With Hugh Owen, Mainly on Improving Catholic Creation Research, but Also on My Situation

I

HGL to Hugh Owen

12/27/2021 at 5:57 PM

Kennedy Report

I am watching Forrest Valkai trying to debunk a section of The Kennedy Report. Here is were I stopped Forrest Valkai's video.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oJnhRQjPD9U&t=1106s

Random mutations do not all look like what he saw on the orphanage.

a) Some mutations, while indeed losses of information, are nevertheless beneficial. FV could very easily give the example of lactase persistence, eye colour, skin colour, speed for accumulating fat and muscle ...
b) What he saw would normally have been not locus mutations, but "chromosome mutations" - things that change the karyotype, one of the best known examples of which is Downs, three chromosomes 21 instead of 2. And chromosome mutations are indeed handicap, cancer, death before birth (three examples of the latter : trisomy 1, trisomy 3, tetraploidy all over the karyotype - mortal unless mosaical, or chimeral). However, the guy from The Kennedy Report seemingly has no idea how this could be exploited in the question of rising number of chromosomes, among mammals, which is one of the implications of evolution.

To me it seems, the Catholic creationist movement is - as far as the human reason aspect is concerned - a joke. It's like picking Ray Comfort over Jonathan Sarfati - or the preachy over the exact.

I am not saying that the points in the video by the Kennedy report are in and of themselves bad, but the guy seems unable to properly defend them. They can perhaps not be disproven by good analysis, but they are easy to debunk by nitpicking and the guy is not ready to nitpick back or even better forestall nitpicking by actually giving a not just coherent, but also detailed and informed reason for his points.

Meanwhile, there is a Catholic creationist apologist whom you are boycotting. Me.

You will excuse me for not wishing you a blessed Christmastide, you knew me years ago, and your boycott has blighted part of mine, through the poverty I'm going through.

Hans Georg Lundahl

II

Hugh Owen to HGL

12/27/2021 at 7:37 PM

Re: Kennedy Report

Dear Hans,

Christ is born! Glorify Him!

Thank you for getting in touch.

Kennedy Hall does not represent the Kolbe Center, so we cannot take responsibility for any weaknesses in his presentation. On the other hand, it sounds as if some of the main points he made are correct, even if he was not able to defend them against "nit-picking." I have not seen his video so I do not know. For example, to show that there are "beneficial" mutations does not disprove the truth of the claim that there are no examples of mutations that add new functional information to the genome of any plant, animal or human. If that claim is true--and it is--then all the nit-picking in the world cannot save biological evolution from bankruptcy.

In short, your statement that "the Catholic creationist movement is - as far as the human reason aspect is concerned - a joke," is unjust, since the materials on our website and the content of our DVD series have held up very well under criticism. For examples, please see the "Replies to Critics" section of our website, especially the Trialogue with the two Dominican priests, to see that our team defends the traditional teaching of the Church on creation much better than the Catholic defenders of progressive creation or theistic evolution, from the perspective of theology, philosophy and natural science.

Through the prayers of the Mother of God, may the Holy Ghost lead us all into all the Truth and may we all be saved souls together in Heaven!

In Domino,

Hugh Owen

III

HGL to Hugh Owen

12/28/2021 at 10:50 AM

Re: Kennedy Report

A few replies:

"For example, to show that there are "beneficial" mutations does not disprove the truth of the claim that there are no examples of mutations that add new functional information to the genome of any plant, animal or human."

Very true. But unfortunately not what Kennedy was saying.

Some people have tried to figure out how mutations could do that. Jacques Monod in the early 70's conceded that one mutation would not bring about a new functional gene. But he was optimistic, it could happen if an offspring inherited a mutation from father and one from mother. I have pointed out that this cannot happen, since the mutations will be on two different chromosomes, therefore two different and non-combining versions of the old gene. I am reminded of how Rev. Houghton mentioned that the mention of chromosomes was banned from French science for c. 50 years, because they understood how it undermined evolution - something which I also used in context with chromosome numbers being different.

I decided to make two thought experiments on it and here these are:

What Could Irregular Deletions Do? · What About Pseudo-Genes Starting to Code?

"If that claim is true--and it is--then all the nit-picking in the world cannot save biological evolution from bankruptcy."

There is bankrupcy and bankrupcy. In the final three and a half years before Harmageddon, two men will be soundly bankrupt intellectually, but they won't quite be so mediatically - you know the two who get thrown alive into a lake of fire. I want a Catholic Creationist movement that is able to show itself able to nitpick and therefore bankrupt any nitpicker like Forrest Valkai. Here is how I come up against him, btw:

Watch Forrest Valkai on his Video from 17:00 to 18:00 · Debate with Shane Wilson and ReiperX

and Forrest Valkai to the Rescue of Radiometric Dating (Or Not?) · L M and Comparative Religion to the Rescue of Forrest Valkai? · subductionzone to the rescue of Forrest Valkai? Or Keith Levkoff? Deus-Stein? · How Carbon Dating is Done, Why My Calibration is Possible

"For examples, please see the "Replies to Critics" section of our website, especially the Trialogue with the two Dominican priests"

Ah, I found "answer to second question" on it ... I sent one of the two an answer on "fittingness of evolution". Do you have any similar with secularists? I have, not due to them agreeing in advance, but due to my hijacking our dialogues onto my blogs (like the one linked to).

"In short, your statement that "the Catholic creationist movement is - as far as the human reason aspect is concerned - a joke," is unjust,"

I must admit I have omitted looking at your work, since you decided to overlook mine on carbon dates, when you defended a Vulgate-Ussher timeline instead of a timeline with Roman martyrology for December 25th, which is what I use. It should therefore be taken, as perhaps excepting not just me, but also you.

Still, I think you could improve if you took a bit of my materials too.

That said, in a more charitable mood, this time: Merry Christmas!

Hans Georg Lundahl

IV

Hugh Owen to HGL

12/28/2021 at 5:09 PM

Re: Kennedy Report

Dear Hans,

Christ is born! Glorify Him!

First things first: How is your mother doing? I have been keeping her in my prayers.

Thank you for your replies.

Please forgive me for not getting back to you about your work on C-14 dating. If I could trouble you to send it to me again, I will ask the member of our team who is in charge of that project to look at it carefully.

After we have looked at your work on C-14 dating, we can take up the pros and cons of the chronology derived from the Septuagint vs. the one derived from the numbers in the Hebrew text of the Bible that St. Jerome used in the Vulgate.

I am going to recommend to Kennedy Hall that he ask one of our leadership team members who has expertise in biology to do an interview with him and answer the critics. Hopefully, he will do so.

In Domino,

Hugh Owen

V

HGL to Hugh Owen

12/28/2021 at 6:09 PM

Re: Kennedy Report

She was sending me a letter a few weeks ago, and I haven't received it.

Material on C-14, perhaps not identic to previous: Have you Really Taken ALL the Factors into Account? · New Tables · Why Should one Use my Tables? · And what are the lineups between archaeology and Bible, in my tables? · Bases of C14 · An example of using previous · Difference with Carbon 14 from Other Radioactive Methods

LXX / Roman martyrology vs later Hebrew texts (Vulgate, Masoretic), see my answer to CMI : Resp. to Carter / Cosner : In the Lifetime of Josephus
As well as my background story for Roman martyrology of December 25th, credits to my friend Stephan Borgehammar, a Church historian : Background to Christmas Martyrology · What Martyrology, by the way?

So, St. Jerome is equally responsible for the chronology of the martyrology (LXX without second Cainan) and for the Latin text with another chronology.

Your recommendations to Kennedy Hall are very appreciated.

Chromosome numbers, first published on Communities dot com · · · Undisputed facts · Hypothesis I · Hypothesis II · Hypothesis III · Hypothesis IV · Overall criticism

Update on Chromosome numbers · · · Talkorigins explains on human-chimp situation · my footnotes on this post · a little excursus on French language history

Speciation observed - but not in mammals · · · a wannna-read

Non-replies · · · comments part on non-replies, mostly links about chromosomal polymorphism

Chromosome numbers - the summing up · · · Kent Hovind's list of chromosome numbers of different species, plus one other link Comments part

Updated : Was I wrong on Karyograms?
Other : Microbes to Man - Happening Before Our Eyes?

Would that be some help?

Hans Georg Lundahl

VI

HGL to Hugh Owen

12/28/2021 at 7:04 PM

Re: Kennedy Report

Dear Hans,

Pax Christi!

That is a very rich collection of information!

We will try to be systematic and work our way through the various articles.

We will begin with the articles on C-14 which I will forward to our main expert in that area.

Please be patient with us, but we will get back to you this time!

In Domino,

Hugh Owen

VII

Hugh Owen to HGL

12/28/2021 at 7:08 PM

Re: Kennedy Report

Dear Hans,

Pax Christi!

When we try to open the files on C-14, Webroot tells us that the site is dangerous. Have you had any problems with site security?

Can you suggest another way to access the C-14 material?

In Domino,

Hugh Owen

VIII

HGL to Hugh Owen

12/29/2021 at 6:36 PM

Re: Kennedy Report

No, I can't suggest any other way to access it.

Try to go to a cyber, ignore webroot and try there.

Either way, get used to such things abusively warning for sites that are NOT dangerous.

I have had the cyber site of a city near Paris block all of blogspot.com because it contains the letter sequence blogs pot .com and in French "pot" is not often used for flower pot or chamber pot, it's just slang for "weed".

Hans Georg Lundahl

IX

Hugh Owen to HGL

12/29/2021 at 11:22 PM

Re: Kennedy Report

Dear Hans,

Pax Christi!

I have asked my webmaster to help me access the content of your website safely.

I am sure that he will be able to do so.

In Domino,

Hugh

X

HGL to Hugh Owen

12/30/2021 at 12:43 PM

Re: Kennedy Report

Thank you in advance!

You might be saving me a lot of trouble, if you get to it soon./HGL

XI

HGL to Hugh Owen

1/7/2022 at 3:10 PM

Hello, have the IT specialists resolved the problem, yet?

I should have been hearing some from you or the carbon experts, I feel?

If they are confused about sth, it could be the thing I deal with here:

My C14 Calibration, Has it Any Stability? · 670 Actual Years = 32 000 or 4000 Carbon Years? Both.

XII

HGL to Hugh Owen

1/7/2022 at 3:44 PM

webroot

look at this form:

https://www.brightcloud.com/tools/change-request.php

I found it on the site of webroot.

Someone manually would have put my blog URL on a "dangerous" category./HGL

XIII

Hugh Owen to HGL

1/7/2022 at 6:34 PM

Re: webroot

Dear Brother Hans,

Pax Christi!

I finally had to have our webmaster send me the files. I then forwarded them to our expert in C-14 dating. He has a lot of irons in the fire, so please be patient. We will get back to you as soon as we can.

Your Mom is in my prayers. Are you able to visit her?

In Domino,

Hugh Owen

XIV

HGL to Hugh Owen

1/7/2022 at 7:20 PM

Re: webroot

My mom is in Malmö. I am in Paris. 1249 km.

Travelling is restricted with mask and perhaps now even pass mandates.

I don't have a friend with a car who's willing to go, as far as I know./HGL

Other Check on Carbon Buildup

Who is Peter Vajda?

I saw his name here, on this article on CMI:

The spatial inverse problem in Earth sciences
Published: 20 October 2017 (GMT+10)
https://creation.com/spatial-inverse-problem-in-earth-sciences

Note that 10 hours before Greenwhich mean time ... I actually am not sure how I saw this so early, see letter 1.

Could be a preview of publication or .... ah, here it is, it had alrady become 20.X while it was still 19.X here!

I

Me to Peter Vajda

10/19/17 at 5:30 PM

What is the proportionality between cosmic radiation and production of new carbon 14?

1 Linear graph? 1:1, 2:2, 3:3, 4:4?
2 Squares? 1:1, 2:4, 3:9, 4:16?
3 Square roots? 1:1, 4:2, 9:3, 16:4?

Bonus : is the above true only for Becquerel coming from cosmos, or also true with regards to the normal cosmic radiation doses on Earth, as in medium 0.39 milliSievert per year?

Yours truly,
Hans Georg Lundahl

II

Peter Vajda to me

10/20/17 at 7:44 AM

RE: What is the proportionality between cosmic radiation and production of new carbon 14?

Radiocarbon is not my specialization. I cannot answer this specific question.
Regards, PV

III

Me to Peter Vajda

10/20/17 at 7:47 AM

Re: RE: What is the proportionality between cosmic radiation and production of new carbon 14?

Do you have a colleague you could refer me to?/HGL

IV

Peter Vajda to me

10/20/17 at 8:31 AM

contacts

Not personally, but you can try to contact researchers from the Department of Nuclear Physics (oddelenie jadrovej fyziky) of the Comenius Uni in Bratislava

https://fmph.uniba.sk/pracoviska/katedra-jadrovej-fyziky-a-biofyziky/

such as Prof.Dr. Masarik or the other six contacts listed under the department.

Regards, PV

V

Me to Peter Vajda

10/20/17 at 11:46 AM

Re: contacts

Thank you very much!

Best wishes!/HGL

PS, enjoyed your "inverse problem" today, I suppose we can't rule out the centre of Earth is where Hell is, after all!

VI

Me to Professor Masarik

10/20/17 at 11:55 AM

Good day, Professor Masarik! A problem on Carbon 14 and Cosmic radition?

If you find it beneath your worth, it seems you have colleagues you can confide it to, but it might even interest you. Here it is:

A) In normal cosmic radition, medium radiation dose on places on Earth (increasing with height) from cosmic radition alone is, I have gathered, 0.39 milliSivert per year.
B) Also in normal cosmic radition, the speed of production of carbon 14 is such that in ten years, the descent of atmosphere's 100 pmc to a theoretic 99.879 pmc is compensated, since carbon level stays roughly the same.

Now, there is obviously a connection between the levels, since carbon 14 is produced mainly by cosmic radiation hitting N14 high in the atmosphere (or so I have gathered).

But the problem is whether the connection is like a straight line graph (1:1, 2:2, 3:3, 4:4) or squared (1:1, 2:4, 3:9, 4:16) or inverse squared (1:1, 4:2, 9:3, 16:4).

Or for that matter any other dimension (cubed or inverse cubed?)?

I spontaneously think the first is likely : if the cosmic radiation dose is doubled, the speed of carbon 14 production is also doubled.

But suppose I am wrong, I'd like to know.

Hope this may interest you and be worth your time,
sincerely,
Hans Georg Lundahl

Ten days

up to next letter here, and no answer from Professor Masarik, I'll assume he lost interest or had none in the first place. How I hear of the following, see my answer to him.

VII

Me to Ilya Usoskin

10/30/17 at 9:14 AM

Cosmic Radiation and C14 Production, a Q

I have asked a question which seems more complicated than I thought.

I was given this paper as an answer, and will read it too:

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1206.6974.pdf

But I saw a summary by the man who gave me the reference.

He said that up to 1 Gev, the relation between energy of cosmic radiation to production of C14 is linear, but above 1 Gev, the relation becomes more like:

energy:production = n:sqrt(n)

This makes me wonder, what level of milliSievert per year is 1 Gev, and what carbon 14 production corresponds to it?

I suppose it is an observed level, but is it medium of the normal production, higher or lower?

VIII

Ilya Usoskin to me

10/30/17 at 9:27 AM

Re: Cosmic Radiation and C14 Production, a Q

Dear Has-Georg,

Thank you for your interest!

However, I cannot understand you question.

I don't know who is the man who told you that
"up to 1 Gev, the relation between energy of cosmic radiation to production of C14 is linear, but above 1 Gev, the relation becomes more like: energy:production = n:sqrt(n)"
but it doesn't sound clear for me.

Neither do I understand how radiation dose is related to 14C production in your mail.

Could you please formulate it in a clearer way?

For your information, the most recent 14C production model is available here:
http://cc.oulu.fi/~usoskin/personal/isotopes_JGR.pdf

Best regards,
Ilya

Of his contact

I am giving this:

Ilya Usoskin
Professor, Head of Oulu Cosmic Ray Station
Vice-director, ReSoLVE National Center of Excellence
Space Climate Research Group and Sodankyla Geophysical Observatory
FIN-90014 University of Oulu, Finland

Also omitting it in the following.

IX

Me to Ilya Usoskin

10/30/17 at 11:18 AM

Re: Cosmic Radiation and C14 Production, a Q

It's Hans-Georg, no doubt you typed in haste.

Well, I will try to clarify.

Here is a man who gave me the link, he also gave me the resumé:

Bruno Doussau

Professeur d'informatique chez Tyumen University

In other words, if he got it wrong, the man is not in your specialty, that is why I am writing you.

He had, as best as he could, tried to answer the question:

La production du nouveau carbone 14 ayant un rapport avec la force de la radiation cosmique, est-il proportionnel directement, au carré ou inversement au carré (détail en commentaire) ?
https://fr.quora.com/La-production-du-nouveau-carbone-14-ayant-un-rapport-avec-la-force-de-la-radiation-cosmique-est-il-proportionnel-directement-au-carr%C3%A9-ou-inversement-au-carr%C3%A9-d%C3%A9tail-en-commentaire

He had also linked to you, so I could read the material myself or check with you.

Obviously, more cosmic radiation equals faster production of C14.

I am less concerned with the energy as measured from cosmos than with how it reflects as radiation doses on earth.

Like, if at a point in time C14 was (not on the calibrations you are using, but on an alternative one) forming 11 times faster than now, and if the normal cosmic radiation on earth is now 0.39 milliSievert per year, would at such an occasion the radiation dose be 11 * 0.39 milliSievert per year, less, or even 121 * 0.39 milliSievert per year?

It makes a certain difference as to how realistic the alternative calibration is, since a radiation dose which kills off all life is not possible to have had in the past.

Thank you for taking your time!
Hans Georg Lundahl

X

Ilya Usoskin to me

10/30/17 at 11:32 AM

Re: Cosmic Radiation and C14 Production, a Q

Dear Hans-Georg (sorry for misspelling your name earlier),

Thanks for the clarification. I think I start understanding your question.

Although indeed, more 14C corresponds to higher radiation dose at Earth, there is no one-to-one relation between 14C production and cosmic radiation dose at the surface.

Exact relation should be calculated using detailed models which do exist but I am not aware of a precise calculation of what you ask.

The problem is that 14C is produced globally, in the entire atmosphere, while radiation is local and at the surface. Their exact relation may depend on many factors, most important being the energy spectrum of cosmic rays (the solar modulation) and the Earth's magnetic field which vary independently of each other. Therefore, the same amount of 14C produced in the atmosphere may correspond to different doses at a given location.

Best regards,
Ilya

XI

Me to Ilya Usoskin

10/30/17 at 11:51 AM

Re: Cosmic Radiation and C14 Production, a Q

So, for a production 11 times faster (over an extended period), what would be the maximum and minimum of radiation dose at a height* where today the one coming from cosmos is 0.39 milliSievert per year?

Or one for typical solar spectrum?

Or, could you link to some of these models?

Note

* As I have read, the medium dose from cosmos is 0.39 mSv (? abbreviation?) and it depends on height.

XII

Me to Ilya Usoskin

10/30/17 at 3:10 PM

The 0.39 mSv per year relate to normal C14 production how?

I mean, at medium height, the normal exposure to cosmic rays is 0.39 mSv, at sea level it is 0.27 mSv.

Suppose now the cosmic rays changed so that the speed of carbon 14 production were 2, 3 or even 11 times as fast, would the exposure at normal height / sea level be:

0.39 mSv / 0.27 mSv per year * 2, 3, 11?
0.39 mSv / 0.27 mSv per year * 4, 9, 121?
0.39 mSv / 0.27 mSv per year * 1.414, 1.732, 3.317?

Best wishes,
Hans Georg Lundahl

XIII

Me to Ilya Usoskin

10/31/17 at 2:47 PM

Cosmic Radiation and C14 Production, a Modelling Q

Good day!

Let's suppose all other parameters equal, but following parameters unequal to now, three scenarii:

1) solar activity and galactic radiation 2 times as strong, twice as many incoming particles, Earth magnetic field half as strong;
2) solar activity and galactic radiation 3 times as strong, three times as many incoming particles, Earth magnetic field a third as strong;
3) solar activity and galactic radiation 4 times as strong, 4 times as many incoming particles, Earth magnetic field a quarter of the strength.

In each case, prolong over many years and take it as medium.

In each case, how much faster is C14 produced compared to now, and how much more milliSievert per year would normally be coming from cosmos, as compared to the 0.39 per year at presently known?

I would have thought, spontaneously, the answers would be:

1) 4 times faster, 4*0.39 mSv per year;
2) 9 times faster, 9*0.39 mSv per year;
3) 16 times faster, 16*0.39 mSv per year.

The "11 times faster" being therefore between cases 2 and 3.

If I am wrong, I'd like to know, and you are in a position to tell, as far as I know.

Best wishes,
Hans Georg Lundahl
Mairie du III
Vigil of All Saints
31.X.2017

XIV

Ilya Usoskin to me

10/31/17 at 3:48 PM

Re: Cosmic Radiation and C14 Production, a Modelling Q

Dear Hans-Georg,

I am sorry, I am very busy now and cannot make your exercises.

Moreover, your questions are still imprecise.

> 1) solar activity and galactic radiation 2 times as strong, twice as many incoming particles, Earth magnetic field half as strong;

For example, this sentence does not make sense. "Twice as many incoming particles" in what energy range?
You probably wanted to say that twice as much 14C was produced?

[No, I did not ...]

In order to answer your question, someone needs to run a model with a precise selection of parameters. I don't have time now for that, and I still don't understand your question.

Best regards and sorry for brevity,
Ilya

XV

Me to Ilya Usoskin

10/31/17 at 6:09 PM

Re: Cosmic Radiation and C14 Production, a Modelling Q

"twice as strong" = twice the normal energy range
AND "twice as many particles"
AND "half as strong a magnetic field"

"You probably wanted to say that twice as much 14C was produced?"

No, I already said I guessed 4 times as much C14 would have been produced, but you know better.

Take your time, whenever you get it.

Above explicitates for 1, with 2 each factor is muliplied by three, with 3 each is multiplied by four.

ALL other parameters equal to normal ones at present.

No hurt feelings, best regards,
Hans Georg Lundahl

XVI

Me, forwarding to Dr Seiler

11/1/17 at 3:44 PM

Fw: Re: Cosmic Radiation and C14 Production, a Modelling Q

Mr. Seiler, just in case Ilya Usoskin really has no time at all ... blessed feast of All Saints!

XVII

Me to Hugh Owen

11/1/2017 10:25 AM

Subject: This might interest you

Message Body:
http://creavsevolu.blogspot.fr/2017/10/things-could-get-bit-complicated-with.html

http://notontimsblogroundhere.blogspot.fr/2017/10/sipapuni-origin-myths.html

http://notontimsblogroundhere.blogspot.fr/2017/10/the-gospel-truth-william-p-lazarus-part_31.html

Best wishes for All Saints and the week of All Souls!

--
This e-mail was sent from a contact form on Welcome to the Kolbe Center for the Study of Creation (http://kolbecenter.org)

XVIII

Hugh Owen to me

11/2/17 at 11:32 AM

Re: This might interest you

Thank you and God bless you!

In Domino,
Hugh

XIX

Me to Hugh Owen

11/2/17 at 1:48 PM

Re: This might interest you

You are welcome!

Blessed All Souls!

XX

Thomas Seiler to me

11/4/17 at 9:05 PM

Aw: Fw: Re: Cosmic Radiation and C14 Production, a Modelling Q

Dear Mr. Lundahl,

thanks for your wishes! I have not been involved in your discussion with Mr. Usoskin. Possibly, I missed an email. Otherwise, could you please tell me what precisely is your question?

With best regards!

Thomas Seiler

XXI

Me to Thomas Seiler

(CC Usoskin?)

11/6/17 at 9:30 AM

Re: Aw: Fw: Cosmic Radiation and C14 Production, a Modelling Q

Well, I thought the question was clear from the emails already sent below this, but once again:

He has the latest model of how variations in cosmic radiation affect production of C14, Na22 (?), Be7, Be10 and other cosmogenic isotopes.

I thought I had detected a problem in his model (a MONTECARLO simulation programme) for my own model of carbon rise in the atmosphere (a necessity for Young Earth Creationism).

Now, from certain words in our previous exchange (the one I forwarded was the second one), I had gathered it was less straightforward than I thought.

So, I asked him to model first for 2, 3, 4 times as much carbon, then he answered that this was not straightforward as different combinations of parameters could do this.

This provoked a refined (and quantitatively changed) modelling request:

Cosmic radiation (both galactic and solar) : 2, 3, 4 times as many particles coming with 2, 3, 4 times as much energy. Earth magnetic field : 1/2, 1/3, 1/4 present strength.

This I figured would give parameters for Carbon production 4 (or 8), 9 (or 27), 16 (or 64) times as fast as at present in medium. But since it was more complex, as he said, I could be very wrong here.

The other result parameter I would want is, how does this translate in milliSievert per year on a normal height on Earth (at present, with 1*1*1/1 it is 0.27 at sea level and 0.39 at medium height for localities on land/on Earth).

My concern is this : on my model of carbon rise, I would need carbon production to be 11 times as fast as at present during the Babel event (40 years of Babel project correspoinding to 1000 carbon dated years of Göbekli Tepe), as to the rest, my highest C14 production values (for St Jerome's chronology, presuming it has 401 years between Flood and birth of Peleg) are 5-6 times faster at between Joseph in Egypt (supposing he is Imhotep under Pharao Djoser) and fall of Jericho (supposing the Kenyon date of 1550 BC is the one we need for 1470 BC), and a little more than 5 times faster in medium between Flood and Babel.

Here is the latest model involving Usoskin:

http://cc.oulu.fi/~usoskin/personal/isotopes_JGR.pdf

XXII

Me to Ilya Usoskin

CC Thomas Seiler

11/8/17 at 3:26 PM

I think I owe you this notification

I might have got you wrong, but it seems you gave up, hence the words in this link:

http://assortedretorts.blogspot.fr/2017/11/on-question-whether-creationists-are.html

Bruce Doran

13m ago

If you’ve had a paper espousing creationist views accepted in Nature or Cell recently, I humbly defer.

Otherwise I think you’d find raw exposure to a group of people equipped with the education I describe to be an enlightening experience.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Just now

Oh, you meant educated so as to be brain washed to accept scientific articles only from Evolutionist publications?

In that case I don’t pick your version of “educated”.

It is more like Evolution biassed scientists are shunning too much exposure to me.

I was asking Ilya Usoskin to test my model (not saying it was mine and not giving exact details, but frame work for diverse quantities on three parameters) on carbon 14 build up, and he had no time.

He is a physicist at Oulu University in Finland, presumably partly Russian and partly Finnish.

End cited,

back to letter:

If my guess about part Finnish ancestry was bad in relation to name "Usoskin", I'll be happy to rectify.

Equally, if I got your motivation wrong.

Yes, the scenario with 11 times faster C14 production is my own, it is a YEC one.

http://creavsevolu.blogspot.fr/2017/07/how-fast-was-carbon-14-forming-during.html

The reason I want to check with either you or sn else is, as Richard Carrier says:

" a more general error: Not trying to prove your thesis false, before asserting it’s true. "

If 11 times faster carbon production is = milliSievert per year impossible to survive, then my scenario is proven wrong.

I had got this challenge a few years ago, at Nanterre University campus, after working in the library, but my solution had so far been assuming the incoming cosmic radiation is linear graph proportional to the production of new carbon.

So, I assumed, you are not interested in helping me check, because you figured out I am Young Earth Creationist, and because you have some prejudice against the position.

Even so, others have a stronger one, some have on other issues not even answered a first time. Or even on this one.

Thanks, and feel welcome to ask for a correction in the mention, if you like!

Hans Georg Lundahl

XXIII

Ilya Usoskin to me

11/8/17 at 4:04 PM

Re: I think I owe you this notification

Dear Hans-Georg,

As I said, I am very busy now and unfortunately have no time for your exercises.

Still, the problem was posed unambiguously. A direct comparison between 14C (which is global) and radiation dose (local) does not make sense unless the exact location is specified. There are some other unclear moments, but this is the main one. The dose at equator and polar regions would behave differently in relation 14C global production.

You are free to write whatever you want in your blog, but I don't think I gave you any reason to accuse me in any "prejudice".

I am not interested in your believes and aims, I am a scientist and more interested in facts than in believes.

My nationality is irrelevant in this discussion.

Best regards,
Ilya

XXIV

Me to Ilya Usoskin

CC Thomas Seiler

11/8/17 at 5:09 PM

Re: I think I owe you this notification

"Still, the problem was posed unambiguously. A direct comparison between 14C (which is global) and radiation dose (local) does not make sense unless the exact location is specified."

OK, I ditched the "go from C14 production" in response to what you said and instead I gave certain parameters :

• I cosmic radiation both galactic and solar a) 2*particles and 2*energy per particle, b) 3* etc, c) 4* etc
• II earth's magnetic field a) 1/2 as strong, b) 1/3 as strong, c) 1/4 as strong.

In each case, compared to medium value now.

I asked what would be speed of carbon production (global, as you may guess) and what would be the (global, I thought) effect in radiation dose.
I now correct this to :
I asked what would be speed of carbon production (global, as you may guess) and what would be the effect in radiation dose, both for equator and for pole.

How long could it take to program this into the monte-carlo model?

If you have no time, could you delegate it to a student, please?

"I don't think I gave you any reason to accuse me in any 'prejudice'."

Without prejudice, why:

• do you persist in relating to my initial request instead of to my corrections of it?
• do you state you are not interested in my beliefs, when I was asking a question pertaining to (modelled) fact?

"My nationality is irrelevant in this discussion."

Perhaps it might remain so, I wanted to give you a chance to correct, if you thought appropriate.

Hans Georg Lundahl

15 days later

still no answer.

Perhaps Seiler or Usoskin or both are preparing a Christmas present?