Joined: Sep. 2006
|Quote (afdave @ Nov. 17 2006,12:24)|
|No Mike-- This is what Brown does ... you are wrong. He is basically saying that ... |
|1) Conventional C14 dating requires roughly constant C14 and C12 levels throughout earth history -- this is a horribly mistaken assumption -- not just a minor problem that needs a little calibration -- it's gigantically mistaken|
2) There is quite clear evidence that carbon inventories were much higher prior to the flood -- 100X modern levels is a conservative estimate http://www.grisda.org/origins/51006.htm
3) Thus the C14/C12 ratio would have been much smaller pre-Flood.
4) If one does the calculations with reasonable assumptions, one finds that 30,000 and 40,000 year old dates shrink to within the 6000 year Biblical timeframe. Calculations shown here.
Dave, your reference in point 2 is titled;
CARBON-14 CONTENT OF FOSSIL CARBON
Paul Giem, M.A., M.D.
Loma Linda, California
(here's the web reference, not the pdf)
Interesting that he cites Brown's 1979 paper and I have DEBUNKED Brown's conclusions.
So..... I have now DEBUNKED this fine doctor's work also.
Why don't you give him a call and come up with a new reason to assume carbon content, because Brown's reason is ALL WASHED UP.
Also, since Brown's calculations are also based on his 1979 paper, THESE CALCULATIONS ARE ALSO DEBUNKED.
I like the sound of that word. Say it about 10 times over and it has a rythym.
DEBUNKED, DEBUNKED, DEBUNKED, DEBUNKED, DEBUNKED, DEBUNKED, DEBUNKED, DEBUNKED, DEBUNKED, DEBUNKED.
(p.s. I changed your references in your quote to the .htm web page instead of the .pdf)