Where are the current ripples from Noah's Flood?

[dlamberth]

We talking about the same thing - Radiocarbon Dating?

Radiocarbon dating measures the decay of carbon-14 in organic matter. But the amount of carbon-14 in the atmosphere fluctuates through time; it’s not a constant baseline. So researchers create radiocarbon calibration curves that map the carbon-14 values to dates.

Problems With Radiocarbon Dating

Spoiler

The old method of determining 14C/12C ratios required counting the number of radioactive beta decay emissions from a quite large sample over an extended period. During the last 60 years, a new method of determining these ratios has been developed. It uses accelerator mass spectrometry (AMS) to determine the amounts of 14C, 13C and 12C in a small sample which is vaporised in the test. The ions produced are forced into a magnetic field where the differing mass of the carbon isotopes causes a different deflection, allowing the quantity of each isotope to be measured. This method is rapid and more accurate than the older counting technique. The sensitivity of the mass spec method should allow the dating of objects up to 95,000 years old. As noted above, in practice this is not achieved.

A test by the British Science and Engineering Research Council has shown that the accuracy of the AMS method is overrated. They found large variations in the radiocarbon ‘dates’ of objects of known age, which were sent to 38 radiocarbon ‘dating’ laboratories around the world. Thirty-one of the labs gave results that the British group called unsatisfactory. Their results were ‘two to three times less accurate than implied by the range of error they stated.’ They thought the variations might have been caused by poor laboratory standards allowing contamination of the samples.

Some scientists believe the problem runs far deeper than this, as the following quote shows:

In the light of what is known about the radiocarbon method and the way it is used, it is truly astonishing that many authors will cite agreeable determinations as “proof” for their beliefs...

Radiocarbon dating has somehow avoided collapse onto its own battered foundation, and now lurches onward with feigned consistency. The implications of pervasive contamination and ancient variations in carbon-14 levels are steadfastly ignored by those who base their argument upon the dates.

...[Some authors have said] they were “not aware of a single significant disagreement” in any sample that had been dated at different labs. Such enthusiasts continue to claim, incredible though it may seem, that “no gross discrepancies are apparent”. Surely 15,000 years of difference on a single block of soil is indeed a gross discrepancy! And how could the excessive disagreement between the labs be called insignificant, when it has been the basis for the reappraisal of the standard error associated with each and every date in existence?

Why do geologists and archaeologists still spend their scarce money on costly radiocarbon determinations? They do so because occasional dates appear to be useful. While the method cannot be counted on to give good, unequivocal results, the numbers do impress people, and save them the trouble of thinking excessively. Expressed in what look like precise calendar years, figures seem somehow better—both to the layman and professional not versed in statistics—than complex stratigraphic or cultural correlations, and are more easily retained in one’s memory. “Absolute” dates determined by a laboratory carry a lot of weight, and are extremely useful in bolstering weak arguments...

No matter how “useful” it is though, the radiocarbon method is still not capable of yielding accurate and reliable results. There are gross discrepancies, the chronology is uneven and relative, and the accepted dates are actually selected dates. This whole blessed thing is nothing but 13th century alchemy, and it all depends upon which funny paper you read.

Robert E. Lee, Radiocarbon: Ages in Error. Anthropological Journal of Canada, vol. 19 (3), 1981, pp. 9-29

Though there have been improvements in the technology since then, Lee’s general criticism remains valid. There is a trend towards older objects having less 14C in them than younger objects, but clearly there are serious problems in converting the 14C/12C ratios of ‘old’ items into precise dates.

However, there are other factors which make the dating problems even worse. I believe that the 14C/12C ratios in the past were drastically altered by two powerful factors. These factors are changes in the strength of the Earth’s magnetic field and changes in the total amount of normal carbon available to organisms. Changes which cause lower initial quantities of 14C and higher levels of 12C mean that radiocarbon date calculations which assume constant conditions in the past give falsely “old” dates.

Accelerator mass spectrometry has made radiocarbon dating the most precise method to determine the death of living organisms that occurred within the last 50,000 years. However, the method is not without limitations

How Fish Corrupt Carbon-14 Dating
Danish Stone Age settlements may turn out to be hundreds, perhaps thousands, of years younger than we thought.

A physicist from Aarhus University has together with archaeologists at the Gottorp Castle Museum in Northern Germany made a startling discovery: if ancient people prepared their fish in clay vessels, it’s impossible to date this accurately.

It turns out that the widely-used Carbon-14 dating method may be up to 2,000 years off the mark.

”We had not expected to see an effect of 2,000 years. The discovery has some fairly frightening implications because it’s crucial to archaeology to have steady fixation points in the dating work. There’s probably no need to rewrite the history books, but it’s likely that they contain some incorrectly dated excavation sites, Associate Professor Felix Riede told Aarhus University’s newsletter Rømer.

Carbon dating, the archaeological workhorse, is getting a major reboot
A long-anticipated recalibration of radiocarbon dating could shift the age of some prehistoric samples hundreds of years

Lots of things apparently throw Carbon 14 readings off marks.

Dating the Ice Age Floods using Carbon-14 dating was used only two times. And the dating corresponded to the other methods used.

 

[sjastro]

How Fish Corrupt Carbon-14 Dating
Danish Stone Age settlements may turn out to be hundreds, perhaps thousands, of years younger than we thought.

A physicist from Aarhus University has together with archaeologists at the Gottorp Castle Museum in Northern Germany made a startling discovery: if ancient people prepared their fish in clay vessels, it’s impossible to date this accurately.

It turns out that the widely-used Carbon-14 dating method may be up to 2,000 years off the mark.

”We had not expected to see an effect of 2,000 years. The discovery has some fairly frightening implications because it’s crucial to archaeology to have steady fixation points in the dating work. There’s probably no need to rewrite the history books, but it’s likely that they contain some incorrectly dated excavation sites, Associate Professor Felix Riede told Aarhus University’s newsletter Rømer.

Carbon dating, the archaeological workhorse, is getting a major reboot
A long-anticipated recalibration of radiocarbon dating could shift the age of some prehistoric samples hundreds of years

Lots of things apparently throw Carbon 14 readings off marks.

The old confirmation bias trick in operation again.
It is understood cooking can distort radiocarbon values as the heating process can alter the chemical composition of the residues, particularly lipids, and complicate their dating. Food fats may degrade unevenly or mix with carbon from other sources, such as soot from the fire or the clay of the pot, leading to contamination issues.

What if however pottery was used to store food; in recent years scientists have been able to extract uncontaminated carbon residue from pottery fragments and also dated the pottery using the following methods:

(1) Thermoluminescence (TL): Measures the accumulated radiation dose since the pottery was last fired, making it ideal for dating ceramics.
(2) OSL (Optically Stimulated Luminescence) (OSL): Used to determine when minerals like quartz were last exposed to sunlight, which helps in dating sediments or ceramics stored in dark conditions.
(3) IRSL (Infrared Stimulated Luminescence) (IRSL): Similar to OSL, but focuses on feldspar minerals, providing an alternate dating approach when quartz is less reliable.

Until now I had never heard of IRSL indicating the rapid development of testing methods.

So much for the unreliability of radiocarbon dating when deviations are understood and the dating can be checked against alternate methods.

 

[CoreyD]

Thanks. This is a pretty key point that needs to be highlighted.

So you are basically saying that layers cannot be misinterpreted?
That is not how science works. What happens when an interpretation is wrong?
Would you say because it was thought to be right, then it was right, or do you say the interpretation was right?

Better yet, do you say the rocks were lying, but now they are telling the truth?
For example...
See What geologists got wrong about the world’s biggest failed rift

...and...
The billion years missing from Earth’s history
A new theory to explain missing geological time, the end of leaded petrol, and the ancient humans of Arabia.
Host: Nick Petrić Howe

Well, it’s good to have you both here. And I thought I’d go first this week, and I’ve been looking into a geological mystery about a missing billion years of time.​

Host: Shamini Bundell

That seems very careless. The geologists have mislaid a billion years? It’s decreasing my faith in geology a little bit if they’ve only just noticed that.​

Host: Nick Petrić Howe

Well, they actually noticed it around 150-or-so years ago, so it’s something they’ve been working on for quite a while, but it’s been really hard to work out why this period of time is missing. And well, I should clarify that there’s not actual time missing. It’s more archaeological record of it. So, this was an article I was reading in BBC Future, and you might already know that when we look back in the past using geology, you look at different layers of rock, and by going down the layers you can see further and further back in time. And well, around 150 years ago, it was noticed in the Grand Canyon that as you went down the layers, something weird happened, and there were lots and lots of horizontal layers and then suddenly there was a shift and there were vertical layers. And one of the geologists who observed this also observed that there should be more of these layers than there actually were, and so there was a missing chunk of geological time.​

Host: Shamini Bundell

Wait, so was the bit where the layers went vertical associated with the bit where some layers were missing?​

Host: Nick Petrić Howe

Yeah, so the bits where the layers went vertical are a harder type of rock that is older, and these rocks are around 1.7 billion years old. Whereas the horizontal line, the oldest one we had there was around 500-or-so million years. So, there’s something that’s happened between those two which has meant that that rock is no longer present in those places. And I should say as well, this varies in different regions. So, within the Grand Canyon, there’s more or less of this missing time and across the world it sort of varies as well. But regardless, there is always a bit of time that is missing.​

Host: Dan Fox

So, what are the theories for where these rocks that represent a billion years have gone to?​

Host: Nick Petrić Howe

Well, ‘theories’ is the right word for it because no one is really sure, and the reason we’re talking about this now is recently there’s been a new theory. But before we get onto that, I’ll take you through the two existing theories. One is that these rocks were simply eroded away by fast-moving glaciers during a time when the Earth was frozen – Snowball Earth as it’s known. This is the reason for the missing time. Another theory is that heat from the centre of the Earth caused an ancient supercontinent called Rodinia to expand and rise up into the air and the top layer again got eroded away.​

Host: Dan Fox

So, what’s the newest theory?​

Host: Nick Petrić Howe

Well, the newest theory is that actually this gap wasn’t a huge gap at all. What we’re seeing are lots of little gaps that we’ve sort of confused together and think is one big gap in the geological record. So, this was a recent analysis that was done, and I talked a little bit about the Grand Canyon where you can see this, but there are other places as well, and in this study, they compared the Grand Canyon to this place called the Canadian Shield, where there’s another one of these gaps. And according to their analysis, it looks like the gap in the Grand Canyon happened before the one in this Canadian Shield, probably before the Snowball glaciation. And so, actually, it could be several different events that have come together and it’s actually several smaller gaps that have happened in a similar sort of few hundred million years of time and have ended up being sort of confused together. Because the further back in time you go, the harder it is to sort of place these events. There are greater degrees of uncertainty to work out actually when things happened, and so that’s the latest theory.​

Host: Shamini Bundell

So, if it’s not all one big, huge, global, missing billion years of geological layers, then I suppose that means you don’t need one unifying theory to explain all the gaps. It could be both of the ones you mentioned. It could be lots of different things.​

Don't you think this needs to be highlighted?

 

[CoreyD]

Dating the Ice Age Floods using Carbon-14 dating was used only two times. And the dating corresponded to the other methods used.

If you would be so kind as to produce references in support of what you state as facts, I would really appreciate that. It would be quite helpful. Thanks.

 

[dlamberth]

If you would be so kind as to produce references in support of what you state as facts, I would really appreciate that. It would be quite helpful. Thanks.

It's all drawn out in detail in the video.

 

[dlamberth]

So you are basically saying that layers cannot be misinterpreted?
That is not how science works. What happens when an interpretation is wrong?
Would you say because it was thought to be right, then it was right, or do you say the interpretation was right?

You need to watch the video to see how geologist worked the dating of the Ice Age Floods.

Going back to the Ice Age floods in one area there are 40 layers of silt. In another area there were more and in another area less layers. Geologist asked why is that? Geologist knew where the silt came from but when? Lots of questions. Those questions are being answered as geologist do their geology thing. As has happened with the Ice Age Floods, interpretations have been been corrected with a better study and understanding and time. Technology has played a large part in that.

Better yet, do you say the rocks were lying, but now they are telling the truth?
For example...
See What geologists got wrong about the world’s biggest failed rift

Notice that as technology advanced and provided geologist with a different perspective with a better understanding, the picture changed.

A new theory to explain missing geological time, the end of leaded petrol, and the ancient humans of Arabia.

Host: Nick Petrić Howe

Well, it’s good to have you both here. And I thought I’d go first this week, and I’ve been looking into a geological mystery about a missing billion years of time.​

Host: Shamini Bundell

That seems very careless. The geologists have mislaid a billion years? It’s decreasing my faith in geology a little bit if they’ve only just noticed that.​

Host: Nick Petrić Howe

Well, they actually noticed it around 150-or-so years ago, so it’s something they’ve been working on for quite a while, but it’s been really hard to work out why this period of time is missing. And well, I should clarify that there’s not actual time missing. It’s more archaeological record of it. So, this was an article I was reading in BBC Future, and you might already know that when we look back in the past using geology, you look at different layers of rock, and by going down the layers you can see further and further back in time. And well, around 150 years ago, it was noticed in the Grand Canyon that as you went down the layers, something weird happened, and there were lots and lots of horizontal layers and then suddenly there was a shift and there were vertical layers. And one of the geologists who observed this also observed that there should be more of these layers than there actually were, and so there was a missing chunk of geological time.​

Host: Shamini Bundell

Wait, so was the bit where the layers went vertical associated with the bit where some layers were missing?​

Host: Nick Petrić Howe

Yeah, so the bits where the layers went vertical are a harder type of rock that is older, and these rocks are around 1.7 billion years old. Whereas the horizontal line, the oldest one we had there was around 500-or-so million years. So, there’s something that’s happened between those two which has meant that that rock is no longer present in those places. And I should say as well, this varies in different regions. So, within the Grand Canyon, there’s more or less of this missing time and across the world it sort of varies as well. But regardless, there is always a bit of time that is missing.​

Host: Dan Fox

So, what are the theories for where these rocks that represent a billion years have gone to?​

Host: Nick Petrić Howe

Well, ‘theories’ is the right word for it because no one is really sure, and the reason we’re talking about this now is recently there’s been a new theory. But before we get onto that, I’ll take you through the two existing theories. One is that these rocks were simply eroded away by fast-moving glaciers during a time when the Earth was frozen – Snowball Earth as it’s known. This is the reason for the missing time. Another theory is that heat from the centre of the Earth caused an ancient supercontinent called Rodinia to expand and rise up into the air and the top layer again got eroded away.​

Host: Dan Fox

So, what’s the newest theory?​

Host: Nick Petrić Howe

Well, the newest theory is that actually this gap wasn’t a huge gap at all. What we’re seeing are lots of little gaps that we’ve sort of confused together and think is one big gap in the geological record. So, this was a recent analysis that was done, and I talked a little bit about the Grand Canyon where you can see this, but there are other places as well, and in this study, they compared the Grand Canyon to this place called the Canadian Shield, where there’s another one of these gaps. And according to their analysis, it looks like the gap in the Grand Canyon happened before the one in this Canadian Shield, probably before the Snowball glaciation. And so, actually, it could be several different events that have come together and it’s actually several smaller gaps that have happened in a similar sort of few hundred million years of time and have ended up being sort of confused together. Because the further back in time you go, the harder it is to sort of place these events. There are greater degrees of uncertainty to work out actually when things happened, and so that’s the latest theory.​

Host: Shamini Bundell

So, if it’s not all one big, huge, global, missing billion years of geological layers, then I suppose that means you don’t need one unifying theory to explain all the gaps. It could be both of the ones you mentioned. It could be lots of different things.​

Don't you think this needs to be highlighted?

Nope. It's rocks that's telling that story. Without rocks we would never know.

 

[CoreyD]

It's all drawn out in detail in the video.

Which you watched, and which do not give references. The video is not a reference. A talk by some person... a Nick Zentner, is not a reference. A reference is a paper, article, or source material, that may be used by others.

I accept that you do not have any source material, but listened to a man talk, and when asked for references, produced nothing.
Thus you made a claim which you don't think is important for the discussion, evidently.

 

[AV1611VET]

It impossible for a well informed yec to be intellectually honest.

It depends on who's doing the grading.

 

[CoreyD]

You need to watch the video to see how geologist worked the dating of the Ice Age Floods.

Going back to the Ice Age floods in one area there are 40 layers of silt. In another area there were more and in another area less layers. Geologist asked why is that? Geologist knew where the silt came from but when? Lots of questions. Those questions are being answered as geologist do their geology thing. As has happened with the Ice Age Floods, interpretations have been been corrected with a better study and understanding and time. Technology has played a large part in that.

"geology thing"? Interesting.

As to when, I did mention the geologists "geology thing", which is carbon dating plants found in among the ash - plants that obviously grew after the land recovered from its burning, evidently.

Thank you for at least, admitting that the geologists are interpreting what they see.

Notice that as technology advanced and provided geologist with a different perspective with a better understanding, the picture changed.

Geologist have a different perspective... of what - rocks? Thanks for agreeing.
The picture changes, because of what is in their mind, doesn't it? Their ideas. That's why there are hypotheses.

Nope. It's rocks that's telling that story. Without rocks we would never know.

There is always the features of the earth. We do not need rocks. Only sediment.
The story changes based on the perspective, as you said. The rocks do not have understanding. People do. You would agree.

 

[Astrid]

You need to watch the video to see how geologist worked the dating of the Ice Age Floods.

Going back to the Ice Age floods in one area there are 40 layers of silt. In another area there were more and in another area less layers. Geologist asked why is that? Geologist knew where the silt came from but when? Lots of questions. Those questions are being answered as geologist do their geology thing. As has happened with the Ice Age Floods, interpretations have been been corrected with a better study and understanding and time. Technology has played a large part in that.

Notice that as technology advanced and provided geologist with a different perspective with a better understanding, the picture changed.

Nope. It's rocks that's telling that story. Without rocks we would never know.

And if a person doesn’t want to understand what
they say, resists learning, and just plays quote- mine
with no basic understand of what they’re talking about
you just get nonsense.

i could quote mine experts of the day saying airplanes are
impossible. Then that they’re impractical for any use,
that 1000 lbs is maximum size, the clips of countless
crashes to show them so called ”experts” keep changing
and don’t know what they’re doing. Etc.
i won’t but it would be equally tiresome and insensible.

 

[AV1611VET]

i could quote mine experts of the day saying airplanes are impossible. Then that they’re impractical for any use, that 1000 lbs is maximum size, the clips of countless crashes to show them so called ”experts” keep changing and don’t know what they’re doing.

Here's an "oldie but goodie" that Split Rock made up for dad and me:

Two creationists take a Commercial flight

AV1611VET: How do we know that the flight crew knows how to fly this plane?

Flight Attendant: They are trained experts and have been doing this for many years.

Dad: All because they are so-called experts doesnt mean they can ignore Gods Word.

Flight Attendant: What does Gods Word have to do with flying an airplane?

AV1611VET: I use my Boolean Standards to show that flying is against The Inerrant Word of God and The Documentation.

Flight Attendant: Are you talking about The Bible? Where does The Bible say that?

AV1611VET: Thinking themselves to be wise they became fools.

Flight Attendant: What does that have to do with flying?

AV1611VET: Homo sapiens means Wise Man, doesnt it? Since the flight crew are Wise Men they are really fools and God will show them they are fools by crashing the plane.

Flight Attendant: What???

Dad: How do these Ivory Tower so-called experts know they can fly this plane between here and the destination? What if the atmosphere between here and the destination is in a different state?

Flight Attendant: Different State?? What do you mean??

Dad: A different state. Like it was before The Split.

Flight Attendant: What Split?

Dad: During the time of Peleg. To think differently, is anti-Bible hogwash and a fantasy!

Flight Attendant: What are you talking about?

Dad: You cannot prove that the space-time state between here and there is not different can you?

Flight Attendant: No, but we have never had any problem flying this route before..

Dad: Ha! You just ASSUME there is no difference now, because you assume the past is the key to the present. That is an Anti-God Lie, and thinking only within the box.. I refuse to accept it!!!

Flight Attendant Please, both of you take your seats!

AV1611VET: You just cant wait to ridicule me, even though I accept 95% of your science!

Dad: I just discovered that human flight is impossible! Amazing!!

Flight Attendant: Please, take your seats so we can take off! I promise it is safe!

AV1611VET: Oh yeah.. just like Thalidomide was a Wonder Drug before it was Plutoed!

Flight Attendant: Thalidomide?

AV1611VET: Sure, Thaldomide proves that your science changes with the flavor of the week!

Dad: Prove with your so called science that the state between here and there is the same! You cant!!!! Human flight is an anti-Bible lie! Amazing!

Flight Attendant: Get off this plane!!!

 

[Hans Blaster]

We talking about the same thing - Radiocarbon Dating?

No, I don't think we are. I am trying to join @dlamberth 's discussion of the dating of of a few samples of organic material used to pin down the Missoula Floods at the end of the last glacial period which occurred 10-15,000 years ago. On the other hand you seem to be interested in nothing but flinging mud (almost all of it irrelevant mud) at the concept of radiocarbon dating for no other apparent reason that you don't like the time frame it gives.

I gave counters and criticisms to the prior batch of examples. I don't see any attempt to reply to them at all. All I see is another batch of mud thrown at the wall. I will now address these, will you respond to what I write? (We shall see.)

Radiocarbon dating measures the decay of carbon-14 in organic matter. But the amount of carbon-14 in the atmosphere fluctuates through time; it’s not a constant baseline. So researchers create radiocarbon calibration curves that map the carbon-14 values to dates.

This is a paper about using a statistical model to improve what they want to get out of their radiocarbon dates -- a distribution in time of a group of artifacts. The distribution tells them about the population history of a city. They are more interested in the overall distribution than the specific timing of any particular artifact. This kind of statistical modeling of data to extract the underlying distribution of the thing you are measuring. This general kind of statistical modeling often (as this seems to do) include modeling of things like detector response. In this case the modeling of the calibration curve.

Given that this is about statistical modeling of the calibration and for objects that are 1000 to 1200 years (and not 10x older) this is irrelevant, and not even an argument against radiocarbon dating generally.

Problems With Radiocarbon Dating

Spoiler

The old method of determining 14C/12C ratios required counting the number of radioactive beta decay emissions from a quite large sample over an extended period. During the last 60 years, a new method of determining these ratios has been developed. It uses accelerator mass spectrometry (AMS) to determine the amounts of 14C, 13C and 12C in a small sample which is vaporised in the test. The ions produced are forced into a magnetic field where the differing mass of the carbon isotopes causes a different deflection, allowing the quantity of each isotope to be measured. This method is rapid and more accurate than the older counting technique. The sensitivity of the mass spec method should allow the dating of objects up to 95,000 years old. As noted above, in practice this is not achieved.

A test by the British Science and Engineering Research Council has shown that the accuracy of the AMS method is overrated. They found large variations in the radiocarbon ‘dates’ of objects of known age, which were sent to 38 radiocarbon ‘dating’ laboratories around the world. Thirty-one of the labs gave results that the British group called unsatisfactory. Their results were ‘two to three times less accurate than implied by the range of error they stated.’ They thought the variations might have been caused by poor laboratory standards allowing contamination of the samples.

Some scientists believe the problem runs far deeper than this, as the following quote shows:

In the light of what is known about the radiocarbon method and the way it is used, it is truly astonishing that many authors will cite agreeable determinations as “proof” for their beliefs...

Radiocarbon dating has somehow avoided collapse onto its own battered foundation, and now lurches onward with feigned consistency. The implications of pervasive contamination and ancient variations in carbon-14 levels are steadfastly ignored by those who base their argument upon the dates.

...[Some authors have said] they were “not aware of a single significant disagreement” in any sample that had been dated at different labs. Such enthusiasts continue to claim, incredible though it may seem, that “no gross discrepancies are apparent”. Surely 15,000 years of difference on a single block of soil is indeed a gross discrepancy! And how could the excessive disagreement between the labs be called insignificant, when it has been the basis for the reappraisal of the standard error associated with each and every date in existence?

Why do geologists and archaeologists still spend their scarce money on costly radiocarbon determinations? They do so because occasional dates appear to be useful. While the method cannot be counted on to give good, unequivocal results, the numbers do impress people, and save them the trouble of thinking excessively. Expressed in what look like precise calendar years, figures seem somehow better—both to the layman and professional not versed in statistics—than complex stratigraphic or cultural correlations, and are more easily retained in one’s memory. “Absolute” dates determined by a laboratory carry a lot of weight, and are extremely useful in bolstering weak arguments...

No matter how “useful” it is though, the radiocarbon method is still not capable of yielding accurate and reliable results. There are gross discrepancies, the chronology is uneven and relative, and the accepted dates are actually selected dates. This whole blessed thing is nothing but 13th century alchemy, and it all depends upon which funny paper you read.

Robert E. Lee, Radiocarbon: Ages in Error. Anthropological Journal of Canada, vol. 19 (3), 1981, pp. 9-29

Though there have been improvements in the technology since then, Lee’s general criticism remains valid. There is a trend towards older objects having less 14C in them than younger objects, but clearly there are serious problems in converting the 14C/12C ratios of ‘old’ items into precise dates.

However, there are other factors which make the dating problems even worse. I believe that the 14C/12C ratios in the past were drastically altered by two powerful factors. These factors are changes in the strength of the Earth’s magnetic field and changes in the total amount of normal carbon available to organisms. Changes which cause lower initial quantities of 14C and higher levels of 12C mean that radiocarbon date calculations which assume constant conditions in the past give falsely “old” dates.

Come on, man. You don't think I am going to take a publication from a church seriously, do you?

Accelerator mass spectrometry has made radiocarbon dating the most precise method to determine the death of living organisms that occurred within the last 50,000 years. However, the method is not without limitations

I think this one demonstrates you don't even know what you are doing. It was an article aimed at a particular group of possible radiocarbon users who don't already use it advising them of the pitfalls to avoid, etc. The purpose is to help researchers use radiocarbon dating accurately and appropriately.

How Fish Corrupt Carbon-14 Dating
Danish Stone Age settlements may turn out to be hundreds, perhaps thousands, of years younger than we thought.

A physicist from Aarhus University has together with archaeologists at the Gottorp Castle Museum in Northern Germany made a startling discovery: if ancient people prepared their fish in clay vessels, it’s impossible to date this accurately.

It turns out that the widely-used Carbon-14 dating method may be up to 2,000 years off the mark.

”We had not expected to see an effect of 2,000 years. The discovery has some fairly frightening implications because it’s crucial to archaeology to have steady fixation points in the dating work. There’s probably no need to rewrite the history books, but it’s likely that they contain some incorrectly dated excavation sites, Associate Professor Felix Riede told Aarhus University’s newsletter Rømer.

Another article about the issues related to marine animals. Not only is this of no apparent relevance to the dating of the organics tied to the Missoula Floods, but this is a known issue that scientists using radiocarbon dating need to be aware of and typically are.

Carbon dating, the archaeological workhorse, is getting a major reboot
A long-anticipated recalibration of radiocarbon dating could shift the age of some prehistoric samples hundreds of years

Could only read the first two sentences (not in my office with the subscription to Nature, I don't post from work). What I could read suggested a change for an ancient human skeleton of 1000 years. If it moves the date of a skeleton as old as or older than the Missoula floods, do you think it will redate the flood material outside the 10-15000 year range (to 5000 years ago or whatever target date you are trying to accomplish)?

Lots of things apparently throw Carbon 14 readings off marks.

Going through these as best I could (no, I did not and need not read an article about science from a church), what we get is scientists working to improve their usage of radiocarbon and changes that are far to small to matter at all for the general timing of the Missoula floods.

 

[common prophets]

Your syntax is a bit confusing, but your main point is “ …essentially correct”.

How is that? What is true, what isn’t, in your opinion? On what basis?

I hold that it is entirely fiction.

Floods happen, so that is not fiction. What is fiction is its glorification as a global flood.

 

[Astrid]

Floods happen, so that is not fiction. What is fiction is its glorification as a global flood.

Please explain this word “ glorification “?

 

[AV1611VET]

Floods happen, so that is not fiction. What is fiction is its glorification as a global flood.

Are you implying there was no global flood?

 

[Astrid]

Floods happen, so that is not fiction. What is fiction is its glorification as a global flood.

Car chases happen too. So ”Casino Royale” is not fiction?

Best to drop that line of reasoning.

Its an unevidenced assertion that “Noah’s Ark“ is based
on any actual event, so, IMO, best not to state it as fact.
Best to drop that claim.


It could be a wildly exaggerated story based on one or
more floods.

it can’t be a true story of real event.

You did not say what parts you select as
having been “ glorified” other than “global”!

Or how even one detail makes any sense
if it’s just one valley gets wet for a while,

Where is the glory in bearing false witness against God?

 

[David Lamb]

Floods happen, so that is not fiction. What is fiction is its glorification as a global flood.

But many Christians do believe that the flood of Noah's day was worldwide. That doesn't mean they "glorify" the flood. Surely all Christians believe that Jesus was crucified, but they don't glorify crucifixion.

 

[AV1611VET]

Car chases happen too.

Yup.

So ”Casino Royale” is not fiction?

Yes.

Casino Royale is fiction.

And admits it too.

Just like the Bible is Truth.

And admits it too.

Best to drop that line of reasoning.

Why?

It's an unevidenced assertion that “Noah’s Ark“ is based on any actual event,

That "unevidenced assertion" can be backed up in Writing, from the one Who caused it.

... so, IMO, best not to state it as fact.

Wrong conclusion.

Best to drop that claim.

For what legitimate reason?

It could be a wildly exaggerated story based on one or more floods.

Except, in this case, the story came first, then the exaggerations.

... it can’t be a true story of real event.

Why legitimately not?

You did not say what parts you select as having been “glorified” other than “global”!

I will:

Every jot & tittle.

Or how even one detail makes any sense if it’s just one valley gets wet for a while,

That "one valley gets wet" line is a literary meiosis.*

* A euphemistic figure of speech that intentionally understates something or implies that it is lesser in significance or size than it really is.

Where is the glory in bearing false witness against God?

Ask academia.

They'll come up with something, I'm sure.

 

[AV1611VET]

But many Christians do believe that the flood of Noah's day was worldwide. That doesn't mean they "glorify" the flood. Surely all Christians believe that Jesus was crucified, but they don't glorify crucifixion.

I think when common prophets said this:

Floods happen, so that is not fiction. What is fiction is its glorification as a global flood.

He meant glorification in the sense that it is being unjustifiably exalted to the status of a real event.

 

[Astrid]

But many Christians do believe that the flood of Noah's day was worldwide. That doesn't mean they "glorify" the flood. Surely all Christians believe that Jesus was crucified, but they don't glorify crucifixion.

Of course they think that.

The story is pointless otherwise.

im waiting too learn what is meant by “glorification”.