With Ken Wolgemuth on Carbon Dating and its Calibration

HGL'S F.B. WRITINGS: Radiocarbon and Tree Rings with Ken Wolgemuth · Correspondence of Hans Georg Lundahl: With Ken Wolgemuth on Carbon Dating and its Calibration

wed 13.IX.2023 22:30

Ken Wolgemuth

Hello Hans-Georg,
Here is our paper about Lake Suigetsu.

thu 14.IX.2023

Holy Cross

12:07

HGL

ok, where

14:29

Ken

Oops. Sorry about that.

[attached, but can apparently not be shared by a url accessible to the public here?]

Were you able to download it? Please note that this describes the foundations of radiocarbon dating, and hiccups of understanding by young earth creationists. This does not have the calibration curve used by the radiocarbon research community.

20:59

HGL

ok, I just found it

21:16

Ken Wolgemuth

Good. I understand from your profile that you live in Paris, and are from Switzerland. Is that correct? What is your viewpoint about how these American young-earth creationists handle this geochemistry data?

I see a reference to a paper that gives "A Complete Terrestrial Radiocarbon Record for 11.2 to 52.8 kya B.P. Are you the type of person who wants to pursue these questions about creation to find the truth?

21:42

HGL

I don't know where you get Switzerland from, unless Sweden and Switzerland are synonyms to you.

Or Austria and Switzerland. I am a Swedish national, and I was born in Austria.

Now, I have started my refutation of your article, it's a bit long for an answer here, I'll make it several answers instead.

HGL

The primary requirements for determining age are (1) a constant radioactive decay rate, (2) knowledge of the original carbon-14 content, and (3) quantification of any old carbon that may have been incorporated into the specimen. The last requirement applies mostly to marine samples, in which oceandwelling organisms, even today, extract carbon from seawater that has been “pre-aged” by long isolation from the atmosphere.4 Terrestrial samples, such as tree rings and lake sediments, are less susceptible to this complicating factor, limiting the primary requirements to the first two.

The reservoir effect can also apply to men, who have eaten lots of marine food, or drunk water with lots of old calcium (which isn't the pure element, but involves carbon).

In fact, when it comes to Mladec cave people dating back too close to the flood for it to be believable so many so big people had died, I rely on the reservoir effect, there is chalk in those caves.

As you mentioned "(2) knowledge of the original carbon-14 content," this is where I differ from both you and CMI, or most of them, I think that barring reservoir effect and contamination, the C14 content can be known very well year by year between Flood and Fall of Troy, and was radically rising (1.625 to 100 pmC in 1772 years).

To turn a measured carbon-14 value into an age, independent methods are employed to first provide realistic assessments of past atmospheric production rates.

Mine is Biblical chronology.

The conventional geologic model gives us specific expected outcomes for how much carbon-14 should be present in tree rings or varves of particular ages. This is a natural outgrowth of assuming constant radioactive decay rates, and annual production of tree rings and varves. The young-earth model (also known as flood geology), in contrast, does not have any inherent expectations, for purported fluctuations in natural processes during and after the flood could produce virtually any outcome.

Mine are:

• bigger atmosphere with lower percentage of nitrogen before the Flood (part of the oxygen was reacting with high layer atmosphere hydrogen to form Flood water), and probably also lower incoming cosmic radiation, even than now;
• possibly also more carbon dioxyde in the pre-flood world, as pmC is a value in relation to the overall (atmospheric, especially) carbon content
• just after the Flood, when the atmosphere had been reduced, a much higher production rate, than now, through higher incoming radiation, producing:
  • 1) 10 times faster production of C14
  • 2) lowered lifespans
  • 3) cooler weather, resulting in the ice age.

For the conventional model, the plot will assume (1) carbon-14 decay rates have been constant, (2) sampled trees grew one ring per year, (3) cross-dating of tree rings was done correctly, (4) sampled sediment layers are varves (one per year), (5) terrestrial tree rings and varves are free of “pre-aged” carbon, and (6) variation in atmospheric production of carbon-14 over the period of interest was limited within a discernable range.

We generally presume, the further back you go, the likelier it its, that cross-dating was done incorrectly and enters into a de facto circular proof along with C14.

Also, varves are usually laminations. How fast supersaturated water flows will determine if these form.

One way to establish these limits is using beryllium-10 concentrations in sediments that contain carbon-14 above background levels.

My model does not presume carbon-14 was present ABOVE background levels, but BELOW them.

Beryllium-10 is also produced in the atmosphere by cosmic rays, but unlike carbon, it readily falls to the ground, potentially preserving a record of variations in cosmic flux. From this record of flux, we can calculate proportional carbon-14 production.

Exactly how is unclear. Recall my model.

• 1) starts out with radically LOWER carbon-14
• 2) presumably the higher production of carbon-14 would involve a higher production of beryllium-10
• 3) BUT this would be interpreted over a stretched out chronology, since the higher production of carbon-14 results in a drawn out carbon chronology.

E. g. if between 2607 BC (death of Noah) and 2556 BC (birth of Peleg) carbon 14 rose from 43 to 49 pmC, this means that the 51 real years are interpreted as a stretch of 1000 years, since the extra years diminish as carbon-14 goes up, from 7000 extra years to 6000 extra years.

This means, if ten times more beryllium-10 is produced during the actual stretch of 51 years, it is to "the observer" spread out over a 20 times longer period, namely 1000 years.

In general, however, the lower concentrations (lower flux) tend to be found in layers containing higher current carbon-14 (deposited in the recent past), and the highest concentrations (higher flux) tend to be in layers containing lower current carbon-14 (deposited in the more distant past).

I'd expect exactly the same things from my model.

40 000 - 10 000 BP, a higher concentration, supposing beryllium-10 produces more in proportion to cosmic rays than carbon-14.

10 000 - 5 500 BP, a medium high concentration.

5 500 BP to 3 500 BP, lowering down to today's concentration.

Given conventional expectations, even if atmospheric carbon-14 was double today’s level, the low carbon-14 samples should be on the order of 50,000 years.14

But the problem with this reasoning is, my model presupposes exactly NO higher concentration of carbon-14 in the atmosphere. It only goes up from 1.625 to 100 pmC, not higher or significantly.

For the lower boundary, we will start at 95 pMC to accommodate lower rates in the recent past, and allow it to increase linearly to 120 pMC.15

95 pmC was reached and slightly bypassed in the year 1610 BC, which is therefore dated as 2020 BC.

It's in my table V-VI, which starts out with 87.575 pmC in 1700, and ends in 97.0681 pmC in 1588.

1700 - 1588 = 112 years, normal decay 98.654 % and normal replacement 100-98.654 pmC, i e 1.346 pmC.

98.654 * 87.575 = 86.3962405 pmC remaining
97.0681 - 86.3962405 = 10.6718595 pmC actual replacement
10.6718595 / 1.346 = 7.9285731797919762 times FASTER production

We are then ready to apply the radioactive decay equation (2) to each point along the upper and lower boundary to determine how much carbon-14 should still be present today for a sample of a particular age, up to 50,000 years.

I think these blogposts of mine (the one linked to and the ones it links to) are doing the corresponding type of work for YEC:

New blog on the kid : Raffiner et finir ma table de Fibonacci?
http://nov9blogg9.blogspot.com/2017/02/raffiner-et-finir-ma-table-de-fibonacci.html

[1.) 50% du "carbone récent", quel âge? Si on divisait une demi-vie en "demi-notes" ....? · 2.) 25% du "carbone récent"? Divisons la distance en 48 parties? · 3.) Trêve de Maths pour l'instant : a-t-on des restes antédiluviennes d'Européens ou non? · 4.) 12,5% du carbone présent : au paléolithique tardif · 5.) Encore "plus bas" dans le paléolithique : 6,25 % restent · 6.) Paléolithique inférieur, alors? · 7.) Raffiner et finir ma table de Fibonacci? · 8.) Table modifiée, analysée par convergence avec l'a priori]

As you are now going on to step 2, I propose a pause so you can have time to defend your step one, against my alternative reading, is that OK?

Ken Wolgemuth

It was obviously my mistake about your nationality.

When you are going into this detail, I would prefer email for east of printing to read. My email is [omitted]

I have identified a paper with this title: "A Complete Terrestrial Radiocarbon Record for 11.2 to 52.8 kya B.P." Do you read this type of geochemistry papers?
Ken

HGL

Mistakes happen, I'll be back on your mail.

But as it is your turn to respond in defense of previous, you get my email first, it's hgl@dr.com* ...

"Do you read this type of geochemistry papers?"

I haven't read that one, and am not sure yet whether it's the kind of thing I can read or not. We'll see.

* note:

it is my official public correspondence email.

Correspondence of Hans Georg Lundahl — If you wish to correspond with me
http://correspondentia-ioannis-georgii.blogspot.com/p/if-you-wish-to-correspond-with-me.html

HGL

one more thing, as I am sharing this debate with the public, I'd like to share the pdf with them, is that possible?

22:20

Ken Wolgemuth

Yes, of course.

23:36

HGL

the problem is, I don't have a functioning url for sharing it?

Über Claesemanns Theorien mit Tradis in Hamburg

I

Ich an P. Matthias Rohling, FSSPX

2/5/2022 at 1:59 PM

Ist Stefan Claesemann ein Gläubiger des Priorats Hl. Theresa von Avila, Hamburg?

Wenn nicht, dann warscheinlich Sedevacantist, auch Hamburg.

Wir theilen einen Einsatz für die Historizität der Bibel, aber sie sieht bei uns verschieden aus, ich denke der Seine ist aus wissenschaftlicher Sicht nur schlecht möglich, wärend meiner noch keine Widerlegung fand.

Aber, entscheiden Sie selbst, hier sind unsere Auseinandersetzungen:

HGL'S F.B. WRITINGS: Somewhat Sectarian Style, Semel · Somewhat Sectarian Style, bis · Correspondence of Hans Georg Lundahl: No Answer from Dr. Liebi, So Far? · Stefan Claesemann tries to take it in private with me · Creation vs. Evolution : Let's Carbon Test Stefan Claesemann's Chronology [· Correcting the Test]*

Er behauptet zwar nicht, aber impliziert einen Aufstieg des C-14-Halts von 1,4 bis 100 pmC in höchstens 507 Jahren oder sogar noch nur 367, wenn es ihm ernst ist um Mentuhotep III als Pharao Abrahams, ich behaupte direct einen solchen Aufstieg in 1772 Jahren.

Er hat die Masoretisch-Vulgate Chronologie, Abraham geboren 292 nach der Sintflut, ich den kürzeren LXX (ohne 2. Kainan), Abraham geboren 942 nach der Flut.

Er identifiziert den reellen Alter Sesostris III mit dem C-14-Alter, und macht ihn zum Pharao Josephs, ich identifiziere erst den Fall Trojas C-14-Zeit mit reeller, and mache Sesostris III zum Pharao gestorben 1590 v. Chr. - um die Geburt Mosens.

Einzelkeiten dazu in dem letzten Theil obiger Serie.

Hans Georg Lundahl

* Fußnote

Correcting the Test wurde später zugefügt. Siehe nächsten Brief.

II

Ich an P. Matthias Rohling, FSSPX

2/18/2022 at 2:35 PM

Ist Stefan Claesemann etc. Fortsetzung

Ich entdeckte einen Rechenfehler in mein Let's Carbon Test Stefan Claesemann's Chronology - Von Sintflut an Joseph in Ägypten habe ich 292 + 215 Jahre Masoretische Chronologie gerechnet, es sollte aber sein 292 + 75 + 215.

Mit der Berichtigung nahm ich den Entschluß die mathematische Überprüfung zu wiederholen, mit der Berichtigung berücksichtigt. Hier : Correcting the Test

Auch wenn Stefan Claesemann nicht ein Gläubiger des Priorats hl. Theresa von Avila ist, finde ich, Sie sollten es auch mal lesen.

Daß ich ihn für entweder FSSPX oder Sedevacante halte, schließe ich von hier, seinen Worten:

I have become traditional catholic and get bloody eyes reading the 2004 Martyrologium as proving evidence for the by Paul prophecised fall away from faith by my church in the end times.

I love the Latin Mass and know that the old Martyrologium is partly very near to the unfalsified biblical dates.

Daß er in Hamburg wohnt steht auf sein FB-Profil.

Und die Ursache Ihres Schweigens, was soll ich daraus schließen?

Hans Georg Lundahl

III

P. Matthias Rohling, FSSPX an mich

2/23/2022 at 7:35 PM

Re: Ist Stefan Claesemann etc. Fortsetzung

Sehr geehrter Hr. Lundahl,
Vielen Dank für Ihren Hinweis. Sie haben Recht, dass Sie nachfragen, warum ich Ihnen erst jetzt - auf Ihre bereits zweite Email - antworte. Ich bitte um Verzeihung, dass ich Sie so lange warten ließ.
Die Ursache, erst heute mein Schweigen zu brechen und Ihnen eine Antwort zu schreiben, resultiert aus der Größe der Gemeinde, die ich zurzeit betreue, und meiner weiteren Aufgaben in der Gemeinde an meinem Wohnort. Mein Schweigen war und ist kein Zeichen von Desinteresse an der Frage, sondern schlicht und ergreifend meine aktuell mich sehr in Anspruch nehmenden Aufgaben. Ich hoffe, Sie können mir noch einmal verzeihen.
Über ein persönliches Kennenlernen würde ich mich sehr freuen - falls Ihnen genehm.
In jedem Fall Ihnen alles Gute und Gottes Segen,
Ihr P. Roling

IV

Ich an P. Matthias Rohling, FSSPX

2/24/2022 at 11:35 AM

Re: Ist Stefan Claesemann etc. Fortsetzung

Herzlichen Dank!

Ich weiß nun mal nicht wo Stefan Claesemann wohnt, außer auf FB steht "Hamburg". Selbst lebe ich in Paris.

Ich hätte nichts gegen einen Briefewechsel, aber würde mich dabei vorbehalten gelegentlich bei einer Uneinigkeit (und auch bei Einighkeit wenn Ihnen genehm, aber da ist kein Vorbehalt in dem Fall) den Briefewechsel auf meinen Blog copiieren zu können.

http://correspondentia-ioannis-georgii.blogspot.com/

Ich bin ehemahliger der FSSPX, immer noch einfacher Gläubiger, und will es bleiben, jetzt Anhänger an Pabst Michael (auch ehem. der FSSPX).

Was wollen Sie näher wissen?

Hans Georg Lundahl

V

P. Matthias Rohling, FSSPX an mich

2/24/2022 at 2:34 PM

Re: Ist Stefan Claesemann etc. Fortsetzung

Sehr geehrter Hr. Lundahl,

Vielleicht können Sie Hr. Clasemann über FB direkt fragen, wo er zur Kirche geht? Wäre zumindest eine Idee...

Ich muss Ihnen auch gestehen - das habe ich dann in der Email doch noch vergessen, klar zu sagen - dass ich seinen und Ihren Text noch nicht gelesen habe, sodass ich gar nicht in der Lage bin, in dieser Sache Fragen stellen zu können. Sobald ich mich näher damit befasst haben werde und noch Fragen offen sind, würde ich mich dann wieder bei Ihnen melden. Bis dahin bitte ich Sie, keine Emails oder Briefe von mir zu veröffentlichen. Vielen Dank.

Alles Gute und Gottes Segen,

Ihr P. Roling

VI

Ich an P. Matthias Rohling, FSSPX

3/1/2022 at 11:31 AM

Re: Ist Stefan Claesemann etc. Fortsetzung

Ist Laetare-Sonntag eine gute Frist?

P. Matthias Rohling, FSSPX an mich

Ich an P. Matthias Rohling, FSSPX

P. Matthias Rohling, FSSPX an mich

Ich an P. Matthias Rohling, FSSPX

P. Matthias Rohling, FSSPX an mich

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

Sel de la Terre et CEP

I

moi à Sel de la Terre / frère Pierre Marie

Sat, 17 Jul 2021 14:07:48 +0000

Site des Dominicains d'Avrillé : "Que pensez-vous de ces "Dominicains"?"

échantillon:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h7s_ueSFJoU

II

Sel de la Terre / frère Pierre Marie à moi

7/18/2021 at 5:27 PM

Re: Site des Dominicains d'Avrillé : "Que pensez-vous de ces "Dominicains"?"

Bonjour Monsieur,
je vous conseille plutôt de lire notre revue le Sel de la terre : Sel de la Terre - Présentation |
Par exemple dans le numéro 9 il y a un article sur la création de l’homme.

En vous assurant de mon religieux dévouement,
fr. Pierre Marie +
Couvent de la Haye-aux-Bonshommes
49240 Avrillé
Téléphone : 02 41 69 20 06
lettre.information.dominicains@gmail.com

attaché :

un pdf qui contenait un article avec ce titre :

Un dossier sur l’évolution (III)
L’évolution de l’homme face à la théologie
par le frère Pierre-Marie O.P.

III

moi à Sel de la Terre / frère Pierre Marie

7/18/2021 at 6:47 PM

Re: Site des Dominicains d'Avrillé : "Que pensez-vous de ces "Dominicains"?"

Ah, merci pour le beau pdf!
Et très le bon dimanche, mon père/mon frère!

Pour l'homme de Tautavel, ma solution est qu'il mourut dans le Déluge, donc en l'an 2957 avant Jésus-Christ.

Pendant le Déluge, le volcanisme a produit de lave qui se figeait plus vite, en fonction des eaux fraiches par les courrents permanents. Une lave qui se fige plus vite piège davantage d'argone, ce qui fausse la datation.

Pour les dates du type 35 000 ans, on est davantage dans le cadre de carbone 14. D'ailleurs, pensée symbolique se trouve chez néanderthaliens d'il y a 40 000 ans ou plus. Le hashtag = # est un des 32 symboles qui se trouvent à travers les grottes du paléolithique supérieur, mais il est encore un peu plus vieux, car déjà trouvé chez des néanderthaliens. Ils avaient donc une pensée symbolique.

Pour l'an 2957 avant Jésus Christ (voir le martyrologe romain, 25 déc), je pense que le taux de carbone 14 était à 1,4 ou quelque pourcent de carbone moderne, c'est à dire environ 64 fois moins important que dans notre atmosphère. Au lieu des 5000 ans découlés depuis, on voit une date 8 fois plus vieille (8 étant le racine carré de 64), vu que les scientifiques se basent sur un taux initial 64 fois trop haut, c'est à dire 100 pourcent de carbone moderne.

J'ai vérifié, en posant dernièrement les Amorrhéens évacués d'En Guédi, datés à 3500 avant Jésus-Christ, à côté d'un Genèse chapitre 14, qui doit avoir eu lieu en 1935 ou quelque avant Jésus-Christ, Abraham ayant entre 75 et 86 ans. Et en posant Babel de Genèse 11, date réelle entre la mort de Noé en 2607 et la naissance de Phalec en 2556 avant Jésus-Christ en Göbekli, dont les dates limites sont 9600 à 8600 ans avant Jésus-Christ selon "le charbonique non calibré," les calibrations que j'en fais ne supposent qu'une production de carbone 14 dix fois plus élévée que de nos jours.

Cette production de carbon 14 de nos jours, ça veut dire 0,34 milliSievert par an, ce qui est la partie cosmique à hauteur moyenne du rayonnement de fond (le reste relève des choses radioactives dans la terre ou des activités radioactives de l'homme).

Si une production 10 fois plus vite veut dire dix fois davantage de rayonnement cosmique, les 3,4 milliSievert qui en résultent ne sont pas trop grave. C'est la différence entre Europe et Princeton, à peu près. Si ça veut dire 100 fois plus vite, 34 milliSievert expliquerait un peu trop bien pourquoi l'espérance de vie a tellement baissé après le déluge. Or, personne ne sait exactement comment on le traduirait ... celui qui est le plus grand expert vient de réfuser de faire la modélisation pertinente (l'un et l'autres ne sont pas en fonction l'un de l'autre, mais les deux de trois autres facteurs).

Ceci vous intéresse?
Hans Georg Lundahl

IV

Sel de la Terre / frère Pierre Marie à moi

7/19/2021 at 11:28 AM

Fwd: Site des Dominicains d'Avrillé : "Que pensez-vous de ces "Dominicains"?"

Bonjour Monsieur,
Oui, cela nous intéresse beaucoup, même si nous ne comprenons pas tout.
Puis-je savoir comment vous avez été amené à vous intéresser à ce domaine ? Quelle formation avez-vous ?
Et de quelle nationalité êtes-vous ?
En vous assurant de mon religieux dévouement,
fr. Pierre Marie +
Couvent de la Haye-aux-Bonshommes
49240 Avrillé
Téléphone : 02 41 69 20 06
frerepierremarie@gmail.com

V

moi à Sel de la Terre / frère Pierre Marie

7/19/2021 at 7:41 PM

Re: Fwd: Site des Dominicains d'Avrillé : "Que pensez-vous de ces "Domi ...

"Puis-je savoir comment vous avez été amené à vous intéresser à ce domaine ?"

Créationniste jeune terre, même avant d'être Catholique. Converti.

"Quelle formation avez-vous ?"

Latiniste (un peu gréciste, assez bcp médiéviste en tant que latiniste). Avec une nostalgie du matheux manqué.

"Et de quelle nationalité êtes-vous ?"

Suédois, né en Autriche.

"même si nous ne comprenons pas tout."

Alors ... on se limite pour ce soir au C14 - et on est d'accord que pour que le taux d'un échantillon clos baisse à 50 %, il faut 5730 ans. Pour que le taux baisse à 25 % il faudrait en principe 11460 ans, le double. Pour 40110 ans on est à un niveau de 0,78125 %. Pour 2865 ans, ça baisse à combien? 70,7 % (comme A3 - A4). Et pour 1433 ans, ce serait la racine carrée de ça, à savoir vers 84,1 %.
Or, pour l'an réel 2957 av. J. Christ (le Déluge selon le Martyrologe romain), la datation carbonique semble être "il y a 40 000 ans" car c'est la date des derniers néanderthaliens et dénisoviens, races antédiluviennes apparentés à pas mal de nous et donc réellement humains. Puisque ça fait moins que 5730 ans, à peine 5000, le taux du début doit avoir été à moins du double de 0,78125 %, donc, plutôt 1,4 qu'1,56 % du taux actuel.

Pour l'an réel 1935 (2015 - 80), Asason Tamar est évacué, Gen 14, et nous savons des Paralipomènes que ce lieu est En Guédi. La seule époque d'En Guédi en archéologie qui convient est le chalcolithique. Or, un temple amorrhéen est évacué d'En Guédi vers la fin de cette occupation du lieu, sur des nattes de roseau, datés à 3500 av. J. Chr - un décalage juste un peu plus important que les 1433 ans mentionnés.

Donc, en 1935 on avait un taux de moins de 84 % du taux actuel.

Entre les dates, il y a deux fois 511 ans. Cette année du milieu est un peu après la fin de Babel qu'on devrait mettre à 401 après le Déluge, puisque ce serait la naissance de Phalec en LXX sans le second Caïnan.

Entre les deux niveaux se trouve 42,6 % du taux actuel, un taux qui correspond au décalage au début de Göbekli Tepe, si identique à Babel de Gen 11.

Vous suivez jusqu'alors?
Hans Georg Lundahl

VI

moi à Sel de la Terre / frère Pierre Marie

7/20/2021 at 11:49 AM

Re: continué, pour les calculs exacts

Normalement, quand je suis en ligne, je n'ai pas besoin de calculer les quatrième, seizième, soixante-quatrième et ainsi de suite racines carrées de 0,5.

J'ai eu recours à ce truc génial:

https://www2.math.upenn.edu/~deturck/m170/c14/carbdate.html

Sans de renoncer aux calculatrices en ligne.

Donc, quand je sais que la date carbonique pour le Déluge est 40 000 ans en avant, soit 38 000 avant Jésus-Christ, et que la date historique en est 2957 avant Jésus-Christ, je fais ce genre de calcul:

38000 - 2957 = 35043 années fantomiques.
35043 années = une dégradation en théorie entre 100 "pmC" (percent modern Carbon, comme on dit en anglais) à ... je regarde le truc, en haut: 1.442 %, 1.442 pmC.

Si le début de Babel était 350 ans plus tard, et sa fin 401 plus tard (51 par rapport à son début), on va aux dates:

2957 - 350 = 2607
2957 - 401 = 2556

Donc, si Göbekli Tepe, avec les dates carboniques 9600 - 8600 avant Jésus-Christ, est Babel (je ne trouve pas de meilleur candidat), on se trouve avec nettement moins années fantomiques que pour le Déluge, mais quand même encore plus qu'une demi-vie:

9600 - 2607 = 6993
8600 - 2556 = 6044

Je re-regarde: 6993 -> 42.916 pmC
6044 -> 48.136 pmC

Et pour Genèse 14 et l'archéologie d'En Guédi:

3500 - 1935 = 1565 années fantomiques
1565 -> 82.753 pmC.

Le taux dans l'atmosphère va donc augmenter de 1.442 pmC à 42.916 pmC en 350 ans ...

D'abord, que reste-t-il des 1.442 après ceci? 95.854 %.
95.854 * 1.442 / 100 = 1.38221468 pmC

Quel est donc l'ajout réel?

42.916 - 1.38221468 = 41.53378532 unités pmC ajoutés

Quel aurait été l'ajout avec la production actuelle?

100 - 95.854 = 4.146 pmC

Et quel est donc le rapport entre la production alors et celle de nos jours?

41.53378532 / 4.146 = 10.01779674867 fois plus vite.

Et ceci nous mène à la question, très importante, lancée comme défi d'impossibilité, qui m'a lancé sur le sujet : combien plus vite que de nos jours, le carbone 14 peut-il être produit sans que la vie organique ou au moins vertébrée disparaisse?

En d'autres termes, quelle est la vitesse de production qui correspond à une dose de milliSievert par an qui est mortelle?

Et la réponse : on ne sait pas.

Tout d'abord, la vitesse normale correspond, comme dit, à une dose de 0,34 milliSievert par an, environ un dixième du rayonnement de fond à Paris, ou vingtième par rapport à Princeton.

Mais, les deux, le rapport est en quel type de fonction?

Linéaire? 10 plus vite = 10 fois plus forte dose? (Pas de problème, comme dit).
Au carré? 10 plus vite = 100 fois plus forte dose? On aura eu des soucis à s'en sortir. Les grottes, les vêtements en peaux d'animaux, ne sortir que la nuit, si pas mal du rayonnement vient du soleil, aura aidé à survivre, avec une espérance de vie amoindrie, les 34 milliSievert par an à hauteur moyenne des lieux habités de nos jours, un peu moins car un peu plus bas pendant ces 350 ans de Glaciation.
Au cube? 10 plus vite = 1000 fois plus forte dose? Impossible.

J'ai donc fait un effort pour répérer le rapport.

D'abord sur quora: Production de Carbone 14 et Radiation Cosmique (quora) · partie II
Et ensuite, par mail, en contactant plusieurs, entre autre par ici :
First check on C14 question, no answer
et enfin Ilya Usoskin, qui semble disposer d'un logiciel capable à modéliser les rapports divers : Other Check on Carbon Buildup
Car, il faut s'avoir, les variable en cause sont: nombre de particules, énérgie des particules, en sens invers (je pense), la force du champ magnétique de la terre. Et les variables en effets qu'il étudie sont : production de carbone 14, de Béryllium, rayonnement cosmique. Mais ses études ne vont pas jusqu'à 10 fois plus vite la production de carbone 14.

Il n'a pas étudié le rapport entre rayonnement cosmique et baisse des températures, j'ai fait un lien avec la Glaciation pour le temps de cette production assez vite :

Correspondence of Hans Georg Lundahl : With Jay L. Wile on C14 Build-up
http://correspondentia-ioannis-georgii.blogspot.com/2015/10/with-jay-l-wile-on-c14-build-up.html

Vous me dites si je vais trop vite?
Hans Georg Lundahl

Transmis V et VI

du courriel des dominicains au sien personnel.

VII

Sel de la Terre / frère Pierre Marie à moi

7/21/2021 at 8:49 PM

Re: continué, pour les calculs exacts

Cher Monsieur,
Merci de vos courriels, je n’ai malheureusement pas le loisir de me plonger dans ces questions.
Vous pourriez peut-être vous adresser de ma part à M. Dominique Tassot, je pense que vos études l’intéresseront :
d.tassot@wanadoo.fr
En vous assurant de mon religieux dévouement,
fr. Pierre Marie +
Couvent de la Haye-aux-Bonshommes
49240 Avrillé
Téléphone : 02 41 69 20 06
frerepierremarie@gmail.com

VIII

moi à Sel de la Terre / frère Pierre Marie

7/22/2021 at 11:21 AM

Re: continué, pour les calculs exacts

va être fait

Transmis III, V et VI

à Dominique Tassot de CEP

IX

moi à CEP / Dominique Tassot

Cc à Sel de la Terre / frère Pierre Marie

7/24/2021 at 1:40 PM

Alors, pour les calculs imprécis ..

Entre l'an 2957 av. J.-C. daté comme 40 000 av. le prés. soit 38 000 av. J.-C. et l'an 2607 daté comme ou proche de 9600 av. J.-C., il y a évidemment 350 ans réels et 28 400* ans carboniques, et la transition entre 1,442 et (si je me souviens bien) 42,9 pourcent de carbone moderne.

Il est très peu probable que, entre ces dates, il y ait eu un retournement du niveau, car d'un côté, une baisse se fait normalement par la décomposition de l'échantillon appelé athmosphère, et le temps que ça prend est déduit au temps dédié à la hausse, qui dans ce cas comprendra de parcourir deux fois partie du parcours.

Donc, on peut, par example, faire de manière très sommaire. Je veux, disons, des tranches de 22 / 23** années, je divise les 350 années en des tranches qui y correspondent, il y a donc 15 ou 16*** tranches. Je prends la différence entre 42,9 et 1,442 et la divise en 15 ou 16° parties, et j'ajoute°° une de ces parties pour chaque tranche parcourue :

2957
1,442 pCm
2935
4,206 pCm
4,033 pCm

Ou on peut faire de manière plus précise. On sait depuis la dernière lettre que le niveau hausse 10,01779674867 plus vite entre 2957 et 2607 que maintenant, et on sait que pour 22 / 23 ans, la décomposition est à 99,73 % °°° du taux avant, et que de nos jours le remplacement le compense avec 0,27 pCm.°°°

On va alors multiplier 1,442 pCm avec les 99,73 % et ensuite ajouter non pas 0,27 pCm, mais bien 0,27 pCm avec le coefficient de plus rapide production~ pour arriver à:

2957
1,442 pCm
2935
4,147 pCm

Et ainsi de suite.

J'ai eu l'année passée pendant le confinement le loisir de faire ce genre de travail, et j'ai mis le résultat ici, dans ma calibration biblique:

Calculé sans le logiciel, pour carbone 14 · Les bases révisées pour ma calibration de carbone 14 · Calculons les vitesses de production ... · Tables de carbone 14 sur les bases révisées (I - VI) · Implications des vitesses de production · Tables continués (VI - IX)

Bonne lecture!
Hans Georg Lundahl

*38000-9600 = 28400

** 5730 / 256 = 22,3828125

*** 350 / 22,3828125 = 15,6369982548
° 42,9 - 1,442 = 41,458
41,458 / 15 = 2,76386666667
41,458 / 16 = 2,591125

°° 1,442 + 2,76386666667 = 4,20586666667
1,442 + 2,591125 = 4,033125

°°° ,5^(1/256) = 0,99729605609
1 - 0,99729605609 = 0,00270394391

~ 0,01442 * 0,99729605609 = 0,01438100913
10,01779674867 * 0,00270394391 = 0,02708756051
0,02708756051 + 0,01438100913 = 0,04146856964

X

moi à CEP / Dominique Tassot

Cc à Sel de la Terre / frère Pierre Marie

7/25/2021 at 5:59 PM

Alors, pour les calculs imprécis ... continué

2957
1,442 pCm
2935
4,147 pCm

Mais on trouve encore autre chose dans les tables, non?
Utilisons encore une fois ce truc merveilleux:

https://www2.math.upenn.edu/~deturck/m170/c14/carbdate.html

Je vais prendre la boîte en bas, cette fois, pour ajouter à droite l'âge immédiat :

2957
1,442 pCm 35000
2935
4,147 pCm 26300

Cet âge immédiat va s'ajouter à la date avant Jésus-Christ réelle:

2957
1,442 pCm 35 000 + 2957 = 37 957 av. J.-C.
2935
4,147 pCm 26 300 + 2935 = 29 235 av. J.-C.

Et on va abréger ceci un peu:

2957
1,442 pCm, 37 957 av. J.-C.
2935
4,147 pCm, 29 235 av. J.-C.

Et voilà, ce que vous trouverez dans les tables (ou à peu près).

Suis-je sûr de chaque date ainsi obtenu entre les "points fixes" (genre Déluge/décès des Néanderthaliens, Babel/Göbekli Tepe, Genèse 14/fin chalcolithique d'En Guédi*)? Non. Mais je maintiens ces dates à peu près, jusqu'en avoir des indications qui impliquent d'autres "coins" dans la courbe.

Suis-je sûr de tous les points fixes?

Pour les premiers trois, oui, pour Troie comme achèvement de 100 pCm, soit égalité entre âges carbonique et âges réels et bibliques ou autres narratifs, oui (1179 pour les deux). Pour Joseph, Moïse, moins de certitude.

Il y a trois chronologies "fondamentalistes" (inerrantistes bibliques) que je connais.

Je partage l'avis de David Down** que le pharaon sans sépulture (avec un cénotaphe), Amenemhet IV, pourrait être Moïse, devenu co-pharaon de son (grand-)père adoptif Amenemhet III jusqu'à l'âge de 40. Anne Habermehl l'identifie avec le pharaon de l'Exode. Je viens récemment de rencontrer un avis qui le place plutôt au début du séjour des Israëlites en Égypte, qui divise donc l'ère Hyksos entre Israëlites et Amalékites. Pour Down, moi, Habermehl, les Hyksos sont tout court Amalékites.

Pour moi et Habermehl, au moins, Joseph est Imhotep, le vizir du pharaon Djoser (voir la stèle de faim), mais l'autre opinion semble avoir trouvé une correspondence entre un surnom de Joseph et un vizir de Sésostris III.

Je n'ai pas fait le bilan des vitesses de production de carbone 14 que requièrent l'autre opinion.

Encore une chose ... frère Pierre Marie m'a dirigé à vous, M. Tassot, et je me demande pourquoi, et qui vous êtes. Pour lui, il sagit d'un frère dominicain d'Avrillé, bien entendu. Moi-même, je ne sais pas si vous l'avez lu, un Suédois né en Autriche, un latiniste avec des nostalgies de matheux.

Si c'est juste parce que Pierre Marie a un temps restreints sur internet, qu'il imprime les liens envoyés l'autre fois, ou que vous le fassiez pour lui. Le temps de lecture étant sans doute autrement dimensionné pour un Dominicain.

En espérant ne pas avoir de mauvaise surprise de vous, et de toute manière pour Pierre Marie : bon dimanche, bonne fête de St. Jacques,
Hans Georg Lundahl

Notes :

* 2 Paralipomènes 20:2, comme noté par Osgood :
https://creation.com/the-times-of-abraham
** Searching for Moses
https://creation.com/searching-for-moses

XI

moi à CEP / Dominique Tassot

7/28/2021 at 12:23 PM

Ah, bonne surprise! CEP!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5fvnxo3eA7Y

Très d'accord pour la plupart des méthodes. Les suppositions sont invérifiables.

Aucun argone piégé dans la lave une fois solidifiée? Invérifiable.

Aucun argone 40 produit vite du potassium 40? Quand on sait que des réactions nucléaires peuvent déclencher du volcanisme.

Par contre, ça donne une méthode à nous de dire "là, la lave est du Déluge" (Tautavel) ...

La méthode de carbone 14 n'est pas tout à fait pareil.

82,73 pCm, que j'attribue à l'an 1935 av. J.-C. ça donne 1550 ans. Ce n'est pas juste ce que les nattes de roseaux d'En Guédi avaient de trop en âge, pour être datés en 3500 av. J.-C. mais c'est également (à part des détails de calibration) ce qu'ont, maintenant, des objets en bois ou en os ou en cuire que nous savons par l'histoire être des temps de Sainte Geneviève.

Hans Georg Lundahl

Continued Correspondence with Palm, Baraminology and introducing Carter, adding Carbon 14 and Lake Suigetsu

With David Palm, Mainly on Flood, Ark, Ararat · Continued Correspondence with Palm, Baraminology and introducing Carter, adding Carbon 14 and Lake Suigetsu

19 jan 2019 à 17:04

Me to David Palm

[link to previous post]
With David Palm, Mainly on Flood, Ark, Ararat
https://correspondentia-ioannis-georgii.blogspot.com/2019/01/with-david-palm-mainly-on-flood-ark.html

mar 18:33

Tu 5.II.2019

David Palm to me

So sorry about the delay in getting back to you, Hans-Georg. I'm still not at all seeing how the hyper-evolution off the ark works. For one thing, the entire surface of the earth would have been decimated, hardly the best place for animals then to thrive. What did the carnivores eat if not the non-carnivores that just came off the boat and that could put an end to those lines of animals pretty fast. We know that severe bottlenecks in populations cause lots of problems, so we would predict a lack of genetic diversity and unhealthy populations, not the tremendous explosion of speciation you are positing.

Here's a good article on this:

Naturalis Historia : Ken Ham’s Darwinism: On The Origin of Species by Means of Hyper-Evolution Following Noah’s Flood
July 17, 2018 by Natural Historian
https://thenaturalhistorian.com/2018/07/17/ken-hams-darwinism-on-the-origin-of-species-by-means-of-hyper-evolution-following-noahs-flood-2/

"There are many problems with the content and conclusions of AiG article, Reimagining Ark Kinds, including: 1) the lack of any Biblical record or documentation by any other non-biblical historical records of such radical biological change, 2) the irony of how AiG is using reconstructions of ancient organisms based on the evidence of historical science—a science they usually denigrate—to justify their belief that organisms have evolved into many new species, 3) the irony of a complete lack of any reference to transition fossils for the thousands of new species that YECs say have formed from each Biblical kind, and 4) the fact they openly admit that hundreds of thousands of fossils exist that are not the product of global flood deposits but rather were fossilized after speciating following their departure from the ark. The latter is a an admission that fossilization can readily occur in a non-global-flood context."

This article by the same guy is interesting, in that he points out that the Bible records many species that are identical to our modern ones, thus shortening even further how much time this hyper-evolution/speciation has to occur. And yet we don't observe it now and nobody seems to have observed it in the past:

Naturalis Historia : Ken Ham’s Biblical Evolution? I Have a Book That Says Otherwise
February 5, 2016 by Natural Historian
https://thenaturalhistorian.com/2016/02/05/ken-hams-biblical-evolution-i-have-a-book-that-says-otherwise/

Me to David Palm

"So sorry about the delay in getting back to you, Hans-Georg. I'm still not at all seeing how the hyper-evolution off the ark works."

For hedgehogs and moonrats, one of them needs to have a major mutation about spines/"hairs". Within each, there needs to be isolation so as to produce different species. No hype on that evolution.

"For one thing, the entire surface of the earth would have been decimated, hardly the best place for animals then to thrive."

God would have provided survival needs.

"What did the carnivores eat if not the non-carnivores that just came off the boat"

Ask Gollum, so to speak ... fissssssssssssh

"and that could put an end to those lines of animals pretty fast."

If fish had been scarce, [which was] hardly the case.

"We know that severe bottlenecks in populations cause lots of problems,"

If random events of disaster, you forget God brough the animals on the ark.

"so we would predict a lack of genetic diversity and unhealthy populations, not the tremendous explosion of speciation you are positing."

We are not talking a tremendous explosion of new information. We are talking of downgrading mutations striking differently and thereby causing reproductive isolation.

"Here's a good article on this:"

Will see ...

Naturalis Historia : Ken Ham’s Darwinism: On The Origin of Species by Means of Hyper-Evolution Following Noah’s Flood
July 17, 2018 by Natural Historian
https://thenaturalhistorian.com/2018/07/17/ken-hams-darwinism-on-the-origin-of-species-by-means-of-hyper-evolution-following-noahs-flood-2/

Citing [it] myself: "During that time at least 95% (probably 99% or more) of all species of land mammals and birds that have lived are proposed to have evolved from just a few common ancestors—the “ark kinds”—preserved on the Ark."

With hedgehogs and moonrats, there was arguably one couple and then 25 species from that. 1/25 = 4%, 96 % of the species being added to those of the original number.

He cites earlier articles, one of which considers Terror Birds an added kind and so on, as if Terror Birds couldn't have been same kind as emus, cassowaries, kiwis, elephant birds, ostriches.

"There are many problems with the content and conclusions of AiG article, Reimagining Ark Kinds, including:
1) the lack of any Biblical record or documentation by any other non-biblical historical records of such radical biological change,"

The change from one hedgehog couple to 25 hedgehog and moonrat species is not very radical.

"2) the irony of how AiG is using reconstructions of ancient organisms based on the evidence of historical science—a science they usually denigrate—to justify their belief that organisms have evolved into many new species,
3) the irony of a complete lack of any reference to transition fossils for the thousands of new species that YECs say have formed from each Biblical kind,"

Ironic, perhaps, but there is a clear difference between hedgehogs descending from Deinogalerix and hedgehogs with moles having a common ancestor with dogs, cats, seals and hoofed animals (evolutionary superorder "Laurasiatheria (hedgehogs, shrews, moles, whales, bats, dogs, cats, seals, and hoofed mammals)")

"and 4) the fact they openly admit that hundreds of thousands of fossils exist that are not the product of global flood deposits but rather were fossilized after speciating following their departure from the ark. The latter is a an admission that fossilization can readily occur in a non-global-flood context."

I may actually differ on how much I accept of "geologic column" from them. If it is carbon dated post 40 000 BP, yes, it is post-Flood, but some of them are so naive about "geologic column" they ask "where in the geologic column is the limit between pre-Flood, in-Flood and post-Flood deposits?"

"This article by the same guy is interesting, in that he points out that the Bible records many species that are identical to our modern ones, thus shortening even further how much time this hyper-evolution/speciation has to occur. And yet we don't observe it now and nobody seems to have observed it in the past:"

Naturalis Historia : Ken Ham’s Biblical Evolution? I Have a Book That Says Otherwise
February 5, 2016 by Natural Historian
https://thenaturalhistorian.com/2016/02/05/ken-hams-biblical-evolution-i-have-a-book-that-says-otherwise/

I'd probably divide felids from pantherids and foxes from dogs. But I'd agree on elephant kind.

Obviously, an evolution which goes from a common ancestor to coyotes and poodles is slower than visible change. Therefore, barring special interest by breeders, is unlikely to get recorded.

David Palm to me

Imo you're not seriously grappling with this problem. Basically you're just invoking miracles and unobserved mechanisms to fill in why the model doesn't fit and can't explain what we observe.

Me to David Palm

I am not, YOU are invoking a "diversity" which is not qualitatively there between the different species.

There is numeric "diversity" if you like, not a qualitatively radical one.

And, that is what we observe.

Cats and lynx are both felids, there are known crossbreeds.

Tigers and lions are both pantherids, and ligers exist.

David Palm to me

Do you know of any professional geneticist who would agree that a single pair (or even seven pairs) of animals have enough genetic diversity to be the original parents of all those disperate species, and that those species can all arise in the span of just a thousand years or so?

Me to David Palm

Do you know a single evolutionary geneticist who does not believe that all animals of all kinds have arisen from an ancestry with even less diversity, the first eucariotes being basically yeast cells?

Now, between yeast, pine trees and wolves, the diversity really is too much for me.

Between pine and spruce or wolf and coyote it isn't.

NONE of this depends on ancestral population being very diverse.

And there is something called the founder effect.

Suppose the first hedgehogs and the first moonrats just got isolated from each other, one of them having a mutation making the spines either much softer or much harder and pointier.

The smaller the populations are in which this happens, the quicker they will become diversified from each other if isolated from each other.

David Palm to me

Why don't we observe this happening now?

Me to David Palm

Going from Coyote to wolf takes time.

But we do observe cross breeds.

Here is how I feel about the appeal to accredited expertise only:

Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : ... on Expertise
https://assortedretorts.blogspot.com/2019/02/on-expertise.html

And I do know at least one geneticist who is baraminologist, his name is Robert Carter, he's on CMI:

https://www.facebook.com/robert.carter.904

Thanks for reminding me, we differ on what the possibilities are for Neanderthals being pre-Flood, and he just put the article from CMI (from Candlemass day, Australian timezone) on his wall, meaning I can respond with my own article, also from Candlemass day (Paris tz).

jeu 12:16

Th 7.II.2019

Me to David Palm

by the way, things came up on Jimmy Akin's podcst, here are my answers to same questions:

New blog on the kid : Rivalling Jimmy Akin, as Scholastic
https://nov9blogg9.blogspot.com/2019/02/rivalling-jimmy-akin-as-scholastic.html

jeu 16:50

Th 7.II.2019

David Palm to me

Hans-Georg, since you frequently reference carbon dating, I thought this might interest you.

https://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2018/PSCF6-18Davidson.pdf

Me to David Palm

Probably I would be interested, but:

"Ce programme est bloqué par une stratégie de groupe. Pour plus d'informations, contactez votre administrateur système."

In other words, unless you like to quote salient parts, I must wait until I am in a cyber or in another library.

David Palm to me

Try this link: www.csun.edu/~vcgeo005/Nr53Carbon.pdf

Me to David Palm

That is also a pdf which will also be blocked.



[Right now the "stratégie de groupe" is changed, pdfs are working again.]

David Palm to me

Ah, okay.

Me to David Palm

This is a university library.

Probably, some students are writing essays and some of their professors are too lazy to look for what they could have plagiarized by internet search, so seek to eliminate even possibility for such plagiarism ... or sth ...

David Palm to me

How about through Messenger?

Me to David Palm

How do you mean?

I clicked on links, they started downloading and are now two downloads that cannot be opened.

Trust your own judgement in doing a fairly decent resumé of the arguments?

David Palm to me

It's an overlay of tree-ring data (for the first part of the curve), varve data from Lake Suigetsu, and C14 dating, showing excellent correlation out to 50K years.

Me to David Palm

"excellent correlation" is clearly overdone.

The "excellent correlation" leaves out that there are diverse bottlenecks with very little overlapping material.

And I did take a look at one material that was there, back a few years ago.

Not actual rings, but diagrams of how samples supposedly overlap.

The correlation of two or three different "ringed" tree objects was to my non-specialist view hazy. The lake as such depends on varves being ONLY:

* mud * flowers from cherry trees

and coming ONLY in the order it dropped down.

However, if lake was NOT always that peaceful, there can definitely have been occasions in which mud and flowers can have been mixed and then sorted in a layered way, meaning the lower and earlier layers are very far from annual.

Tas Walker also looked on them and they are "suspiciously narrow". [Can't find that reference, right now]

I was wondering whether the links were including some real challenge, like the one I was taking on here:

Correspondence of Hans Georg Lundahl : Other Check on Carbon Buildup
http://correspondentia-ioannis-georgii.blogspot.com/2017/11/other-check-on-carbon-buildup.html

You see, fastest buildup in my scheme (which has made "gradual carbon buildup since the flood" less popular among protestants, since favouring on my view LXX over Masoretic chronology) would be around 10 or 11 times faster than now.

If there were simply equivalence between medium cosmic radiation at any place on earth and the quantity of C14 produced (twice more carbon in such and such time = twice as much radiation), that's clearly a safe level.

11 * 0.34 milliSievert per years is 3.74 milliSivert per year on medium height and locality.

Add that during the time before Younger Dryas, men could live lower down (less radiation!) and therefore medium inhabited height was lower than now. And if Equatorial regions were uninhabitable, there are not all that many human inhabited places dating by carbon from Upper Palaeolithic in that region.

B U T I came across info stating that this equivalence does not hold.

So, suppose it were a square, you'd have 121 times more radiation and 41.14 milliSievert per year is not healthy. In Japan they say 20 milliSievert per year is about the limit.

Hence, I checked. And, as you saw, got no answer.

(Btw, I cited medium level of milliSievert per year from cosmos as 0.34, that was from memory, now I see I have cited it as 0.39 ...)

Here we have it, should have been 0.39:

Cosmic
0.39 World average
0.3–1.0 Typical range
0.31 Princeton
0.26 Wa State
0.30 Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science, and Technology of Japan

David Palm to me

Well, have a look at the whole article when you can get access. I think you'll see that many of your questions are addressed.

Me to David Palm

I do not think they are, as you have presented it, it is written by one who ignored my facts.

David Palm to me

Well, have a look and see.

Me to David Palm

I may and may not, but you remind me of Protestants who recommend GotQuestions, then a lutheran attacking Apostolic succession as inverifiable and then another thing and another thing.

You see, I was not asking and will not ask how the now standard defense of uniformitarian calibration goes, I already know and dismiss it as worthless.

David Palm to me

OK

Me to David Palm

If you are interested and there are no "stratégies de groupe" against blogspot.com adresses, here is one post where I adress this:

Creation vs. Evolution : Hasn't Carbon 14 been Confirmatively Calibrated for Ages Beyond Biblical Chronology? By Tree Rings?
https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2016/12/hasnt-carbon-14-been-confirmatively.html

jeu 20:49

Th 7.II.2019

Me to David Palm

First paper, authors have a bias:

https://biologos.org/author/gregg-davidson
BioLogos
https://biologos.org/author/ken-wolgemuth
BioLogos AND Petroleum consultant
Qualifications : neither is expert per se at Carbon 14 and neither at the relevant fields of botanics for dendrochronology.

Gregg Davidson is Professor and Chair of Geology and Geological Engineering at the University of Mississippi. His books on science and Christian faith include The Grand Canyon, Monument to an Ancient Earth (associate editor and contributing author), When Faith and Science Collide, and entries in Zondervan’s Dictionary of Christianity and Science.

Ken Wolgemuth is an ASA Fellow, adjunct professor of Geosciences at the University of Tulsa, and founder of Solid Rock Lectures. He has a 40-year career in the petroleum industry, and is a contributing author to The Grand Canyon, Monument to an Ancient Earth and to Zondervan’s Dictionary of Christianity and Science.

"Finding even older wood that overlapped in time with the dead trees extends the count back farther still. In principle, this record could be extended as far back in time as there were trees on Earth. However, there is a practical limitation, as it becomes increasingly difficult at a given location to find very old wood that reliably overlaps to yield an unbroken sequence far back in time. A gap in the record may be due, for example, to climatic changes in the past when trees did not readily grow in that area, or a time interval when most of the fallen trees fully decomposed."

Very candid admission, I would agree that tree rings in Arizona for recent pre-Columbian times are definitely reliable. Also used as a definitely reliable calibrational confirmation of C14.

"At present, the oldest reliable cross-dated count goes back about 14,000 years, based on living and fossil trees from Central Europe."

The problem is, there are bottlenecks of very few overlapping pieces of wood and these not very clear matches.

This they do not mention.

"The primary requirements for determining age are (1) a constant radioactive decay rate, (2) knowledge of the original carbon-14 content, and (3) quantification of any old carbon that may have been incorporated into the specimen. The last requirement applies mostly to marine samples, in which oceandwelling organisms, even today, extract carbon from seawater that has been “pre-aged” by long isolation from the atmosphere.4 Terrestrial samples, such as tree rings and lake sediments, are less susceptible to this complicating factor, limiting the primary requirements to the first two."

Agreed. Except for men and bears who cold live much on fish.

Someone seemed to have diagnosed pre-Columbian coastdwellers on Pyrenean Peninsula with syphilis - ah it wasn't the Azteks' fault, after all! - and then it turned out they could be post-Columbian ones, having eaten much shellfish.

"But recall how carbon-14 is formed. Variations in cosmic-ray flux, caused by a variety of factors such as solar flares and changes in Earth’s magnetic field, result in variable carbon-14 production. To turn a measured carbon-14 value into an age, independent methods are employed to first provide realistic assessments of past atmospheric production rates. This is an important note, for young-earth writers routinely make the false assertion that conventional geologists naively assume a constant historical production rate."

What they according to us DO assume is, carbon 14 has fluctuated around 100 pmC.

Minor fluctuations are not the same thing as a major different rate before Flood, leading to fairly low pmC at Flood, and a major different rate just after Flood up to, perhaps past Exodus, leading to a major buildup from around 1 - 2 pmC to sth like constantly around 100 pmC.

"If any of the conventional assumptions is not correct, it should become readily apparent as measured values trend outside this window. Moreover, specific young-earth claims should result in predictable departures from conventional expectations that would lend support to their model."

These guys have tested their model, not my competing one.

Their claim of "predictable departures" is moot, that would depend on what exact young earth model they were predicting them from.

And involving tree rings or varves is moot, since these are in cases (not too rare ones, once you get back in time) of doubt cross-checked by carbon dates, so it is circular proof.

Remains only whether the carbon dates as such would cause "predictable departures" from results.

No, they would not. Not within carbon, since my model is there to account from them, and not involving the "known ages" of such and such tree rings or varves, since that is "proven" with a circle from the carbon dating they pretend to be giving proof for.

"Multiple tree rings per year, postulated by Flood geologists, should yield values that fall above the window (rings are younger and higher in carbon-14 than conventionally expected)."

There is in fact no one tree for which I'd need this assumption. Some other would, depending on assumptions all trees living after flood were planted after flood, which is moot, and also on assumption Flood was in 2200 or 2400 BC or thereabouts, but if it was in 2957 BC? Or even less recently according to Syncellus.

"On the other hand, if atmospheric carbon-14 was much lower in the past, the data should plot well below the window. And any errors in cross-dating the tree rings, due to false-positive matches in ring patterns, should be readily apparent by data that abruptly shifts upward (wood younger than the match suggested) or downward (wood older than the match suggested)."

Very optimistic estimate, which I don't share.

"Just the raw tree-ring count and the measured carbon-14 content."

Except the raw tree ring count even beyond just 2000 years back has some presumptions of carbon 14 involved to even start matching where they do.

Matches are sometimes so loose, they can be arranged to where it would fit best with carbon 14.

"Either God saw fit that 14,000 tree rings equals 14,000 years, or God manipulated unrelated and independent processes (tree rings per year, atmospheric carbon-14 production, and radioactive decay rates) in a precise manner over a much more abbreviated time frame such that they are indistinguishable from the expectations of conventional geology."

Or a third, the two guys are promoting a fake news, bc they are not the right expertise to have a close look at tree rings, and they are overtrusting about one unbroken series of 14 000 tree rings.

"A closely related charge is that the tree-ring and varve studies were performed for the purpose of improving a radiocarbon calibration curve; therefore, our claim of not making use of calibration curves is somehow employing circular reasoning and our conclusions invalidated.21 This charge boils down to the nonsensical assertion that one cannot use data for more than one purpose. The cited researchers used their measured carbon-14 to refine a calibration curve. We made use of their measured data for a completely different purpose. Circular reasoning was left in the unemployment line."

Testing for matches in some vicinity of radiocarbon age (or Libby age, or uncalibrated carbon date, in BP) is sufficient for circularity to actually occur.

If they had looked further away in uncalibrated carbon time, they might have found better or as good matches, and therefore at least possibility of a radically different calibration.

"Near-zero carbon-14 content in older samples is accommodated by the hypothesis that atmospheric carbon-14 content at the time of the flood was only about 0.5 pMC and rose rapidly in the years following the flood."

He's referencing another model for carbon rise than mine. And others also have I have seen on CMI.

It can be noted that the transition unvarved - varved occurs at 40 pmC - corresponds to 7600 YA or 5600 BC (calibrated or roughly).

This would suggest there was a disruption heavier at some time after Babel, at Black Sea Flood, than during the Flood. Over Earth as a whole, such a result would be nonsense, but over a small lake, it would be possible.

"If multiple sediment couplets formed in pulses in the early post-flood years, deposits that formed in rapid succession should have nearly the same carbon-14 content."

If varves were subsequently multiplied, and then the most varves are from a very narrow part, according to Tas Walker's criticism.

I'm frankly too tired to look into this, it is half past nine.

dim 18:12

Su 10.II.2019

Me to David Palm

Now it is about 6pm, I am less tired.

Here is the thing.

When I do tables about carbon rise, I am very open about the calculations I make, not as in giving each and every one every time, but if challenged I'd happily respond on an article where I'd left sth out.

With comments enabled on a blog, no technical problem. Confer what happens with a pdf.

One of the guys said, with a rise in carbon levels, there would be a widely other pattern of carbon matching the varves.

In fact, I am not sure exactly what kind of carbon rise he envisages, but I don't think it is actually mine.

My carbon rise is in fact fairly steep, but it is not totally abrupt. Whether for matching of tree rings or for varves, things would so to speak pull the matchings apart elastically. For varves, that means more chance of very thin varves actually getting separately noticed, for instance, and I admit, I have no complete solution on this one, but it is also not so incomplete as to be doubtful.

Here is the CMI take on Suigetsu:

CMI : National Geographic plays the dating game
by John Woodmorappe | This article is from
Journal of Creation (formerly TJ) 16(1):48–50, April 2002
https://creation.com/national-geographic-plays-the-dating-game

Jericho and Carbon Dates

I

Me to Damien Mackey

7 February 2018 at 03:37

(Oz time, not Paris time like the rest)

Jericho

I am hesitant on whether fall of Jericho is the 2200 BC carbon date or the 1550 (1650) BC carbon date.

Obviously, Jericho fell, according to St Jerome's chronology in 1470 BC, so, which you chose gives different amounts of extra years, which means different amounts of lower carbon 14 level in comparsion with carbon 12.

You are favouring the 2200 date?

II

Damien Mackey to me

2/6/2018 at 11:25 PM

Re: Jericho

What do you mean am I favouring 2200 BC for the Fall of Jericho?
I always re-date downwards those silly, inflated conventional dates.

Jericho fell to Joshua c. 1450 BC (very approx. date).
Archaeologically, the Middle Bronze I (MBI) Israelites destroyed Early Bronze III (EBIII) Jericho and other sites.

That ought to be clear from many of my articles.

III

Me to Damien Mackey

2/7/2018 at 12:41 PM

Re: Jericho

If you had read a few lines earlier, you would have noticed I was talking about two different CARBON dates.

Apparently my leaving out the word carbon at the second mention of the 2200 carbon date made you think I accused you of considering it as a real date.

No, thing is, there are TWO destructions of Jericho on top of each other, both of which have been cast as Joshua's Jericho. They obviously have different carbon dates, as well as different real ones.

The carbon dates are, as I recall, 2200 BC and 1550 BC. The qustion I asked you is which of them YOU favour as corresponding to the real date 1470 BC (40 years after Exodus, which was in 1510 BC).

The difference is this : with the 2200 BC carbon date, you get 730 extra years in the carbon dating of Jericho's fall, with the 1550 BC carbon date you get only 80 extra years.

2200 1550
1470 1470
0730 0080

Now, the extra years correspond to how much lower the carbon 14 content was. With 730 extra years, the carbon 14 was 91.548 % of modern carbon, with 80 extra years it was 99.037 % of modern carbon.

The former leaves a less steep carbon rise for between Joseph = Imhotep and Jericho's fall, but a steeper one after Jericho's fall.

The latter leaves nearly no steepness after Jericho's fall, but a fairly steep rise in carbon 14 between Joseph in Egypt and Jericho's fall.

Hence my question. The question about 2200 is because of a recent article in which you considered EBIII Jericho carbon dated or conventionally dated to 2200 BC as the relevant layer of Jericho./HGL

IV

Damien Mackey to me

2/7/2018 at 11:29 PM

Re: Jericho

I don't deal in carbon dates which tend to be highly erratic.
I deal in archaeology, and, for the Joshua incident, that is Early Bronze III. That is dated by conventionalists to the 2000's, but re-dated by revisionists such as I to the time of Joshua.

V

Me to Damien Mackey

2/8/2018 at 9:30 AM

Re: Jericho

OK, I do deal with carbon dates, which I believe capable of giving a relative chronology, if not an absolute one.

I just read some pages of a paper in Egyptology et al. (Palestine, Mesopotamia and Nubia were taken into account too) where a certain carbon date 4027 BP un-calibrated, was considered as giving more than one "calendar date" due to wiggles in the calibration.

I found myself asking, what if these are not wiggles, if the chronology is straight, and if the reason the non-carbon chronology gave a wiggly calibration is, there are dynasties supposedly after each other which were not really so, as you tend to say.

There is an alternative for Jericho, that is the Middle Bronze Age or City IV - which by Kenyon was dated to 1550 BC.

I was asking if you oreferred the 2200-dated destruction over the City IV one./HGL

VI

Damien Mackey to me

2/9/2018 at 12:18 AM

Re: Jericho

1 Carbon-14 dating.

Carbon-14 (or radiocarbon) dating in particular assumes that the influx and outflow of carbon-14 atoms into and out of the biosphere is in equilibrium. This simply is not so, and that alone invalidates the method. Massive variations have been found. Furthermore, all the assumptions that are made for the other radiometric methods essentially apply here, and these make all radiometric dating methods doubtful as scientific tests.

It follows naturally that if the scientific method cannot work in the past and conclusions about the past must rest on assumptions, then there is not today a dating method that can be scientifically substantiated as being correct, for every method will have built into it an assumption. Now when we come to the practical application of this theory we discover in fact that this holds true.

Dr. John Osgood

His reference

A Better Model for the Stone Age
DR A.J.M. OSGOOD
https://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j02_1/j02_1_88-102.pdf

VII

Me to Damien Mackey

2/9/2018 at 12:42 PM

Re: Jericho

" Carbon-14 (or radiocarbon) dating in particular assumes that the influx and outflow of carbon-14 atoms into and out of the biosphere is in equilibrium. This simply is not so "

For the past 2000 years it has been so. (Give or take some)

Osgood is wrong on that one.

There is a time before the past 2000 or 2500 years in which carbon 14 was rising.

That is the time in which I am doing tables, how much was the carbon 14 ratio in relation to the present one at such and such a time?

THAT in turn is why I am very interested in whether it is the carbon date 2200 BC or the carbon date 1550 BC which should match the real date of 1470 BC.

Because it would give different carbon 14 levels for 1470 BC and also different rates of carbon 14 rise both between Joseph / Imhotep as per 1700 BC carbon dated in the case of Djoser's coffin to 2600 BC and fall of Jericho on the one hand, and on the other hand between fall of Jericho and 500 BC.

VIII

Me to Damien Mackey

2/9/2018 at 12:44 PM

appendix on carbon dating

Three articles from my blog:

Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : Tony Reed on Dating Assumptions, Answered
http://assortedretorts.blogspot.fr/2018/02/tony-reed-on-dating-assumptions-answered.html

Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : ... on Carbon 14 Dating, Quora
http://assortedretorts.blogspot.fr/2018/02/on-carbon-14-dating-quora.html

Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : ... on Carbon 14 Halflife, quora
http://assortedretorts.blogspot.fr/2018/02/on-carbon-14-halflife-quora.html

IX

Damien Mackey to me

2/10/2018 at 2:01 AM

Re: Jericho

It's totally confusing, isn't it?

X

Me to Damien Mackey

2/10/2018 at 10:38 AM

Re: Jericho

No, I have two options.

Depending on which carbon date you or others favour for the real date.

For Göbekli Tepe which I consider the "Babel" of Genesis 11 (but politically same as the Babilu further SE, 5° and some either cardinal direction) the carbon dates are given as 9600 BC at beginning and 8600 BC at the end.

This needs to be checked to 2551 and 2511 BC, if Babel started getting built 5 years after birth of Peleg and if it lasted 40 years and if St Jerome's chronology is for post-Flood patriarchs up to Abraham LXX without the "second Cainan" which sets Peleg's birth in 401 after Flood rather than 529 after Flood.

You can of course do other timeslines than St Jerome's, but beginning and end of GT is set as to carbon dates.

With fall of Jericho, there are two levels that have been identified with the advent of Joshua, and which carbon date you pick depends on which of them is the right one.

So, I'll have to used both options in parallel ... I guess.

But "two options" and "totally confusing" are two very different things./HGL

XI

Damien Mackey to me

2/11/2018 at 2:08 AM

Re: Jericho

Let me make it very simple for you, monsieur, while you go and dust off all of that messy carbon.

The nomadic Middle Bronze I people of archaeology are the Israelites led by Moses and Joshua.
They walk like them, carry Egyptian artefacts like them, occupy the same places like them, find their way eventually from Transjordan into the Promised Land and conquer the cities there - the Early Bronze III cities (Early Bronze IV in Transjordan).

Just as the Pentateuch tells.

There is only ONE appropriate Jericho scenario for this.

[This may be the mail I should have read better.]

XII

Me to Damien Mackey

2/11/2018 at 2:46 PM

Re: Jericho

"Just as the Pentateuch tells."

I totally believe the Penteteuch. However, it does not mention the term "Middle Bronze I".

"There is only ONE appropriate Jericho scenario for this."

I had heard of two ... here is the other one:

"During the Middle Bronze Age, Jericho was a small prominent city of the Canaan region, reaching its greatest Bronze Age extent in the period from 1700 to 1550 BC. It seems to have reflected the greater urbanization in the area at that time, and has been linked to the rise of the Maryannu, a class of chariot-using aristocrats linked to the rise of the Mitannite state to the north. Kathleen Kenyon reported "the Middle Bronze Age is perhaps the most prosperous in the whole history of Kna'an. ... The defenses ... belong to a fairly advanced date in that period" and there was "a massive stone revetment ... part of a complex system" of defenses (pp. 213–218).[35] Bronze Age Jericho fell in the 16th century at the end of the Middle Bronze Age, the calibrated carbon remains from its City-IV destruction layer dating to 1617–1530 BC. Notably this carbon dating c. 1573 BC confirmed the accuracy of the stratigraphical dating c. 1550 by Kenyon."

Wickipeejuh : Jericho # Bronze Age
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jericho#Bronze_Age

Total destruction + inoccupation for some centuries after that = seems to fit the Biblical bill.

That is why I wondered if - and why - you prefer the layer conventionally dated to 2200 BC./HGL

XIII

Damien Mackey to me

2/11/2018 at 11:11 PM

Re: Jericho

Where are your incoming Israelites in that scenario?

Middle Bronze Jericho was the Judges era. Eglon of Moab.
For a total picture, see my:

Really Digging Jericho
https://www.academia.edu/32898565/Really_Digging_Jericho

XIV

Me to Damien Mackey

2/12/2018 at 10:00 AM

Re: Jericho

"Osgood’s next level at Jericho he thinks could have been Hittite (rock-cut tombs). Wikipedia: "In Genesis 23:2, towards the end of Abraham's life, he was staying in Hebron, on lands belonging to the "children of Heth", and from them he obtained a plot of land with a cave to bury his wife Sarah. One of them (Ephron) is labeled "the Hittite", several times. This deal is mentioned three more times (with almost the same words), upon the deaths of Abraham, Jacob, and Joseph".

Then we get to the Neolithic phase that Osgood has connected with Ghassul, which is Abram’s era. Abram as a contemporary of Late Chalcolithic En-geddi and Ghassul IV is one of those clear signposts (refer back to Part One) now, thanks to Dr. Osgood."

I agree Abraham is contemporary with late Chalcolithic En-geddi. As per Genesis 14.

I agree he was contemporary, either with Narmer, or with a son of Narmer, or with the pharao in Buto previous to Narmer. As per Genesis 13.

Ghassul IV - ends in carbon dates 3 C. before Narmer at least, still possible for earlier life of Abraham.

If carbon 14 level is rising, beneath 100 % modern carbon, earlier samples will be more misdated than later ones. For instance, Göbekli Tepe being Babel would have been, if I interpret St Jerome's chronology well (Christmas martyrology doesn't per se mention Babel) 2551 to 2511 BC. If in this time carbon 14 ratio to carbon 12 rose from ... I'll cite my own article here:

Creation vs. Evolution : How Fast was Carbon 14 Forming During Babel Event?
http://creavsevolu.blogspot.fr/2017/07/how-fast-was-carbon-14-forming-during.html

"Then 2551 BC dates as 9600 BC, 7049 extra years = 42.626 pmc being original level of carbon in the objects at start of GT. And 2511 BC dates as 8600 BC, 6089 extra years = 47.875 pmc being original level of carbon at end of GT. In the atmosphere and in the objects, of course."

Here I do not agree:

"A further suggested identification is here made, that is, to equate the most dominant archaeological culture in Palestine of this era, namely, Natufian - PPNA-PPNB (suggestion of continuity after Moore5:16-23), with the Bible's most widespread southern groups - the Hivites (see Genesis 36:2,20; 14:6 Horites = Hivites; also later in Palestine, Genesis 34:2)."

I look up Natufian.

"The Epipaleolithic Natufian culture (/nəˈtuːfiən/[1]) existed from around 12,500 to 9,500 BC in the Levant, a region in the Eastern Mediterranean."

The Wickipeejuh : Natufian Culture
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natufian_culture

To 9,500 BC? But that is beginning of Babel! Centuries before Abraham!

Carbon date 9,500 BC = 2551 BC (in my now take of St Jerome's chronology). Genesis 14 is in sth like 1935 BC. This corresponds to carbon dates like 3000 - 3500 BC, not to such of 9,500 BC!

Now, your article on Jericho mentioned a destruction in 1470 BC which you identify with a layer carbon dated (by others than you, perhaps indirectly even) to 2200 BC.

It also mentions a rebuilding of Jericho in the time of Achab, real times on diverse daters:

"William F. Albright dated his reign to 869–850 BC, while E. R. Thiele offered the dates 874–853 BC.[3] Most recently, Michael D. Coogan has dated Ahab's reign to 871–852 BC."

The Wickipeejuh : Ahab
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahab

I'll add Syncellus: 930 / 926 BC Achab of Israel (start of reign, thus up to 908 or 904 BC).

Creation vs. Evolution : About 5300 Years Ago There was a World Wide Flood? Iffy ...
http://creavsevolu.blogspot.fr/2017/03/about-5300-years-ago-there-was-world.html

Now, this rebuilding, if it is in the 800's period would be close to carbon dated in the 800's period.

Was there an intermediate rebuilding by Eglon and destruction after that? Or was Eglon simply camping in a waste where Jericho had been? You see the problem?

In terms of carbon dates, we are dealing with more carbon years than real years (as I suppose you already figured out), and this means we have options on what carbon year to identify a real year with.

For the real year 1470 BC, death of Moses, taking of Jericho, we have an option of carbon years c. 2200 BC or carbon years 1630-1570 BC.

What I am asking you for is motivating the option of 1470 BC = "2200 BC" rather than "1570 BC". Or, in other words, why you take it as "Early Bronze Age III" level rather than as City IV.

By the way, if you DO give a good motivation against City IV (say, city IV could refer to a destruction after Eglon? I am rusty on history of Judges), and for 2200 BC, it would not be unwelcome. It would simplify the task I have been setting myself for quite some time now:

Creation vs. Evolution : Comparing Three Roads from Seven Cows to Seven Trumpets
http://creavsevolu.blogspot.fr/2017/06/comparing-three-roads-from-seven-cows.html

Oh, by the way, when looking up the link I gave, it seems Jericho was reoccupied, which would mean the 1570 carbon date could be 1185 BC ... the hitch is, there was some gap between invasion by Joshua and the rebuilding by Eglon, but this seems not reflected in any gap in the material.

That could of course be explained by carbon 14 temporarily going down instead of up. If carbon going up can exaggerate a time span, a wiggle with carbon going down can of course obfuscate its existence./HGL