Carbon 14, Yes, I Believe in a Constant Halflife, Probably 5730 Years

Matthew Hunt

12.XII.2024

Can I get the creationists to concede that the constant half-life isn't as assumption of radioactivity but a prediction? It's not decay rate either, as the decay rate dN/dt is proportional to the amount of parent elements left.

I

Roger M Pearlman

Admin

Best contributor

better to break that q down by specific type.

From my perspective it could (likely?) be true with carbon dating but is likely NOT true with some (all?) types of rock dating.

Matthew Hunt

Roger, it's true regardless of the type.

A

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Best contributor

Matthew Hunt How do you even measure the halflife of U-Pb or of K-Ar?

For C14, it is easy. Take a historic artefact of organic material (chess piece in ivory, wooden chest or so) that's 1400 years old. Then test 0.5(1400/x) until you find a result that matches the remaining carbon.

Do the same for other ages, like 400 years ago, test those for 0.5(400/x), starting with the value obtained from the first test and so on.

I think, a very good case can be made that we have had a stable c. 100 pmC for the last millennia, and a halflife (all time, not just the last millennia) of 5730 years.

B

Roger M Pearlman

Matthew Hunt a steady rate of decay across all types of radio-metric dating is definitely not proven.

It is open to dispute.

if either or, it is going to be (if not already) falsified prior to it being proven science.

start study at Yaacov Hanokah PhD Chemistry (Bor HaTorah journals 2,13, 15 and 17) on this disputed science issue.

Matthew Hunt

Roger, the rate of decay isn't steady, it's exponentially decrease.

Roger M Pearlman

Matthew Hunt assuming a 'steady half-life which is what i meant by steady.

'constant' rather than 'steady' does seem like a better word choice for what we are trying to describe.

II

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Best contributor

For radiocarbon, I actually use the constant halflife in my YEC calibration.

III

Roger M Pearlman

It could be just as much a prediction that the half-life is not always constant in radio-metric rock dating.

what would be some variables and ways to test?

IV

James Young

Best contributor

The decay rate continually dwindled down it’s not constant no one has ever been around long enough to verify that the halfrates do in fact line up with the predicted numbers.

There are many elements to decay much faster. Yeah, I can’t find any documentation that proves their half lives actually lined up the way they are predicted.

Perhaps Matthew Hunt, can you give us an example of a much faster decay rate that actually works the way it they claim it does.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

James Young I tend to disagree even for K-Ar, I definitely disagree for radiocarbon.

And I'm Young Earth Creationist.

For radiocarbon, carbon dates have more or less coincided with historic dates (up to 200 years deviation) since the Fall of Troy, carbon dated 1179 BC and historically fallen in 1179 BC.

The biggest deviation is from 750 to 450 where all dates come out as 550 BC. So, Rome is founded 753 BC, the oldest city scape is carbon dated to 550 BC, which back then they were not yet aware of this effect, so they believed the traditional account had to be scrapped because of this. Not so.

Matthew Hunt

James, the decay rate is proportional to the amount of parent element left.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

OK, I seem to have confused decay rate and half life.

Wait, is the decay RATE or the decay QUANTITY directly proportional to what's left?

With Alan Clifford on the Video and On My Disappearing Comments

Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere: Rome is Right (Even if Exiled), Alan Clifford is Wrong · HGL'S F.B. WRITINGS: With Alan Clifford on the Video and On My Disappearing Comments

Alan Clifford

Dec. 3 [2024] at 3:14 PM

WHY ROME IS WRONG or NO PLACE LIKE ROME?
https://youtu.be/tBGuK9xVya4

With thanksgiving to Almighty God for the glorious Protestant Reformation of the Sixteenth Century, Dr Clifford makes his case that:
1. The Pope’s religion is not the Christianity of Jesus Christ.
2. The Pope’s church is not the true Church of Jesus Christ.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Sir, I made four comments in refutation of the video.

They are gone, invisible.

If they came to the spam filter, I'd appreciate if you had the courage to make them visible and engage with them.

If they aren't even there, I'll be happy to repost them, if you say so.

A post with your video, my responses, possibly interactions about the latter, is upcoming. Consequently, so are more comments, I'm only at 4 minutes and some into the video.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

It seems the fourth comment was slightly garbled, some thoughts left unwritten by distraction.

It has been completed and reposted under your video, and so has a fifth comment.

I'll continue, but I'd appreciate if the comments were made visible.

Alan Clifford

Thank you. God bless you. I'm puzzled by disappearing comments.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Alan Clifford Even more, I tried reposting the three first ones, and they disappeared again.

You may find them if you look in a spam folder for comments. Ask some younger youtuber what that exactly entails.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Alan Clifford Some that have disappeared were at least saved on my blog:

Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere: Rome is Right (Even if Exiled), Alan Clifford is Wrong
https://assortedretorts.blogspot.com/2024/12/rome-is-right-even-if-exiled-alan.html

Levi J. Pingleton Also Saw the Video by Trent Horn

Levi J. Pingleton

5.XII.2024

Nearly FORTY PERCENT of people believe in a Young Earth Creation. Those Catholic Apologists refusing to engage, discuss, and debate this topic aren't going to be able to keep ducking, dodging, and misrepresenting this beautiful Cosmology and Cosmogeny with straw man arguments and misleading false assertions much longer...

I

Philip Eykamp

I would suspect that a large chunk of YEC Christians are outside the bounds of apostolic Christianity and thus are not really worth taking seriously in terms of having sound Christian theology.

As a separate point, YEC could be true *despite* that, and I'm certainly not using this as an argument against YEC, but ~40% of professing Christians probably believe all kinds of things that are provably erroneous, too.

Levi J. Pingleton

Sure, we're a small percentage, but we are GROWING RAPIDLY as our message is nothing but Tradition and Scripture, and is the view of the nearly all the Church Fathers, Doctors, and Medieval Theologians. 1600 years it was uncontested and rigorously defended by the Magisterium. The Literal interpretation of Scripture, including Genesis 1-11, IS the Tradition of the Church.

a)

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Philip Eykamp The old age paradigm comes from two non-Apostolic semi-Christians, so to speak.

James Hutton was already a Deist, but had ancestry, perhaps upbringing, in Calvinism. Charles Lyell was Anglican, of the Broad Church party (you know, more like Alec Vidler than like C. S. Lewis) in a "Church" with no valid Apostolic Succession.

Meanwhile, up to 1896, according to the first Catholic Frameworker, the Catholic publications with ecclesiastic approval that treated the subject fell into three categories.
1) YEC (the position of Johann Emmanuel Veith, a Catholic priest, convert from Judaism, physician and friend of St. Clement Maria Hofbauer, whom St. Pius X canonised in 1909)
2) Day Age (the position of Father Fulcran Vigouroux, Sulpician, and one he was allowed to "legalise" in 1909, as judging in the Pontifical Biblical Commission)
3) Gap Theory.

b)

Philip Eykamp

Levi J. Pingleton Oh, I wasn't arguing that the percentage is small. That's a large enough percentage to be taken seriously. The point is that for every serious student of patristic, apostolic Christianity like you, there is (I would guess) at least one evangelical who may or may not even take seriously the historical Church.

All of that said, someone like Jimmy Akin debating Gideon Lazar on this issue is what needs to happen rather than ignoring this issue, as some people seem almost to believe that the Church has rejected YEC while from what I can tell it is still a seriously regarded theological opinion and one with serious patristic backing.

Levi J. Pingleton

Philip Eykamp that already has happened. Jimmy and Gideon have debated on Evolution and YEC.

Philip Eykamp

Levi J. Pingleton Yeah I know; I meant that more such debates would give an additional hearing to this issue, and Gideon Lazar did a good job in my estimation.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

At least a very decent job, I did some supplementary comments:

Extract of Lazar - Akin : Where is the Authority? · Gideon and Jimmy came to exchange on carbon dating

II

David Gabler

Just wonder where this figure came from?

Levi J. Pingleton

I heard it on Trent Horn's new, horribly defficient video on what he will and won't debate, at about 7: 43 minutes in he mentions Young Earth Creation, and uses this statistic...

What I Will (and Won't) Debate
https://youtu.be/hs6z7asjta4?si=rxOxITxLFOLlqv2R

David Gabler Also, had to fix the OP, thats 40 PERCENT OF ALL PEOPLE...

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Levi J. Pingleton I've started to comment on it:

Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere: 1st 1/3 of a Trent Horn Policies Video
https://assortedretorts.blogspot.com/2024/12/1st-13-of-trent-horn-policies-video.html