Israeli Kings No Myth, New Data Suggest

[Socrates]

From History News Network hnn.us/comments/11079.html


News Archives 3-03 to 4-03
Subject: Israeli Kings No Myth
Posted By: Editor
Date Posted: April 17, 2003, 8:17 PM
Los Angeles Times

12 April 2003 Saturday Home Edition

SECTION: Main News; Part 1; Page 25; National Desk

HEADLINE: Science File; Israeli Kings No Myth, New Data Suggest

BYLINE: Thomas H. Maugh II, Times Staff Writer

New radioactive dating from a major Iron Age site called Tel Rehov in northern Israel supports the biblical tradition that David and his son Solomon, founders of the ancient kingdom of Israel, were real nation-builders and not largely mythical figures, as some revisionist historians have argued.

Recent excavations at Megiddo, 25 miles west of Rehov, had suggested that palaces and other artifacts there once associated with Solomon were built by a later family of rulers called the Omrides. Based on those finds, archeologist Israel Finkelstein of Tel Aviv University established a so-called Low Chronology in which Solomon and David are minor chieftains at best.

But a team led by archeologist Amihai Mazar of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem reported in Friday's issue of Science that carbon from olive pits and charred grain from one of three "destruction layers" at Tel Rehov date the layer to 940 to 900 BC. The destruction layers mark times when the site was demolished before being rebuilt.

The new dates correspond to a Sherman-like march across Palestine by the Egyptian Pharaoh Shoshenq, a well-documented event that occurred around 925 BC. According to the biblical books I Kings and II Chronicles, Shoshenq began his invasion five years after Solomon's death. Because Tel Rehov was a 10-hectare urban center, the dating supports the biblical account of Solomon.

[Jimmy Higgins]

Today @ 10:06 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=89469#post89469)
Socrates:
Los Angeles Times

12 April 2003 Saturday Home Edition
New radioactive dating from...

:rofl: :rofl: :joy: :rofl: :rofl:

[Celsus]

The article that this is referring to is this one:

Hendrik J. Bruins, Johannes van der Plicht, Amihai Mazar, "14C Dates from Tel Rehov: Iron-Age Chronology, Pharaohs, and Hebrew Kings," in Science Volume 300, Number 5617, Issue of 11 Apr 2003, pp. 315-318.

The results do not represent any finds, merely a refined carbon dating calibration--in fact the probability is still higher that the assemblages should be dated to Omride times (bold emphasis mine):
The weighted average date [2755_±_25_years before the 14C present (yr B.P.)] gives a 1[sigma] calibrated age range of 918_to 892_yr B.C.E. with 25.4% relative probability and another age range of 880_to 836_yr B.C.E. with 42.8% relative probability (Fig. 2). The calibration curve descends steeply and regularly during the second half of the 10th century B.C.E. and the first two decades of the 9th century (Fig. 3). Then the calibration curve goes up around 875_B.C.E. to form a small plateau that lasts until 845_B.C.E. Hence, there are two principal options for the calibrated date of Stratum IV. The period 880 to 836_B.C.E. is most likely in probability terms, but 918_to 892_B.C.E. is also possible. The invasion of the Aramean ruler Ben Hadad I during the time of King Baasha of Israel (902_to 886 B.C.E.; I Kings 15:20) is a possible candidate. But other events following the end of the Omride Dynasty seem more plausible for the destruction of Stratum IV and the abandonment of the lower city. The Jehu revolt (843_B.C.E.), the Assyrian invasion of Shalmaneser III (841_B.C.E.), or the Aramean invasions of Israel during the time of Hazael (between 840_and 830_B.C.E.) all fit the radiocarbon dating results.
And in fact, it says nothing about the historicity of Solomon, but rather that Omride pottery (i.e. dating to the time of the Omride dynasty) and Solomonic pottery (again, this is a time frame) are difficult to distinguish. There is no new finds or data to support the historicity of Solomon--rather the article argues that chronological assignment to pottery shards needs to be revised:
Our research negates an important argument of the low chronology theory, namely, that Iron Age IIA ceramic assemblages should be confined exclusively to the 9th century B.C.E. The 14C dating results imply that it is difficult to distinguish between "Solomonic" and "Omride" pottery. The site of Ta'anach (27), about 8_km southeast of Megiddo (Fig. 1), is also mentioned on the Karnak list of places destroyed by Shoshenq. Period II-B pottery at Ta'anach, assigned to 960_to 918_B.C.E. (27) and to the 9th century in the low chronology (28), is identical to that found in Tel Rehov Stratum V._Period II-B ended in a fierce destruction, which can be related to Shoshenq's campaign in view of our results.

Because Shishak (Shoshenq I) is mentioned as a contemporary of Solomon in biblical texts, we find it plausible to retain the linkage of specified archaeological assemblages (Rehov Stratum V, Ta'anach II-B, Hazor X, Megiddo VB, and perhaps also VA-IVB, etc.) to the United Hebrew Monarchy. Our results also have implications for the chronology of Cyprus and Greece because imported pottery from both countries was found in Tel Rehov Strata V and IV. It appears that the traditional chronology of Greece can be maintained, but for Cyprus, older dates seem appropriate for some pottery groups (29, 30).
Overreaching with archaeology once again... All it does is make a case for the recalibration of carbon-14 dates because of what we know about Shoshenq from Egyptian inscriptions. Yes the Bible contains a fact or two. No, this article doesn't support Solomon's historicity. But then, YECs don't accept radiometric dating. Or only when it supports their prejudices?

Joel

[Socrates]

Celsus:But then, YECs don't accept radiometric dating. Or only when it supports their prejudices?No, YECs point out the assumptions behind radiometric dating, but also that they may be valid for 14C dating of artefacts well after the Flood. And the point remains is that the data are CONSISTENT with the accuracy of Solomon and inconsistent with the misotheistic revisionism of the likes of the Finkelstein fruitloop.

And Celsus is deluding himself if he thinks that only YECs have prejudices. He probably thinks that rabid God-haters such as Dawkins and himself are the epitome of objectivity.

[Woman]

Soc,

Everybody beat me to teasing you about leading with "new radio-carbon dating."

I found a site about the patriarchs which maintains that the Bible is the most accurate historical document intact. Now, it doesn't support Christianity nor is it anti-religion. It's chiefly a history site not a Biblical one. But I was surprised at how many things they attribute to the Bible as fact and how modern archeology is indeed affirming many of the places and people named in the OT.

It makes the case for a devastating flood though not worldwide which would have impacted the people in a big way, killing a large number. Of course they have different dates for this. But, for both sides of the young/old earth issue - there may be facts on this site which will interest you.

http://www.eg-ban.com/toc_patriarchs.html

I don't want anyone to think I'm misleading them. This article believes that parts of the OT are derived from myth. There's just so much good information about the accuracy of much of it.

[Celsus]

And Celsus is deluding himself if he thinks that only YECs have prejudices. He probably thinks that rabid God-haters such as Dawkins and himself are the epitome of objectivity.
My, aren't we grouchy today? I'd appreciate it if you put the goalposts back where you found them... Especially coming from a "scientist" who doesn't think to check original sources before claiming that an article supports his prejudices.

Joel

[Vorkosigan]

My, aren't we grouchy today? I'd appreciate it if you put the goalposts back where you found them... Especially coming from a "scientist" who doesn't think to check original sources before claiming that an article supports his prejudices.
Joel

Nail. Hit. Head. Good work, Celsus.

[Jimmy Higgins]

Today @ 12:50 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=89631#post89631)
Socrates:
No, YECs point out the assumptions behind radiometric dating, but also that they may be valid for 14C dating of artefacts well after the Flood.Oh, that's it. Can you please explain to me, Socretes, the mathematical model that shows the C-12/C-14 ratio with respect to time, starting at Day One in Genesis 1 to its present ratio? I've got some numbers I'd like to share on the subject regarding the time being "well after the Flood".

[bhukkadakota]

so what if solomon was real or not?
what does that prove?
heaps of nations keeps records or their founders and past kings.
it just means whoever wrote the bible, knew who the kings in the past was. it proves nothing about the authenticity of the bible.
its just like the naming of actual towns in the NT, it just means whoever wrote the scriptures have either been to that town before or heard about it.

[Dr.GH]

Gee, this looks like another article that socrat either didn't read, or couldn't understand.

(I don't want to violate any "character counts" rules. Appologies to Michael Josephson).

[Dilton]

Hey you all, leave Socrates be, He has just proved that Almight Lord Created the world and all stuff you bunch of morons.

[stevencarrwork]

05-07-2003 @ 03:06 AM
Socrates:



But a team led by archeologist Amihai Mazar of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem reported in Friday's issue of Science that carbon from olive pits and charred grain from one of three "destruction layers" at Tel Rehov date the layer to 940 to 900 BC. The destruction layers mark times when the site was demolished before being rebuilt.

The new dates correspond to a Sherman-like march across Palestine by the Egyptian Pharaoh Shoshenq, a well-documented event that occurred around 925 BC. According to the biblical books I Kings and II Chronicles, Shoshenq began his invasion five years after Solomon's death. Because Tel Rehov was a 10-hectare urban center, the dating supports the biblical account of Solomon.

'....period 880 to 836_B.C.E. is most likely in probability terms, but 918_to 892_B.C.E. is also possible.'

So a report which never found any evidence of somebody called Solomon, uses techniques condemned by YEC's, and actually says the 9th century is more likely, and rules out 925 BC, and which Socrates never saw, (he never even saw the LA Times report), is cited gleefully by Socrates as evidence.

The guy is just so objective. I think troll points are in order for the LA Times for printing something false, and getting creationists to swallow it.

[Celsus]

Not to mention that Amihai Mazar (let alone Finkelstein or Dever, despite all their public and often acrimonious disagreements) would laugh at Socrates' interpretation of the Bible. Mazar is a proper scholar and his book, Archaeology of the Land of the Bible: 10,000-586 B.C.E. (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0385425902/InternetInfidels/104-6199087-2620741), is the text to get for ancient pre-exilic Israel (and don't get your hopes up for finding anything about Abraham or Noah or Adam in there).

Joel

[Dr.GH]

Cut it out you guys. I just spent another $100 at amazon.com

[HerodionRomulus]

To keep up with the debate between the 'minimalists' and 'maximalists' I would suggest a subscription to Biblical Archeology Review.

But that might allow facts to interfere and we can't have that now can we?
:huh:

[Ted]

I have to laugh at the argument about C14 dating. The assumptions of C14 create a problem with the calibration. Both the English Oak and Bristlecone Pine C14 calibration curves have an anomaly between about 450 BC and 765 BC. This anomaly raises serious questions about the validity of dates older than 450 BC. One specific example should be enough.

Nineveh fell in 612 BC. The femur of a soldier who died the day Nineveh fell (His skeleton was found with armor, not in a burial position, under the collapsed wall.) has been C14 dated older than 800 BC. This is a 200 year error in an exactly dated artifact.

While the direction of the error stands against the biblical conclusion in this discussion, the fact that such a large error exists suggests that any C14 dates in the era under discussion are likely to be substantially erroneous. That makes it quite difficult to use C14 to prove any position.

[Roy]

Today @ 12:27 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=165786#post165786)
Ted:

I have to laugh at the argument about C14 dating. The assumptions of C14 create a problem with the calibration. Both the English Oak and Bristlecone Pine C14 calibration curves have an anomaly between about 450 BC and 765 BC. This anomaly raises serious questions about the validity of dates older than 450 BC.

How can the bristlecone pine calibration curve have an anomaly between 450BC and 765BC when that period and further is covered by single trees that are still alive?

[Dr.GH]

It is correct that there are bristlecones older than 4000 years, (and show no evidence of any flood). There is a statistical difficulty for C14 dates between about 800BC, and 400BC. It about the same size as the one from about 1650AD to the "present" ie 1950AD. It isn't about calibration, it is about the rapid oscillation of C14 production. The data for then next few thousands of years are again very linear. The C14 production in the upper atmosphere varies with levels of solar radiation. As the Sun has a periodic cycle, this is is reflected in C14 data. A couple of links that might help:

http://www.rlaha.ox.ac.uk/orau/01_06.htm#1to0kbc

http://www.sonic.net/bristlecone/Martyr.html

The constant bristlecone dendrochronology extends to about 7000BC. Oh, did I mention that there are no "flood" anomalies" in any dendro sequence, or varve sequence?

[geochron]

05-07-2003 @ 05:50 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=89631#post89631)
Socrates:

No, YECs point out the assumptions behind radiometric dating, but also that they may be valid for 14C dating of artefacts well after the Flood.

Exactly how could it return to being usable after a flood that completely ruined it.

I've asked this before but no answer ever comes.

[Ted]

For the general information on the YEC model of C14 and the interaction with the biblical flood, you may visit http://www.grisda.org/origins/21066.htm. This is one of many solid papers by Robert Brown on this site that deal with issues of Carbon 14. In particular, figure 3 gives a visual on the biblical model of C14 in the biosphere. Its impact on apparent ages can be found elsewhere.

If you are truly interested in understanding some problems with dating old artifacts, I would suggest Brown's papers on amino acid racemization and the dating of ancient artifacts. Also, Paul Giem's latest paper on the presence of C14 in "infinite age" reservoirs is particularly telling.

That last paper, http://www.grisda.org/origins/51006.htm, particularly deserves attention. Coal and oil are supposed to be "infinite age" reservoirs. That is, they have degenerated structurally to the point where it is difficult or impossible to identify their source materials. Under conventional dating schemes, this makes them many millions of years old. Yet, almost without exception, they all contain sufficient C14 to date less than 50,000 standard radiocarbon years old.

A small amount of math is important here. C14 has an atomic weight of 14, and a half-life of 5,730 years. If we have a single atom of C14 remaining from an initial pool one million years old, that initial pool would be 100 times the mass of the earth.

The conclusion is left to the student.

[Dr.GH]

The Seventh Day Adventists have been a very central group in the survival, and promotion of creationism in the USA.

http://www.grisda.org/origins/51006.htm

http://www.grisda.org/origins/24050.htm

Your links didn't connect because you inadvertantly added a period, and a comma to the URLs. Readers can use the ones I have included.

[geochron]

Today @ 01:38 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=167140#post167140)
Ted:

For the general information on the YEC model of C14 and the interaction with the biblical flood, you may visit http://www.grisda.org/origins/21066.htm. This is one of many solid papers by Robert Brown on this site that deal with issues of Carbon 14. In particular, figure 3 gives a visual on the biblical model of C14 in the biosphere. Its impact on apparent ages can be found elsewhere.

If you are truly interested in understanding some problems with dating old artifacts, I would suggest Brown's papers on amino acid racemization and the dating of ancient artifacts. Also, Paul Giem's latest paper on the presence of C14 in "infinite age" reservoirs is particularly telling.

That last paper, http://www.grisda.org/origins/51006.htm, particularly deserves attention. Coal and oil are supposed to be "infinite age" reservoirs. That is, they have degenerated structurally to the point where it is difficult or impossible to identify their source materials. Under conventional dating schemes, this makes them many millions of years old. Yet, almost without exception, they all contain sufficient C14 to date less than 50,000 standard radiocarbon years old.

A small amount of math is important here. C14 has an atomic weight of 14, and a half-life of 5,730 years. If we have a single atom of C14 remaining from an initial pool one million years old, that initial pool would be 100 times the mass of the earth.

The conclusion is left to the student.

14C in ancient samples is perfectly well explained without resorting to 4000 year old coal.

The 'papers' you link to still leave the question unanswered, I fear. Note that with a constant production rate the atmospheric 14C ratio would grow from an initial zero at the 14C half life. If it had been zero at the flood, all 14C dates would be out by a factor of 2 (including those of historical events). It's fairly simple maths so I'll leave it to you, professor.

So, what mechanism is it that alters the 14C system straight after the flood, then keeps it stable enough to use over historical time?

Isn't it also true, by the way, that the tests put forward at the end of one of those papers have already been done, further falsifying the theory?

(BTW, if you're increasing the 14C production rate, what effects should we look for in the 10Be system?)

[Dr.GH]

Maybe Ted can also tell us how radiocarbon dates can compare so well with luminescence dates from the same sediment system.

For example:

http://www.climate.unibe.ch/~stocker/papers/hormes03nzjgg.pdf

[popof3]

05-07-2003 @ 12:50 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=89631#post89631)
Socrates:

Celsus:But then, YECs don't accept radiometric dating. Or only when it supports their prejudices?No, YECs point out the assumptions behind radiometric dating, but also that they may be valid for 14C dating of artefacts well after the Flood. And the point remains is that the data are CONSISTENT with the accuracy of Solomon and inconsistent with the misotheistic revisionism of the likes of the Finkelstein fruitloop.

And Celsus is deluding himself if he thinks that only YECs have prejudices. He probably thinks that rabid God-haters such as Dawkins and himself are the epitome of objectivity.


No offense Socrates, but you sure throw around "God haters" and terms similar to that too often.

First of all, to hate God would mean you would have to accept him as real. Those claiming atheism don't accept the reality of God and therefore do not 'hate' what they feel doesn't exist.

Second, you feel any argument that doesn't support you comes from one who doesn't believe or doesn't accept Jesus. Both of those are false assumptions, and are very egotistical since you then assume the "I am always right and anyone who disagrees is a blasphomer" role. When you do that, you turn people from God, not to him. I love God dearly but I wouldn't want to be around you when you got on your horse since it would show you couldn't walk the Jesus walk. I take that back, you CAN walk the Jesus walk, but you choose not to, instead trying to belittle others and hoping those reading your belittling and insulting words will bring them to God.

Once again I ask you to read up on boasting in the NT. You are to boast only of God and everything you do should show the love that is God. Nothing you do should be to make YOU seem better than anyone else.

People will follow the Jesus walk. People will ignore those who talk the talk but refuse the walk themselves. Find yourself on the path doing the walk.

[Ted]

Dr GH asks about the correlation between C14 dates and luminescence dates in a single system in New Zealand. To him they "compare so well."

Before I comment, I must note that I am not nearly as well versed in luminescence techniques as I am in C14.

I reviewed the article he points to. The C14 dates are tightly clustered, and very consistent with the biblical flood model, when we factor in the expected C14 ages based on C14 in the antediluvian biosphere. This suggests that the C14 data is good and reliable. (Please note that I did not say that the dates are reliable. Those are an interpretation of the data. We agree on the data, just not the interpretation.)

If one looks at Table 5 and Figure 5 in the article, it should be noted that the luminescence data varies by a factor of 2. Such a variation suggests that the interpretation of the data is fraught with difficulty. The authors spend a long time dealing with this, and I would suggest that their methods of compensation require considerable evaluation by qualified reviewers. Even so, a factor of 2 variability in a date derived from this data does not breed confidence. Rather, it suggests that there are systematic errors that need to be addressed.

This is a single example. I'm sure that we can find multiple examples tending both ways in the literature. The history of science is the history of discarded theories. Science can only answer questions about what is repeatable.

Since creation and the flood are historic events, only eyewitness accounts can tell us directly about them. And I someone who was there for both. Do you?

[DunnySaze]

Today @ 04:13 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=169586#post169586)
Ted:


Dr GH asks about the correlation between C14 dates and luminescence dates in a single system in New Zealand. To him they "compare so well."

Well the C14 date is 22,620 +/- 1270 BP and the luminescence date 21,700 +/- 2600 BP. They do agree pretty well, within the measurement variation. Far as I can see.


I reviewed the article he points to. The C14 dates are tightly clustered, and very consistent with the biblical flood model, when we factor in the expected C14 ages based on C14 in the antediluvian biosphere. This suggests that the C14 data is good and reliable. (Please note that I did not say that the dates are reliable. Those are an interpretation of the data. We agree on the data, just not the interpretation.)

Not sure I see how one can accept a 20,000+ year date as "good and reliable" if you don't think it actually refers to 20,000+ actual years. And don't see how this is reconciled by C14 in the antediluvian biosphere. Can you show the calculation?


If one looks at Table 5 and Figure 5 in the article, it should be noted that the luminescence data varies by a factor of 2. Such a variation suggests that the interpretation of the data is fraught with difficulty. The authors spend a long time dealing with this, and I would suggest that their methods of compensation require considerable evaluation by qualified reviewers. Even so, a factor of 2 variability in a date derived from this data does not breed confidence. Rather, it suggests that there are systematic errors that need to be addressed.

It seems to me they did address the differences. That's what the bleaching and fading experiments were for apparently.


Science can only answer questions about what is repeatable.

Not so. Science can only answer questions about what is observable is more accurate.


Since creation and the flood are historic events, only eyewitness accounts can tell us directly about them. And I someone who was there for both. Do you?

Why are eyewitness accounts so special? Can't we tell what happened based on the most reasonable interpretation of the evidence left behind, rather like a detective solving an unobserved crime?

[Dr.GH]

I agree with the authors of the referenced paper (and Ted) that the luminescence data are less reliable than the C14 data.

Interested readers should consult the chapters on luminessence in: R. E. Taylor & Martin J. Aitken, Editors, 1997 Chronometric Dating in Archaeology New York:Plenum Press. A strong background text book is, Martin J. Aitken 1985 Thermoluminessence Dating. New York: Academic Press.

Aitken's 1985 book is a strong cautionary tale instructing us on the potential for error between the fieldwork and the laboratory, and the proper interpretation of the luminessence data.



If one looks at Table 5 and Figure 5 in the article, it should be noted that the luminescence data varies by a factor of 2. Such a variation suggests that the interpretation of the data is fraught with difficulty. The authors spend a long time dealing with this, and I would suggest that their methods of compensation require considerable evaluation by qualified reviewers.

If Ted might read the text as well as look at the pictures, he would see that the authors are fully aware of the limitations of luminessence data. I am puzzled Ted hasn't realised this; after all this is one of the major points of the paper- in spite of the limitations of luminessence they found good agreement with C14 data. This was not a test of C14 dating, it was (in large part) a test of luminessence dating whi C14 used as the "Gold Standard." I don't know what information Ted might have on the competency of the journal reviewers, but it looks like they at least understood what the main points of the paper were.

But, the point is still very strong that two dating methods based on totally different physical systems yield comparable data. Ted offers a wild scheme without physical support based on "C14 in the antediluvian biosphere."

I will be most interested in Ted's explanation of how it is that C14 data correlates with other cosmogenic isotope data.

[Ted]

I will be very brief. I did read the paper in detail. I merely pointed out the figures because they are easy to see. That said...

I didn't detail the antediluvian atmosphere, and will refer readers to Robert Brown's paper (referenced earlier) for the more detailed discussion. But for a BRIEF summary...

Before the flood, if we take the Bible account as it appears to be intended, as literal history, there are several physical characteristics of the earth that can be inferred. I do so at http://www.bibleonly.org/gen/JATSFlood.PDF. We may note:
1. A stable temperature inversion
2. Minimal mixing between the stratosphere and the biosphere
3. Higher humidity
4. Higher magnetic field of the earth.

I don't recall any other major factors without re-reading my sources, but these are enough to set the scene. Every one of these factors would lead to either a dramatically reduced production of C14 or dramatically reduced transport of C14 into the biosphere. Those conditions would lead to a dramatically reduced C14 level in the antediluvian biosphere. Thus, antediluvian carbon will date "older" that postdiluvian carbon by a wide margin.

After the flood, C14 levels would rise exponentially toward modern levels. This rapid rise is reflected in some specimens. For example, in my paper I cite the case of one mammoth with a 14,000 year difference in dates from its hair and brain.

The 22,000 "year" age of the material in the paper in question is very consistent with early postdiluvian carbon. The best estimates place the immediate antediluvian "age" at around 40,000 standard radiocarbon years, but 4,500-5,400 actual years (textual variation between MT and LXX).

Thus, we agree on the data. There is an observed level of C14 in the samples. Our difference comes in how you interpret that level. An "age" of 22,000 years is not data, it is an interpretation.

[DunnySaze]

Today @ 02:41 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=170767#post170767)
Ted:

[quote]Before the flood, if we take the Bible account as it appears to be intended, as literal history, there are several physical characteristics of the earth that can be inferred. I do so at http://www.bibleonly.org/gen/JATSFlood.PDF. We may note:
1. A stable temperature inversion
2. Minimal mixing between the stratosphere and the biosphere
3. Higher humidity
4. Higher magnetic field of the earth.

What evidence have you that any of these are reasonable assumptions? If it's only based on Biblical inference, which it appears to be (at least mainly), then aren't you simply assuming that which you are trying to show?


I don't recall any other major factors without re-reading my sources, but these are enough to set the scene. Every one of these factors would lead to either a dramatically reduced production of C14 or dramatically reduced transport of C14 into the biosphere. Those conditions would lead to a dramatically reduced C14 level in the antediluvian biosphere. Thus, antediluvian carbon will date "older" that postdiluvian carbon by a wide margin.

Wouldn't that be immediately visible even in the living tree ring data? Certainly in the overlapping tree ring or varve data. But we see exactly what one would expect if 14C levels were more or less constant. Some dated carbon in varves for example -

http://home.entouch.net/dmd/varve.gif

Source: Turekian, Karl K., editor, 1971. The Late Cenozoic Glacial Ages, page 61, (New Haven, Yale University Press).

Should't we be expecting this curve to basically flatten out at about 4500 years if you are correct?


After the flood, C14 levels would rise exponentially toward modern levels. This rapid rise is reflected in some specimens. For example, in my paper I cite the case of one mammoth with a 14,000 year difference in dates from its hair and brain.

Perhaps this is not a real effect, but a result of contamination of this sample. Can you say that this is typical of a consistant pattern of results in the 14C record?


Thus, we agree on the data. There is an observed level of C14 in the samples. Our difference comes in how you interpret that level. An "age" of 22,000 years is not data, it is an interpretation.

But you are not 'interpreting' the data. To me, it appears you are starting off with a pre-formed static model (the literal Biblical interpretation) and then looking for a way to fit the data to that model. That's a reconciliation, not an interpretation. This is the opposite to how a scientist does it. They gather the data and only then formulate the model such that it explains the data. The data drives the model, not the other way around.

[Dr.GH]

Aside from other problems with Dr. Noel's pre- and post-flood scenarios, there is simply none of the C14 anomolies that his rejection of isotopic dating relies on.

An additional source is
http://www.cio.phys.rug.nl/HTML-docs/Verslag/97/PE-04.htm

There we see

http://www.cio.phys.rug.nl/HTML-docs/Verslag/97/image/PE-05L.gif
Figure PE-5. Atmospheric radiocarbon calibration for almost the complete 14C dating range (<45 ka cal BP) reconstructed from annually laiminated sediments from Lake Suigetsu (Japan). Ä with 1-p bars = Lake Suigetsu, Ä, ~ and O correspond to U-series based 14C calibration on corals.

What we do not see is any hint of the type of sharp changes that Noel, or other science deniers, claim to exist. That is, prior to about 30,000 years ago. Then we see:

http://www.cio.phys.rug.nl/HTML-docs/Verslag/97/image/PE-06L.gif
Figure PE-6.Atmospheric D14C changes deduced from Lake Suigetsu during the last 45 ka. The solid line during the Holocene corresponds to the tree-ring record.


Therefore, it would be best to be very careful in the interpretation of C14 data older than 30,000 years. This naturally makes the New Zealand data earlier refenced all the more interesting. Fortunately, earlier than 30 Ka there are many other independent dating methods.

[Ted]

The issue of the "ages" of Lake Suigetsu varves is not as simple as it would seem from this discussion. Unfortunately, I am not an expert on this, and can only make a general comment.

The interpretations of the data I have read run both ways. There are apparently good arguments both for and against the varves being an annual accumulation. Of course, when we look at the Green River formation, Dr. Paul Buchheim has shown the impossibility of them being annual.

This brings us to a conundrum. Since science is the history of discarded theories, shall we believe today's interpretation?

At the Scopes trial, the scientific data was allowed to rule the day. Today, if we were to examine that data, we would laugh. We know that Piltdown Man was a hoax. But it was "scientific fact" in that trial. And we could go on.

The key issue is interpretation. And science is a method. It can only give definitive answers in repeatable situations. Its application to historical artifacts is full of assumptions, and when examined closely, is fully dependent on those assumptions. Further, in many cases, when one method is used to calibrate another, both have a long-ages assumption, and the result is circular.

In the evaluation of historical artifacts, science can give educated guesses, but that is all that they are. Only an eyewitness can give a definitive answer.

Science has changed opinions on historical artifacts repeatedly, and will again. The word of God has not changed. He made the earth. He caused the flood. He made us. And he told us the story.

Are you willing to place your trust in the opinions of man or in the one who made man?

[DunnySaze]

Today @ 01:33 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=179528#post179528)
Ted:


The interpretations of the data I have read run both ways. There are apparently good arguments both for and against the varves being an annual accumulation.

What evidence is there that they are not annual?


Of course, when we look at the Green River formation, Dr. Paul Buchheim has shown the impossibility of them being annual.

I doubt this conclusion is as forgone as you seem to imply here. Again, what evidence does he have?


This brings us to a conundrum. Since science is the history of discarded theories, shall we believe today's interpretation?

Yes, until a better model comes along.


At the Scopes trial, the scientific data was allowed to rule the day. Today, if we were to examine that data, we would laugh. We know that Piltdown Man was a hoax. But it was &quot;scientific fact&quot; in that trial. And we could go on.

Not quite. At the Scopes trial there was no scientific data presented. It was't considered relevant. The only issue was, 'Did Scopes teach evolution?' He did, and pled guilty after Bryant's testimony and fined $100. Now there were affidavits read into the record by several scientists, with the point being to have them there when the appeal took place. That appeal never happened. As for Piltdown, two of the scientists did mention it in their affidavits, but in neither case did they consider it central to their argument, and in fact is was considered more or less as an unexplained anomoly. Paleontology has moved a long way from then.


The key issue is interpretation. And science is a method. It can only give definitive answers in repeatable situations. Its application to historical artifacts is full of assumptions, and when examined closely, is fully dependent on those assumptions. Further, in many cases, when one method is used to calibrate another, both have a long-ages assumption, and the result is circular.

Science can never give "definitive" answers in any case, as this would be incompatible with your statement that science is "the history of discarded theories". Science does not deal in absolute truth. Nevertheless, real science does not require the event to be repeatable, only the observations that lead to the formulation of the theory.

There are assumptions in science. We assume the universe is objectively real. We assume our senses are at least resonably reliable it detecting the physical world. We assume there are general laws at work and that we can discover what these are. But there is a difference between assumption and conclusion. If I cut down a tree and count 25 rings I conclude it's likely 25 years old, I don't assume it is. Radiocarbon can be calibrated by tree rings, but tree rings are concluded as annual based on other evidence.


In the evaluation of historical artifacts, science can give educated guesses, but that is all that they are. Only an eyewitness can give a definitive answer.

Not so. Eyewitnessess are notoriously unreliable.


Science has changed opinions on historical artifacts repeatedly, and will again.

Science is not a religion. It must come to conclusions based on the evidence, and should new evidence come to light or a new and superior way of looking at the evidence, then the theories must be modified (or discarded).


The word of God has not changed.

Yes, and this is precisely the difference between religion and science. Science is not better, just different.


He made the earth. He caused the flood. He made us. And he told us the story.

But we must understand what this story means. Was it more literal or more metaphoric? Was it a lesson in history or a lesson in faith? Different Christian faiths have different opinions.


Are you willing to place your trust in the opinions of man or in the one who made man?

We can do both.

[Passant]

The issue of the "ages" of Lake Suigetsu varves is not as simple as it would seem from this discussion. Unfortunately, I am not an expert on this, and can only make a general comment.

Well, Here's a nice site for you to study. http://www.geocities.com/earthhistory/quat.htm


The interpretations of the data I have read run both ways. There are apparently good arguments both for and against the varves being an annual accumulation. Of course, when we look at the Green River formation, Dr. Paul Buchheim has shown the impossibility of them being annual.

This entire sentance is untrue, for a quick overview of the facts, try this, http://home.entouch.net/dmd/greenriver.htm

[Dr.GH]

Yesterday @ 05:33 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=179528#post179528)
Ted:

The issue of the &quot;ages&quot; of Lake Suigetsu varves is not as simple as it would seem from this discussion. Unfortunately, I am not an expert on this, and can only make a general comment.

But, Dr. Noel, you have posed as an expert on C14 dating, and you fail to be able to maintain that pose.



The interpretations of the data I have read run both ways. There are apparently good arguments both for and against the varves being an annual accumulation. Of course, when we look at the Green River formation, Dr. Paul Buchheim has shown the impossibility of them being annual.

The varves in the Green River Formation are not relevant to the issue at hand; that multiple, independent calibrations of C14 data which are all internally consistent. Further, these data contradict the expectations of your published theory (rather: set of ad hoc assertions). There are not large anomalies in the C14 data, or any other data, that can be associated with a pre- to post-Noah's flood change in either the production of C14, the decay rate of radioisotopes, or the sequestering of carbon.


This brings us to a conundrum. Since science is the history of discarded theories, shall we believe today's interpretation?

Trivial. There has been no replacement, nor even significant restatement of the theoretical basis of radiometric dating. Our ability to measure isotope ratios has improved thousands fold, our understanding of the biology and geology of radioisotopes has improved in step. It in not the least a matter of "interpretation." This post-modernist "it is just an interpretation" cant is tiresome at best, and hypocritical from biblical literalists. I suggest you read
Veith, Gene Edward Jr.
1994 Post Modern Times: A Christian Guide to Contemporary Thought and Culture. Weaton: Good News Publishers

His scapegoating of liberals notwithstanding, Veith at least speaks your literalist language and adequately exposes "its only an interpretation" for the pathetic dodge that it is.


At the Scopes trial, the scientific data was allowed to rule the day. Today, if we were to examine that data, we would laugh. We know that Piltdown Man was a hoax. But it was &quot;scientific fact&quot; in that trial. And we could go on.

Don't go on, it is embarrassing. You lack basic understanding of the historical record. The "piltdown" issue was never introduced in the Scopes trial, and if for no other reason we might ignor your comments. However, the historical facts are that many physical anthropologists and paleontologists of the time were already doubtful about the Piltdown "fossils." Further, the fraud was first exposed by the science of isotopic analysis, and this was accomplished not by creationists but by scientists.



The key issue is interpretation. And science is a method. It can only give definitive answers in repeatable situations. Its application to historical artifacts is full of assumptions, and when examined closely, is fully dependent on those assumptions.

Interpretation is not at all the issue. The application of physio-chemical analysis is of course replicable. You get up in the morning, you eat and go about your day. This is full of assumptions. The superiority of scientific assumptions to those you make walking across the street is that scientific assumptions are made explicitly and are subject to testing. Did you abandon anesthesiology because there were too many assumptions? Had you decided that there were assumptions about Phenobarbital that made medical practice too unsure? The philosophical issues over where we can trust our perseptions, and the theological question of "would God deceive?" are long resolved. They don't give you a way to deny C14 dates unless you will also deny all of preceived reality.


Further, in many cases, when one method is used to calibrate another, both have a long-ages assumption, and the result is circular.

A tree-ring count makes no assumption about "long-age." Dendrochronology starts with a simple observation that trees add growth rings. And, so we count the rings. Varve analysis started with a very simple observation, the sediment in some lakes had a warm water, and a cold water variation, and this warm/cold cycle was repeated annually. There are no "long age" assumptions. The failure of a "short age" assumption is shown when creationsts argue that we after we got to 6,000 in our count we must just quit- after all the "short age assumption" tells us that we are done.

Spinning in circles makes you dizzy. I suggest you stop.


In the evaluation of historical artifacts, science can give educated guesses, but that is all that they are. Only an eyewitness can give a definitive answer.

I am both an archaeologists, and a forensic scientist. As such I have a bit of experience in both artifacts, and eyewitnesses. Between the two I find artifacts far more reliable. A conclusion is like a diagnosis, it is not 100% certain. But it is not a "guess." Did they teach you that at Loma Linda? I certainly tried to teach that to my students at the Medical College of Georgia.



Science has changed opinions on historical artifacts repeatedly, and will again. The word of God has not changed. He made the earth. He caused the flood. He made us. And he told us the story.

Are you willing to place your trust in the opinions of man or in the one who made man?

The Christian Bible was not frozen for centuries. That some people wish it to be, has been unfortunate. I must say, the Jewish tradition is superior in this respect. Review your circular reasoning, and save Pascal's wager for the easily duped.

Edited to add:

I had missed that you refered earlier to the totally discredited 'multiple C14 ages of mammoths' foolishness. See:

http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=179202#post179202post179202

[geochron]

There's a critique of the original article in this week's Science.

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/302/5645/568b?etoc

Comment on 14C Dates from Tel Rehov: Iron-Age Chronology, Pharaohs, and Hebrew Kings

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The recent interpretation by Bruins et al. (1) of new conventional and accelerator mass spectrometry (AMS) radiocarbon measurements from Tel Rehov, northern Israel, ignores previously published samples—from the same site, the same strata, and in some cases even the same loci—that have been carried out at the Weizmann Institute and the University of Arizona laboratories by conventional and AMS techniques and that provide younger dates (2). The study also ignores readings from other sites contemporaneous with Tel Rehov, such as Dor, Tel Hadar, and Megiddo, that also provide younger dates to the same archaeological horizons (3, 4). Analysis of the full collection of data contradicts the interpretation by Bruins et al. and supports the Low Chronology system for the Iron IIA strata in the Levant (4). This analysis uses the calibration curve to translate the historical hypotheses to uncalibrated dates and, notwithstanding the wiggles in the curve, to use the measured (uncalibrated) data more conclusively, with smaller uncertainties.

The claim by Bruins et al. (1) that they chose only high-quality samples is disputable. Three of the eleven sample locations constitute refuse pits, refuse deposits, and a street surface that may well have been contaminated with old material. This is especially true for Tel Rehov, where Strata VI to IV yielded similar pottery assemblages, which implies that contamination would be difficult to identify. The exact provenance of three more sample locations has not been provided. All in all, only 14 of the 32 new samples from Tel Rehov can be considered highly reliable. In a delicate attempt to determine differences of 70 years in the Iron Age, only absolutely safe samples—that is, material from floors found under a thick accumulation of destruction debris—should be submitted to 14C tests...

(continues)

[Dr.GH]

The response by Bruins and van der Plicht http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/302/5645/568c is also interesting. They show much larger standard deviation areas than in their original publication http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/300/5617/315? last spring. Their separation of strata V and VI now looks rather artifical. This is obvious in Fig. 2 of their original paper, but very obscured in their Fig. 3.


http://www.sciencemag.org/content/vol300/issue5617/images/medium/se1331409002.gif

Fig. 2. Stratigraphic sequence of calibrated dates, determined with the OxCal program (26), relevant historical dates and a simulated average 14C age (2795 ± 20 years B.P.) with calibration for an optional historical date (925 B.C.E.) of Shoshenq's campaign in ancient Israel.

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/vol300/issue5617/images/medium/se1331409003.gif

Fig. 3. The radiocarbon dating results placed in stratigraphic order on the calibration curve. The vertical scale is in conventional radiocarbon years B.P. The horizontal scale is in historical years B.C.E. The 1 B.P. date for each stratum or phase is represented by a rectangle, placed on the calibration curve. The horizontal range of the calibrated date is determined by the calibration curve but conditioned by the stratigraphic order, because most layers cannot overlap in time, but succeed each other. For Stratum V, the date of each of the four loci is represented by its own rectangle.

Hendrik J. Bruins, Johannes van der Plicht, Amihai Mazar
2003 14C Dates from Tel Rehov: Iron-Age Chronology, Pharaohs, and Hebrew Kings Science Volume 300, Number 5617, Issue of 11 Apr 2003, pp. 315-318.