Neanderthals have been carbon-dated to 30,000+ years before present; extinct dire wolves have been dated to 10,000+ years before present, and coal has been dated to 20,000+ years before present. However, the Bible proclaims a young earth, approximately 6,000 years old. How can these differences be rectified? We, at Genesis and Genetics, have concluded that the carbon levels are generally correct, but the calibration is wrong. Secular science assumes no significant catastrophes such as Noah’s flood; however, if we consider the flood, we find that:
Noah’s flood significantly influences radiocarbon dating.
This paper offers the following radio-carbon conversion chart, which can be used to convert secular science carbon dates to Biblical dates. This chart assumes that (1) the Bible dates are correct, and (2) a global catastrophic flood did happen, and (3) the secular radio-carbon values are correct. The following chart may be used to convert any secular science radiocarbon date to a Biblical date, or you can CLICK HERE to go to our Radiocarbon Biblical Date Calculator.
Figure 1 requires the following points of explanation:
1. All dates more recent than approximately 1,000 B.C. are the same for the secular and Biblical calibrations.
2. There is a human-made spike, the atomic bomb testing of the 1940s and 1950s. They are similar in form, and both had significant effects on Carbon 14 amounts.
3. The amount of Carbon 14/12 ratio before the flood was constant and decayed according to its half-life.
4. The Flood suddenly reduced Carbon 14/12 which explains how secular carbon dating is so different than Biblical. The year of the flood, 2348 B.C., renders vastly different fossil dates depending on the exact time of death of the creature being dated.
5. For some secular dates, there can be several Biblical dates. For instance, consider 10,000 B.C., the Biblical calculator gives three possibilities: 3398 B.C., 2348 B.C., and 2250 B.C. The 3398 B.C. date would be someone who died before the flood and had his grave washed to a place where anthropologists could find it. The 2348 B.C. date would be someone who died in the flood, not at the onslaught, but several weeks or months later. They would have lived on one of the massive rafts of debris or in a boat other than the Ark. The 2250 B.C. date would apply to one who died 98 years after the flood.\
6. The period between the flood and 1,000 B.C. was the flood-recovery period, which was also the ice age.
Background
God told Noah that He would destroy the earth with a flood (Genesis 6:13). The flood was a catastrophe of Biblical proportions. The land surface was washed, damaged, and resurfaced as the rains came down. The atmosphere was washed clean by the torrents of rain. The oceans were stirred as the fountains of the deep opened and accompanied by earthquakes and volcanoes. All these happenings changed the carbon quantities of the atmosphere, the land, and the sea.
The basis for Conversion Chart
Radiocarbon dating is a function of the ratio of the amount of carbon-14 divided by the amount of carbon-12. Figure 2 provides a time history estimate of carbon 14/12 levels in our atmosphere. This estimate is based on the assumptions that the carbon 14/12 levels were constant before the flood, dipped to very low levels during the flood, and recovered to the levels we have now. The highlighted numbers in Figure 2 correspond to the explanatory notes.
Additional Supporting Evidence for the Above
Atmospheric carbon values can change quickly.
Our world is continually balancing the amounts of carbon in the atmosphere, the oceans, and the soil, and this balance does not discriminate between carbon-12 and carbon-14, they mix homogeneously. Fortunately, we have data regarding sudden changes in carbon-14 levels and the atmosphere’s response to these sudden changes. There was a sudden 
injection of carbon 14 in the 1950s and 1960s during the atomic bomb tests, and these tests can help us understand the effects of sudden changes to carbon 14/12 levels. The nuclear testing caused the carbon 14 values to skyrocket in the atmosphere while the carbon 12 remained the same; carbon-14 levels doubled from the pre-atomic-testing values (Reference 1). Carbon 14 has a half-life of 5730 years and had it not been for the dry land and the oceans, it would have taken 10s of thousands of years to recover to the pre-atomic-testing levels, but, surprisingly, it recovered quickly, in just a few decades. Equilibrium was reached quickly due to the carbon-14 absorption in the land and sea. This atomic testing carbon-14 “spike” is depicted in Figures 1 and 2. This is a human-made spike, but the God-made “spike” can also be seen in both figures.
The deep oceans are deficient in carbon-14
Another point of evidence is that even today there are vast differences in the amount of carbon 14 in the various depths of water; for instance, right now, some of the deep ocean has water that carbon dates to 2400 years before present, and the average deep ocean water dates to 1400 years before present (Reference 2). Therefore, it is easy to conclude that the pre-flood deep oceans contained almost no carbon-14. Plus, this deep ocean water would mix with the “fountains of the deep” water which would contain no carbon-14 but much carbon-12.
The carbon-12 released by the earthquakes and volcanoes reduced the carbon-14/carbon-12 ratio.
Since carbon dating uses the ratio of carbon-14 to carbon-12, the additional amount of carbon-12 would make the ratio smaller, which would also result in dates older than the true dates. Presently our atmosphere contains approximately 800 gigatons of carbon. This carbon comes from volcanoes and photosynthesis of plants. Currently, we are having volcanoes that occasionally erupt, but also emit small amounts of carbon while dormant, but during Noah’s flood, there would be massive eruptions and fissures spewing large amounts of carbon. This carbon would be pure and carbon-14 free.
Nearly 100 percent of the carbon in our body is replaced annually. (Reference 3)
The Biblical narrative implies that many creatures did not die at the flood onset. It appears that there were huge rafts of debris, possibly hundreds of miles in breadth and thousands of feet in depth. Therefore, creatures, including humans, could have survived for weeks or even months on these rafts of debris. The longer a human, animal, or plant survived would significantly affect their amount of carbon-14/12. Much radiocarbon testing uses collagen, which is replaced in the body rapidly.
The atmosphere was different before the flood.
We know that before the flood, there were giant insects such as dragonflies and cockroaches. These enormous insects and others have been documented in the fossil record (Reference 4). Secular science had concluded that these giant insects could only have lived at a time when the oxygen levels in the atmosphere were 30 to 50 percent higher than what we currently have. This ancient atmosphere would, most probably, have reduced the production of carbon-14 simply because there would be less nitrogen available to convert to carbon-14.
Summary
In summary, the global flood has a significant effect on carbon dating. The fountains of the deep opened, spewing out carbon-14-free water; the surface of the earth was covered with carbon-14-free silt; the massive volcanic eruptions flooded the atmosphere with carbon-12, and the carbon-14/carbon-12 ratio was reduced close to zero. Since carbon is replaced quickly in the body of living creatures, the exact time and circumstance of death affect the carbon dating results.
Takeaways from conversion chart
Here are some exciting takeaways we can collect from this chart in figure 1:
1. The “flood spike” of carbon 14/12 explains why secular scientists have concluded everything is older than the Biblical dates.
2. The Bible implies that all the creatures did not die until just a few months before the landing of the Ark; therefore, the carbon 14/12 ratio was changing rapidly in all living beings during this period. The resulting dates could vary by thousands of years. Looking at the chart in Figure 1, we can see a vertical line at the year 2348. During this single year, many humans, plants, and animals died. Some during the initial onslaught and some during the ten months or so while on rafts or boats. Each casualty reflected the carbon ratio at that time. Their bodies were rapidly replacing low carbon14 from the atmosphere and the food chain.
3. Any radiocarbon date more recent than 1000 B.C. is generally accurate whether the secular or Biblical flood calibrations are used.
4. The chart shows two spikes, one from the atomic bombs and one from the flood. Both spikes are abrupt and recover rapidly.
5. Example: Otzi, the Iceman has been dated to 5,300 years before present. Using the conversion curve, this would convert to 1900 B.C., which would mean that Otzi and Abraham were contemporaries. Otzi’s DNA clearly places him in the category of modern man.
6. Neanderthal fossils carbon-date to over 28,000 years or more. Converting the Neanderthal carbon dates to Biblical dates we can see that they all died in the flood.
References:
1.http://web.science.uu.nl/AMS/Radiocarbon.htm
2 https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2007JC004095
3.https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/g63l6/are_98_of_the_atoms_in_the_human_body_replaced/
4.https://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2011/08/110808-ancient-insects-bugs-giants-oxygen-animals-science/
This article is one of the most deceptive works of religious exremism I’ve ever come across. The sources that this author used mentions nothing of Noahs flood, and in fact explain how carbon 14 ratios can be influenced by environmental factors. (A global flood not being mentioned as it did not happen.) There are absolute dating methods far more accurate and reliable than Carbon 14 dating, such as Uranium and Potassium (to name two such methods). Please do not bother reading this article for any educational reasons.
I’m not familiar with other methods of dating,carbon-14 was what we were told of, in school,and I’ve read some,on my own. But a global flood is mentioned in nearly every ancient culture that had a recorded history, plus the geological evidence that supports it.
Please point me to this geological evidence? I’ve taken an undergraduate course in historical geology, and I was never shown this evidence. Instead, I was taught how to determine the time period of different geological layers based on their fossils. This would be impossible if the flood myth was true, because all the fossils would be in one mess across the globe, rather than in distinct layers. Watch a few videos on floods. See how destructive they are. The fossil record would be an absolute mess and nothing sensible could be made out if it. I recommend you watch Aron Ra’s series on disproving Noah’s flood. Here you will see how the flood myth can be proven wrong. Here’s the link: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLXJ4dsU0oGMJP95iZJqEjmc5oxY5r6BzP
Kyle,
The other dating methods like that you mention have much longer half-lives. For instance, Potassium 40 has a half-life of 1.3 billion years. So if you have one percent (of half-life) error, you would be off by 13 million years. Obviously that would not compete with Carbon 14 for dating something 5,000 years old. Give us some other isotope and it’s half-life and we can continue the conversation.
You are misleading people.
Admin
I suppose I should have made my point clearer. I meant to say that in terms of dating the Earth, radio carbon dating is not used. I did not mean to say that other dating methods are used to date artifacts. Just because some artifacts were dated to, say 50000 years ago, doesn’t mean that’s how old the earth is. It just means that’s how old the artifact is! What’s the point of your chart anyway? It doesn’t account for the other dating methods that are actually used to date the Earth.
You are the one misleading people. You are trying to make it look like that the age of the Earth can be implied using radio-carbon dating. By assuming that the Earth is 6000 years old and by using your deception chart, you are painting an illusion that somehow that these artifacts can be dated to fit the timeline of your assumed conclusion, thus fooling people into believing the Earth is young, since your lying chart tries to date artifacts to a much more recent date than to what the artifact was actually dated.
The reason I brought up the other dating methods is because they are what’s actually used to date the Earth, not carbon-14. As I’ve stated earlier, you are trying to make it look like that the age of the Earth can be implied using carbon dating. You are the deceiver. You should be ashamed of yourself for blatantly lying to people. You are misusing science to propagate your fantasy, as though it were fact. The bible is wrong. Noah’s flood did not happen. You need to learn to separate deity from doctrine.
Kyle,
I have no intention of proving anything to you or those who believe the Earth is old. The truth is that many people do believe in the Bible version of creation. Those are the people who are interested in the carbon dating correction. I use it all the time in merging the happenings in the Bible to the Carbon corrected dates. I have unlocked many mysteries concerning Babel, Abraham, Nimrod, and early migration in the fertile crescent.
You should continue to use the uniformitarian model, but I chose to use the Bible model. I respect your view and have no notion of changing it. However, I am a defender of the scriptures, and many share my values. I will state clearly that I believe Noah sailed his Ark, and the Earth is young. To me, all evidence points in this direction. I have been given the gift of reason and love to use it. You have also been given the gift of reason but using it differently, but using it to suit you. Great!
Peace,
Admin
My issue with this article is that it is auto deceptive by nature. I actually don’t care about trying to change your opinion. I know that will never happen as you have a vested interest in keeping your preferred delusion. My hope is that someone who reads this article sees a voice of reason. By the way, do you know what uniformaterianism is, because you don’t seem to really know what it is.
Kyle,
I do understand uniformitarianism. It is a substitute for the Bible version of history. I don’t accept it.
Our article on carbon 14 dating is clean, no deception; we honestly reveal our premise, methods, and data.
Our article is meant for those who embrace the Bible and want to dig deeper.
Why should you care if we believe the Bible. You must be troubled by something. Go to God and ask Him anything you like. Who knows, He may answer you. He answered me, and I have never been the same since. There is nothing that could ever separate me from Him, and I will serve Him forever. He removed my guilt and gave me peace.
I believe with all of my heart that someday soon, He is coming in the clouds to take my family and me to live with Him forever. Why would you want me to give that up?
Admin
I think there are two separate issues here. One is the age of the earth and by extension the universe as well. The other is the age of living creatures on the earth including man. The Bible does not indicate the length of time that it took for God to create the universe including the earth. Most likely this process took billions and billions of years, Science seems to corroborate this timeline. However, the timeline indicated in the Bible for the creation of man down to our present day is approximately 6000 years. In other words, the earth is old possibly 4 1/2 billion years according to science. But man is young approximately 6000 years. The universe is even older according to science possibly 13.5 billion years or so.
Thank you for your interest in the Bible.
Concerning the young earth/old earth issue. I have concluded that the earth, the universe, and man were established in just 6,000 years. Here is what led me to this conclusion:
Exo 20:8 Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.
Exo 20:9 Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work:
Exo 20:10 But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates:
Exo 20:11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.
Since I have accepted the six-day creation, everything now makes sense.
However I respect whatever you want to believe. You are in the majority.
How is it being deceptive? The author mentions the Bible as being the source of the flood. How is that being deceptive? The author states that it is assumed that the flood occurs during the Biblical time line. How is that being deceptive? Seems to me the author documents his inputs and assumptions so again. How is that being deceptive?
I bet you voted Biden & took the jab & live with your mom….dumb ass
Yepp, you don’t know what uniformaterianism is. It’s simply means that the processes that happen today are the same now as they were millions of years ago. And I’m not trying to tell you to reject god. That’s one of the foundational falsehoods of creationism. To accept evolution is to reject god. That is not true. Many christians accept evolution. Even the pope does. If god exists, it would exist above and beyond your bible or any religious doctrine. What would be the true word of god, some old texts written by superstitious saveages pretending to speak for god, or the undeniable fact of evolution and population mechanics, as well as geological history. I’d wager on the latter. The bible was written with the worldview of people who had no understanding of the earth and the universe. Times have changed. We know more about the earth and life now. You can find spiritual enlightment by understanding the Earth for what it truely is. Not by some old mosaic texts. Admin, you are lying to yourself and to anyone reading this. You can accept modern science, including evolution and an old earth, and still accept your god. Evolution is such a strong theory and a fact, that not even the existence of god will mean it’s wrong.
When lucifer was in Heaven, he challenged the idea that God was his creator. Not sure why because he was there and would have seen God. I guess he had the ability to think for himself. We on earth with that same ability and we don’t see God and many don’t believe. We see the earth and all it’s magnificent attributes and we see ourselves and it all seems incredible because it is. I can’t compute. It blows my mind even thinking about it. According the Bible, God cast lucifer out of heaven with all his followers for not believing. Lucifer was there and didn’t believe. I’m not sure but I wonder if we are the replacements. To qualify, we must believe. BTW. I’m not a scientist. I am an engineer that believes in the Bible as it is written. I think carbon dating could explain why CO2 levels were much higher before the flood and why the Biblical Time Line differs.
And I am troubled, troubled by the fact that people like you exist, who wish to subvert, invert and reverse everything. Ever heard of the Dark Ages? It was thanks to religion, especially christianity, that caused it. People like you will drag us back to those times. I have no problems with christians, or any other religious folk, just lying extremists such as yourself. If you made an article about how god guided evolution, or how the 7 day creation can be interpreted as a 13 billion year long affair, I would have not even commented on your article. But the fact that it is so blatantly dead wrong means I have to step in and provide my opinion.
Science is hitting a brick wall every day. Nothing works. For instance, take biology. No one understands how a single cell can turn into a human. I am not talking about millions of years; I am talking about 9 months. One cell, the mother’s egg, turns into a fully viable human in 9 months. The average human has 37 trillion cells; each cell has 100 trillion atoms. They all self-assemble to form a human. So, evolution has to explain how the first cell self-assembled and how it is divided using a self-assembly mechanism. The self-assembly mechanism would have to evolve instantly before the second cell formed. It takes much faith to believe that.
Modern science also hit other brick walls: consciousness, spatial inflation, dark energy, dark matter, the duality of quantum particles, quantum entanglement, gravity, light, entropy at the time of the big bang, meiosis, the dimensions of space, quantum field energy, speed of light at the extremities of the universe, etc., etc.
The Bible explains it all. Not only does it explain science, but also the human heart, purpose of life, eternity, sin, and death.
I like the Bible just the way it is, and I refuse to water it down. I have faith in the Bible and its author; you have faith in scientists. I love true science, but not the opinion of the pseudo-scientist elites who hate God.
I am free to believe,
Admin
You are dead wrong. Science is making breakthroughs continuously. Religion is what’s hitting a brick wall. You are committing the logical fallacy of projection. You are actually describing your own religion. You have shown that you are a closed minded individual who cannot see beyond their own dogma. There is no eternity. You can’t show anything true about the bible. All your argument route back to an assumed conclusion. You can’t even show how your god can and cannot do things without assuming your conclusion. Your scam chart is a great example of that. Did you even read the nonsense that you are typing. You are so delusionale . Everywhere in this comment where you say science hits a brick wall is actually where science makes its breakthroughs. The bible answers none of that.
Another aspect that you don’t understand about evolution is that it does not need to explain where life originated from. That’s abiogenesis. There are many hypothesis on how it could have happened. My favourite is the RNA world hypothesis.
And by the way, it’s high school biology how gametes become a zygote. And here’s an article on how an embryo developes from a zygote: https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/zygote/article/forum-how-does-a-zygote-become-an-embryo/A1CB0D361D41AC7DB941695010D57627
Admin, you have made a big fool of yourself. A few google searches can show how dead wrong you are. You’ve shown me you actually hate science, because it goes against your delusion.
You are free to believe, and I am free to challenge your beliefs.
If the bible did describe all those aspects of science, we would be much more advnced than what we are now. Why have scientists do the research when cracking open a pible will reveal it all? The reality is is that it doesn’t. As I’ve stated earlier, religion gave us the Dark Ages.
Kyle,
We are getting nowhere. I stand by everything I have said, and I stand behind the article on carbon 14 dating. I am sure that you also stand by everything you have said. We are two human beings who have the freedom of reason. I respect yours, but you don’t respect mine. This confuses me. Why do you want to deprive creationists of reason? You should examine your motives. Why not pity us? Instead, you badger us. According to Gallup, 40 percent of Americans believe that God created all things in a short period of time. So, badger someone else for a while. You have nearly 80 percent of Christians in South Africa; work on them.
As I customarily do, I will give you the last word; then I will block you. This is a creationist website designed for Christians and you have said enough.
I do appreciate that you gave me the opportunity to express my faith. It always makes me feel clean.
And I do wish you the best,
Admin
Yes, I did give you the opportunity to cover your ears and scream ‘I can’t hear you’. And to be honest, I do agree with you. This is going nowhere because people like you can’t be reasoned with. As I’ve stated earlier, I’m not trying to change your mind. I’m trying to change the minds of people who are on the fence about this subject. Hopefully this discussion gives them food for thought. I’ve also stated that I don’t care that you’re a christian, it’s the fact that you’re a science denying zealot. That deserves no respect. A grown adult shouldn’t believe in fairytales. Many christians embrace christ as their saviour and accept modern science, including evolution. I accept and embrace that. I do not embrace biblical literalists like you.
You are also commiting the logical fallacy that just because a large group of people believe it. A lie is a lie, no matter how many people believe it. All your arguments are logical fallacies.
Religion in moderation is okay. Religion in excess is bad, and you’re a good example of that. And by the way, religion is in a general state of decline, and non-religiousness are on the rise, according to Aron Ra (a name I’m quite sure you’re familiar with 😉 as he proves how wrong creationism is on a level I could never hope to match. Unlike you, he uses facts.). And to quote a pastor I know
“… I see evolution as the wonderful means that God used. The Bible is a spiritual handbook not a scientific textbook. The Biblical creation story points to an all powerful loving creator.”
And I’m pretty sure that most christians would agree with me on the basis that evolution is a fact and that Noah’s flood did not happen (at least not a worldwide one). But science exists and continues to make the world a better place. Please don’t misuse it with nonsense like your ‘chart’.
But I’m done talking to you. I’ve said all I’ve needed to say. Just do me one favour and don’t delete this conversation. Let the reader decide who is right, and who is wrong.
Have a macically enchanted day 🙂
Your entire argument goes out the window simply because we use uranium to date the earth not carbon
Dan,
My blog is about radiocarbon dating not uranium dating. They are two different subjects. Here is an article about uranium dating https://creation.com/radiometric-dating-age-of-earth
The half life of carbon 14 is 5700 years and uranium is in the billions of years. Radio carbon is used to date organific material between 0 and 50,000 years old. Uranium is not; it cannot date organic material between 0 and 50,000 years old. Again read: https://creation.com/radiometric-dating-age-of-earth
I remember back when I thought uniformitarian assumptions and radiometric dates were reliable. What blows my mind is that some people still do. It’s failed over and over and over again, it’s about as accurate as using a bag of Cheetos do date the age of the earth, but for some reason, people still ignore the horribly inaccurate results, cherry-pick data, and pretend it’s great science.
For anyone interested in seeing just how thoroughly that radiometric dating and uniformitarian assumptions have failed, check out this page: http://www.detectingdesign.org/?page_id=586
In the meantime, genesisandgenetics.org, keep up the good work, and don’t let the pseudo-science believers get you down.
Thank you so much for this article, it really helped clear a lot of confusing points up and brought a bunch of new evidence to light I hadn’t heard of before, especially the fascinating bit about the giant dragonflies. (National Geographic has some more information on that, albeit from a secular view, for interested readers. ) Thanks for your hard work, and good job on remaining calm, reasonable and polite to people who violently disagree 🙂
Thank you for doing this. It is encouraging to people who want to see all sides and try to make sense out of the nonsense that is fed to us daily. I also take God at His word regardless if He can be proven or disproven, but it is nice to have some logical reasoning. Especially for those that, like my prior self, thought themselves far to smart to believe in such nonsense. I really love that you are remaining faithful and speaking truth to point out that science “could be” wrong. OH MY, wasn’t it science itself that says not to use proven or fact? We all are searching for answers and it is nice to see different opinions for our “free will”. Blessings!
This was a GREAT article!! I have been questioning the dates from carbon dating. I believed that the flood is the reason for the wrong dates, but never saw an article that talked about it until now. Thank you so much for clarifying this for me. So GLAD you speak the truth even when you are being challenged by a delusional person!
Thank you so much for this. I have been wondering, and perhaps you can help me understand this, if a global flood did occur would it not have corrupted the elements that themselves that they use for radiometric dating? If so, why do we not hear more about this from creationist sites? That would mean if we prove a global flood we disprove radiometric dating right? Anyways, thanks for this. I’ve been looking for more information into this topic as I plan to hopefully have a video series on this very topic on my YouTube channel. Thanks so much and God bless
I enjoyed the article, but I enjoyed your responses in the comments more. Your faith in our lord Jesus Christ is evident in your tact and restraint. It amazes me how people are so angry and full of hate at how stupid they believe we are, yet it’s almost as if there’s something pushing them to hate us. Almost as if their anger is fueled by a source they haven’t comprehended out of arrogance. Satan is a great manipulator, but I’m so pleased to see intelligent brothers of faith. God bless you and your work
Thank you for your kind words. The good thing is that we know we should pray for these people filled with hate. That they will love to love and hate to hate. That is a beginning. Again, thank you for your encouragement.
James
I appreciate the conversion chart. However, I hold to a Septuagint chronology, which has the flood ~3180 BC (and Babel ~2650 BC). Would you be willing to provide the equation of the curved line showing C14 rate versus time, so I can graph the line with a LXX chronology? If you might offer some explanation for how the equation was created, it would be a plus. If I was doing it, I suppose I would begin with inductive data (such as the usual avg dating for coal calibrated with my flood date).
Todd,
I used a simple exponential increase. I have the constant somewhere and it make take some time to find it. Also, I did one for the Septuagint, but didn’t publish it. We decided that the Septuagint was wrong. Here is the reason: In the genealogy of Abraham, Abrahams father and grandfather had children late in life (in the Septuagint), but when Abraham had a child late in life, he was surprised. Why would he be surprised if his ancestors had children later that he had his son.
That being said, I wish you the best in your endeavor whether you use the Septuagint or the Masoretic text.
Also, I haven’t worked on this for a while, but I found a hard point to test my curve. And that is the Pharaoh who wrote to the Palestinian leaders where Joshua attacked them. We can find dates for both the Biblical and secular accounts. I would like to get to it soon, but I am writing a book and have a deadline, so my job jar is on ice.
In the section on the pre-flood atmosphere being different, you state: “This ancient atmosphere would, most probably, have reduced the production of carbon-14 simply because there would be less nitrogen available to convert to carbon-14.”
I am a believer. I also teach chemistry. I am not arguing with your article, but I have a suggestion. Nitrogen is not converted to carbon-14. The reverse process happens through beta decay of carbon-14 to form Nitrogen. Carbon-14 has an isotopic mass of 14amu (hence the name), and a proton to neutron ratio of 6:8, which is unstable. A neutron in the nucleus of carbon-14 decays to a proton and an electron, which is ejected. This then means the nucleus now has the same mass (14amu), but a proton to neutron ratio of 7/7. Detection of this electron (beta emission) is an important and relatively simple analytical tool.
In my former work, I used radiometric detection daily in analyzing samples from plants and soil that had been treated with C-14 labelled agrochemicals. The purpose was to isolate and identify metabolites of the parent compounds and design methodology for conducting field research to verify levels of pesticide residues in plants and soils.
All of this work was submitted to the EPA under contract with agrochemical manufacturers in their efforts to either obtain or renew licensing to market their product. So we relied on understanding the process of the beta decay of carbon-14 to nitrogen as the backbone of our analytical methods.
I mention this only to suggest that the wording and logic of that parargraph may need some revision. I can appreciate that the pre-flood atomosphere was likely different in the abundance of oxygen, but that would not lead to lower production of carbon-14. It is the proposed explanation of lower carbon-14 levels that seems off to me. A lower concentration of carbon-14, however, could lead to less nitrogen production. Look for a different reasoning. Or am I missing something in your argument?
Mike,
I think it is common knowledge that in the Earth’s atmosphere, cosmic rays occasionally hit nitrogen atoms knocking off one proton resulting in Carbon-14. If that is not true, please provide me with a reference.
We want to be 100 percent accurate with our blogs.
Thank you for your interest and time.
James