and therefore, if for no other reason, cannot come about by "what we call evolution" ...

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Jeff Reichman "Is a Protestant thing?"

Well yes, you will hardly say Billy Graham was a Roman Catholic (or Eastern Orthodox) will you?

Jeff Reichman

Hans-Georg Lundahl No but I really don't understand your point.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

OK, do you understand it better if I say, there is an urban legend among Roman Catholics, and I'm suffering from it, that YEC is a Protestant thing?

Jeff Reichman

Hans-Georg Lundahl Frankly no I’m not following at all???

John Schutt

Hans-Georg Lundahl Your point about Adam being old and many generations passing is a good one. But, that is a separate issue from the age of the earth

John Schutt

Hans-Georg Lundahl "With an Old Universe, Carbon 14 dates will imply, either that Adam was old, or that mankind ante-dated him."

Carbon 14 is not used for dating the earth. It's used for fairly recent objects. The age of the universe/earth is a completely separate discussion from the age of Adam. And, no, he was not ante-dated by humans. Yes. That would be anti-Biblical.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"But, that is a separate issue from the age of the earth"
"Carbon 14 is not used for dating the earth"

If the atmosphere were very old, there is no possibility that Carbon 14 could have been as low as 1.628 pmC in 2957 BC when the Flood happened.

"And, no, he was not ante-dated by *humans*."

Are you under the impression that Neanderthals weren't human? Do you ignore they belong to our ancestry?

I need a universe at the very least an earth in which La Ferrassie 1 or La Ferrassie 2, carbon dated to over 40 000 years ago, can be from just before 2957 BC. Not one in which she was "pre-Adam's times" because clearly she was not pre-human.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Jeff Reichman In Paris, there is an Urban Legend that pretends that YEC and OEC basically are Protestant and Catholic versions of taking the Bible seriously.

Some, who believe that one, have concluded that I'm somehow YEC "because I'm Protestant" which I'm definitely not.

As this debate is mirrored on a blog, you'll be doing me a service before our readers.

Jeff Reichman

Hans-Georg Lundahl oh ok. I’d never heard of those positions YEC-Protestant or OEC-Catholic. Ok so now your posts make sense. Thank you for the clarification. I did a little research and sure enough there is some truth to that position.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Too little.

But thanks for appreciating.