Scientists make the assumption the rate of decay has remained constant over time. That assumption is relatively sound and is backed by numerous scientific studies.
Scientists assume cosmic ray bombardment has been constant over Earth's history. If the Great Flood altered the Carbon-14 to Carbon-12 ratio in the atmosphere, Pre-Flood dates would have to be discarded.
For the same reason, any decline in the Earth's magnetic field over time would have resulted in less protection from cosmic rays as it lowered and means cosmic ray bombardment has not been constant over time.
Atmospheric carbon forms just 0.0005% of the carbon reservoir. 75-80% of the earth's carbon is stored in limestone , 19.66-24.66% in other rocks, 0.31% in oil and gas, and 0.02% in coal.
There are many factors to consider when measuring the radiocarbon content of a given sample, one of which is the radiocarbon content of the plant or animal source when it was alive and its local environment.
This is especially true when comparing samples from terrestrial organisms and those that assimilated radiocarbon from the marine environment. Even if the organisms have the same age, they wouldn’t have the same carbon 14 content and would thus appear to be of different radiocarbon age.
Oceans are large carbon 14 reservoirs. Surfaces of oceans and other bodies of water have two sources of radiocarbon – atmospheric carbon dioxide and the deep ocean. Deep waters in oceans get carbon 14 from mixing with the surface waters as well as from the radioactive decay already occurring at their levels. Studies show that equilibration of carbon dioxide (with carbon 14) in surface water is of the order of 10 years. The degree of equilibration of carbon dioxide in deep water remains unknown.
If even a small percentage of marine organisms were removed by the Great Flood (and their deposits ended up on Mt, Everest and other mountains, merging with existing carbon deposits), this would throw off the ratio, and, again, invalidate the dating of pre-Flood objects and artifacts, as it would cause them to appear to be much older than they actually are.
It can. Your satisfaction and acceptance aren't required for it to be the truth.
If you wish to understand how they came to be there, look up plate tectonics and do some research.
I'm well aware of plate tectonics as well as endogenous retroviruses and every other argument for evolution and the age of the Earth. I rejected religion at an early age and was an agnostic from the age of 13-32 before coming to the conclusion Yashua (AKA Jesus Christ) was the Son of God and died for all of our sins.
Unlike many of my peers, I did a lot of reading on subjects such as these both before and after the advent of the Internet, and before and after accepting what I believe to be the truth of Christianity.
And, yes, you're right. If I didn't have objective reasons for doubting corporate sponsored science, that alone isn't enough reason to reject its findings.
If the Great Flood altered the Carbon-14 to Carbon-12 ratio in the atmosphere, Pre-Flood dates would have to be discarded.
This is an enormous glaring if.
You are making a god of the gaps argument, I don't buy it.
Do you have any reason to suggest the great flood would affect nuclear decay rates? Or even a proposed mechanism how a flood could affect carbon-14/12 in the atmosphere?
I'm well aware of plate tectonics as well as endogenous retroviruses and every other argument for evolution and the age of the Earth.
Then where does your lack of satisfaction with seashells on everest come from?
Yashua (AKA Jesus Christ) was the Son of God and died for all of our sins.
This doesn't require the earth be 6000 years old.
I think it's rather arrogant to believe that god's plan could have been understood perfectly 2000 years ago by mortals, and somehow survived uncorrupted through multiple translations.
Moreso, the 7 days of creation seem to line up rather well with phases of the big bang.
You are making a god of the gaps argument, I don't buy it.
Do you have any reason to suggest the great flood would affect nuclear decay rates? Or even a proposed mechanism how a flood could affect carbon-14/12 in the atmosphere?
I already gave multiple reasons and proposed that mechanism, but you clearly missed it. I'll rephrase it in a way you'll hopefully understand, even if you disagree.
If there was a Great Flood, there would inevitably be marine organisms mixed in with the limestone and other carbon deposits as the flood waters receded. The carbon-14 contained in their bodies would be removed from the natural carbon cycle, altering that balance.
Then where does your lack of satisfaction with seashells on everest come from?
I'm not sure why being aware of scientific theories requires my acceptance of them, especially when the theories ignore the evidence.
There's a reason you find layers of limestone on the top of mountains all over the world and not just on Mt. Everest, and it's because there was a Great Flood. The plate tectonics theory falls apart when you find limestone even in the mountains of Australia. According to plate tectonics theory, the mountains there were formed due to continental drift and not collision, yet you still find coral reef and other marine fossils on the summit of Australia's Mt, Kosciuszko.
The presence of limestone and ocean marine fossils at the top of these mountains is one of the key pieces of evidence cited that advanced the idea of plate tectonics (large chunks of the Earth’s surface moving over molten rock in the Earth’s core) when it was first proposed as a theory in 1915.
The Great Flood waters receding and the layers of rock settling over time is an alternative explanation for the presence of limestone and ocean marine fossils at the top of Mount Everest, and is a better explanation of the presence of limestone and ocean marine fossils on the top of Mt. Kosciuszko, as there was no collision of the continents there.
A soil test is a great example of what would have happened during the Great Flood. All the soil would be mixed up and as the waters settled, the soil would be separated in distinct layers, with the limestone being on the top.
I think it's rather arrogant to believe that god's plan could have been understood perfectly 2000 years ago by mortals, and somehow survived uncorrupted through multiple translations.
We still have the original untranslated copies in their native languages, and it's even more arrogant to assume our Creator doesn't have the ability to directly interact with his creation, specifically the people the Bible refers to as the prophets.
Not only that, but prophecy fulfilled proves it truly is the Word of God.
I already gave multiple reasons and proposed that mechanism
Your proposed mechanism is the very mechanism that allows carbon dating to function. Not exactly a rebuttal.
The carbon-14 contained in their bodies would be removed from the natural carbon cycle, altering that balance.
This is the exact mechanism by which carbon dating functions.
After dying, the organism is removed from the carbon cycle so they are not taking new carbon into their body. The only carbon 14 they have is that which they had while they were part of the cycle.
Your argument here makes no sense, and demonstrates serious ignorance of how radiological dating is performed.
I'm not sure why being aware of scientific theories requires my acceptance of them
You said you understood them not just that you were aware of them.
But you seem to be demonstrating a distinct lack of how the process actually works instead focusing on weird "gotchas" that aren't actually gotchas, its just you running into problems with your misunderstanding.
We still have the original untranslated copies in their native languages
Written by humans from oral histories over 50~100 years after Christ.
and it's even more arrogant to assume our Creator doesn't have the ability to directly interact with his creation
Yeah I agree, its pretty fucking arrogant to think that god didn't or couldn't create the big bang and atoms and evolution and even radiological dating.
but prophecy fulfilled proves it truly is the Word of God.
Except it doesn't? This is entirely a faith based position. Unlike science.
The Great Flood waters receding and the layers of rock settling over time is an alternative explanation for the presence of limestone and ocean marine fossils at the top of Mount Everest, and is a better explanation of the presence of limestone and ocean marine fossils on the top of Mt. Kosciuszko, as there was no collision of the continents there.
Except the evidence for a great flood that would have reached as high as Everest simply isn't there.
multiple great flood events can be found in human history and none of them could explain the seashells and limestone on those particular mountains.
Scientists make the assumption the rate of decay has remained constant over time. That assumption is relatively sound and is backed by numerous scientific studies.
Scientists assume cosmic ray bombardment has been constant over Earth's history. If the Great Flood altered the Carbon-14 to Carbon-12 ratio in the atmosphere, Pre-Flood dates would have to be discarded.
For the same reason, any decline in the Earth's magnetic field over time would have resulted in less protection from cosmic rays as it lowered and means cosmic ray bombardment has not been constant over time.
https://www.earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/CarbonCycle
https://www.radiocarbon.com/marine-reservoir-effect.htm
If even a small percentage of marine organisms were removed by the Great Flood (and their deposits ended up on Mt, Everest and other mountains, merging with existing carbon deposits), this would throw off the ratio, and, again, invalidate the dating of pre-Flood objects and artifacts, as it would cause them to appear to be much older than they actually are.
I'm well aware of plate tectonics as well as endogenous retroviruses and every other argument for evolution and the age of the Earth. I rejected religion at an early age and was an agnostic from the age of 13-32 before coming to the conclusion Yashua (AKA Jesus Christ) was the Son of God and died for all of our sins.
Unlike many of my peers, I did a lot of reading on subjects such as these both before and after the advent of the Internet, and before and after accepting what I believe to be the truth of Christianity.
And, yes, you're right. If I didn't have objective reasons for doubting corporate sponsored science, that alone isn't enough reason to reject its findings.
This is an enormous glaring if.
You are making a god of the gaps argument, I don't buy it.
Do you have any reason to suggest the great flood would affect nuclear decay rates? Or even a proposed mechanism how a flood could affect carbon-14/12 in the atmosphere?
Then where does your lack of satisfaction with seashells on everest come from?
This doesn't require the earth be 6000 years old.
I think it's rather arrogant to believe that god's plan could have been understood perfectly 2000 years ago by mortals, and somehow survived uncorrupted through multiple translations.
Moreso, the 7 days of creation seem to line up rather well with phases of the big bang.
I already gave multiple reasons and proposed that mechanism, but you clearly missed it. I'll rephrase it in a way you'll hopefully understand, even if you disagree.
If there was a Great Flood, there would inevitably be marine organisms mixed in with the limestone and other carbon deposits as the flood waters receded. The carbon-14 contained in their bodies would be removed from the natural carbon cycle, altering that balance.
I'm not sure why being aware of scientific theories requires my acceptance of them, especially when the theories ignore the evidence.
There's a reason you find layers of limestone on the top of mountains all over the world and not just on Mt. Everest, and it's because there was a Great Flood. The plate tectonics theory falls apart when you find limestone even in the mountains of Australia. According to plate tectonics theory, the mountains there were formed due to continental drift and not collision, yet you still find coral reef and other marine fossils on the summit of Australia's Mt, Kosciuszko.
The presence of limestone and ocean marine fossils at the top of these mountains is one of the key pieces of evidence cited that advanced the idea of plate tectonics (large chunks of the Earth’s surface moving over molten rock in the Earth’s core) when it was first proposed as a theory in 1915.
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/3499/mt-everest
The Great Flood waters receding and the layers of rock settling over time is an alternative explanation for the presence of limestone and ocean marine fossils at the top of Mount Everest, and is a better explanation of the presence of limestone and ocean marine fossils on the top of Mt. Kosciuszko, as there was no collision of the continents there.
A soil test is a great example of what would have happened during the Great Flood. All the soil would be mixed up and as the waters settled, the soil would be separated in distinct layers, with the limestone being on the top.
We still have the original untranslated copies in their native languages, and it's even more arrogant to assume our Creator doesn't have the ability to directly interact with his creation, specifically the people the Bible refers to as the prophets.
Not only that, but prophecy fulfilled proves it truly is the Word of God.
Your proposed mechanism is the very mechanism that allows carbon dating to function. Not exactly a rebuttal.
This is the exact mechanism by which carbon dating functions.
After dying, the organism is removed from the carbon cycle so they are not taking new carbon into their body. The only carbon 14 they have is that which they had while they were part of the cycle.
Your argument here makes no sense, and demonstrates serious ignorance of how radiological dating is performed.
You said you understood them not just that you were aware of them.
But you seem to be demonstrating a distinct lack of how the process actually works instead focusing on weird "gotchas" that aren't actually gotchas, its just you running into problems with your misunderstanding.
Written by humans from oral histories over 50~100 years after Christ.
Yeah I agree, its pretty fucking arrogant to think that god didn't or couldn't create the big bang and atoms and evolution and even radiological dating.
Except it doesn't? This is entirely a faith based position. Unlike science.
Except the evidence for a great flood that would have reached as high as Everest simply isn't there.
multiple great flood events can be found in human history and none of them could explain the seashells and limestone on those particular mountains.