[_ Old Earth _] Creationist Seminar

[jwu]

That ratio of C12/C14 indeed would put it off that way.

And remember, the C14 dating used to date the mummies and victims at Pompei is subject to the same C12 variations we've been discussing.

My bad, in case of pompeji it wasn't C14 but Ar/Ar dating.
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/a ... /5330/1279

However, in these cases radiometric dating are not the primary means of establishing an age - these things originate from recorded history.

Especially Pompeji is well documented as it happened right in the Roman Empire, close to Rome itself, in 79AD.

I guess you won't accept the Hemaka mummy though, as, according to "conventional" Egyptologie, he lived ~3000BC - pre flood. That date was first established by other means and later confirmed by C14.

 

[Charlie Hatchett]

I guess you won't accept the Hemaka mummy though, as, according to "conventional" Egyptologie, he lived ~3000BC - pre flood. That date was first established by other means and later confirmed by C14.

Very interesting. Here's a post I made on another forum a while back.

I'll gather the sources of information for you.

...I also like the fact it agrees with the known S-shaped, long-term

radiocarbon dating error. One bend of the curve peaks in the middle of the

first millennium A.D. Radiocarbon ages during this period over estimate

dendrochronological ages by up to a hundred years. The curve switches

direction around 500 B.C., when radiocarbon ages begin to underestimate

supposed dendrochronological ages. The discrepancy grows as we go back

in time, so that by the third millennium B.C., radiocarbon dates are under

estimated by 800 years.

Taylor, R.E. (1987), Radiocarbon Dating: An Archaeological Perspective

(Orlando, FL: Academic Press).

No one can explain this major trend adequately on the assumptions of an old Earth or an equilibrium system. Common suggestions include changes in the Earth’s magnetic field, or climatic changes following the last ice age, or a combination of both (Aitken, 1990, p. 67). Despite the unknowns, researchers continue to “calibrate†their radiocarbon dates by dendrochronology.

Aitken, M.J. (1990), Science-Based Dating in Archaeology (New York:

Longman).

Man, almost on the money (+ or - 100 years)

Alternative archeology has a recurring hypothesis that Egypt's founder is

Mizraim, The son of Ham, The son of Noah.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ham,_son_of_Noah

 

[jwu]

..I also like the fact it agrees with the known S-shaped, long-term

radiocarbon dating error. One bend of the curve peaks in the middle of the

first millennium A.D. Radiocarbon ages during this period over estimate

dendrochronological ages by up to a hundred years. The curve switches

direction around 500 B.C., when radiocarbon ages begin to underestimate

supposed dendrochronological ages. The discrepancy grows as we go back

in time, so that by the third millennium B.C., radiocarbon dates are under

estimated by 800 years.

...and exactly that is why calibration is used.

Alternative archeology has a recurring hypothesis that Egypt's founder is
Mizraim, The son of Ham, The son of Noah.

Mkay...just wondering, are the oldest Egypt writings in Hebrew language (or whatever language Noah spoke)?

 

[Charlie Hatchett]

..and exactly that is why calibration is used.

Dendrochronology is used to calibrate C14 dating, but it doesn't account for

this internal discrepancy. It's known by all pros, but they don't get to worried

about 800 years. Yet, it becomes particularly relevant in this context we're

discussing.

charlie:

Alternative archeology has a recurring hypothesis that Egypt's founder is
Mizraim, The son of Ham, The son of Noah.

jwu:

Mkay...just wondering, are the oldest Egypt writings in Hebrew language (or

whatever language Noah spoke)?

Not a clue...but I'm sure we can find out. I would guess that it's

a predecessor to ancient Babylonian...but that's a guess. It's the area

where Noah and son's were supposedly from, and where Nimrod supposedly

built his great Tower of Babel (Ziggurate) after the flood.


Interesting point.

 

[jwu]

..and exactly that is why calibration is used.

Dendrochronology is used to calibrate C14 dating, but it doesn't account for

this internal discrepancy. It's known by all pros, but they don't get to worried

about 800 years. Yet, it becomes particularly relevant in this context we're

discussing.

Probably fluctuations of the atmospheric ratio of C12/C14. And since not only dendrochronology of various locations but also other methods such as the varves agree with each other about this deviation, that conclusion is quite clear.

Not a clue...but I'm sure we can find out. I would guess that it's

a predecessor to ancient Babylonian...but that's a guess. It's the area

where Noah and son's were supposedly from, and where Nimrod supposedly

built his great Tower of Babel (Ziggurate) after the flood.


Interesting point.

Well, i also dispute the tower of babel story as an explaination of where different languages came from, but since quite some generations had to pass to account for the population of these regions there should be plenty of Hebrew "pre-babel" writings all over the earth. I don't think these have been found though, except in places where people always spoke that language anyway.

 

[Charlie Hatchett]

Probably fluctuations of the atmospheric ratio of C12/C14. And since not only dendrochronology of various locations but also other methods such as the varves agree with each other about this deviation, that conclusion is quite clear

.

Agreed. The uniform mixing of the c14/c12 (regardless of the actual ratio)

in the atmosphere would yield the same results for whatever was living at

that point in time anywhere in the world.

Well, i also dispute the tower of babel story as an explaination of where different languages came from, but since quite some generations had to pass to account for the population of these regions there should be plenty of Hebrew "pre-babel" writings all over the earth. I don't think these have been found though, except in places where people always spoke that language anyway.

The problem you get into, is what is interpreted as writing. For example this

link explains possible writing found 1.3 million years ago (not sure what

dating method), but it looks like etched lines to me...far from writing:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3512470.stm

Here's a piece of bone I found this week with the same kind of parallel

etching described in the article:

http://cayman.globat.com/~bandstexas.com/bone105.jpg

http://cayman.globat.com/~bandstexas.com/bone106.jpg

http://cayman.globat.com/~bandstexas.com/bone107.jpg

http://cayman.globat.com/~bandstexas.com/bone108.jpg

I don't know if I would consider this writing though.

Do a search on Google. There's a bunch of articles claiming "Earliest Writing

Found". Some are more plausible than others in my opinion.

I'm certainly no expert when it comes to linguistics