mardi 23 août 2016

C14 Calibrations, comparing two preliminary ones, mine and Tas Walker's


First, Tas Walker's:

Uniformitarian age, years ago  Calibration factor
Tas Walker's calibration curve, p. 8, Journal of Creation 29(1) 2015
0, present  1
1000  
2000  
3000  0.9
4000  
 0.8
5000  
 0.7
6000   >0.6
 0.6
7000  
 0.5
8000  
9000  
 0.4
10,000   <0.4
11,000
12,000
13,000  0.3
14,000
15,000
16,000
17,000
18,000
19,000  >0.2
 0.2
20,000  <0.2
etc.


The diamonds in the diagram (see link to his article) are calibration points, points where he felt he could tie a geological event to a Biblical year.

Here is mine:

Uniformitarian age, years ago  Real age  Calibration factor
Using my Fibonacci table.
2580  2580  1
2769  2759  0.996
2968  2938  0.990
3167  3117  0.984
3386  3296  0.973
3625  3475  0.959
This (above) is the abouts of the Exodus 1510 BC
3914  3654  0.934
4273  3833  0.897
4742  4012  0.846
5391  4191  0.777
6570  4370  0.665
8399  4549  0.542
12,278  4728  0.385
Decimal (above) ending with three sixes, whatever that might mean ...*
31,707  4907  0.155
And this last (4907 "BP" / 2957 BC) is the Biblical year of the Flood, and 31,707 stands for a variation between 20,000 and 50,000.


My own approach is rather different, there are about three calibration points, earliest of which is Flood AND I consider there was a fluctuation around 31,707 between 20,000 and 50,000 years "before present", which I do not take into account, I streamline this fluctuation into one C14 level (3.90625 % of present/stable) which gives so and so many extra years (26,800). Later on, with higher levels, there would be less fluctuation, so, the closer the table comes to the present, the less fluctuation it represents. Or the less necessary fluctuation.

Actually, a calculation factor is not exactly a good description of what happens mathematically, since every level lower than that of present gives an exact amount of extra years. I think my first attempt of a recalibration was botched because I took discrepancy between historic date of Trojan War (1100 BC according to my then sloppy memory) and C14 dating of one level of Troy (1200 BC, dito) as meaning a calibration factor of 31/32, and I thought this was significant about the C14 level - no, it is not the calibration factor, but the extra years which is so.

My timescale is based on real years, since it is in those that the rise of C14 levels actually occurred. The distances are a certain fraction of a halflife (c. 179 years). For conventional dates this looks very odd of course, that is why the original posting of my recalibration has a left hand column of real dates and gives conventional dates (more or less corresponding) in the definition.

Obviously, we also differ about Biblical dates, me using the Christmas Chronology of the Catholic Church (abolished in Novus Ordo sect 1994) for the years of Flood, Abraham, Exodus, while he uses a more Masoretic or KJV based Chronology.

I have some diffidence about early very steep rise of C14, though I calibrated successive rises of C14 on a rather fine mathematic model, the Fibanocci series (by values of which I multiplied a fraction of the rise, not sure about all details any more), since I consider it possible that Göbekli Tepe, first off was intended by Nimrod as a kind of launching ramp (notice it is the tip which shall reach into heaven, not the tower which shall be so high that it does so) and second therefore is the real tower of Babel. However, 358 years after Flood seems a bit early for the days of Peleg in LXX Chronology. Therefore, this table fits a bit better, perhaps with Ziggurat of Ur as Tower of Babel and Woolley's Ur (rather than Urfa close by Göbekli Tepe) as as Ur of the Chaldees.

Also, the very first period after the Flood seems a bit crowded, man would have come into South America within 179 years after Flood, for instance.

This latter point could be arranged. For instance, if there was an early spread before attempting to build a city and a tower and if it continued beside Tower building and if the later spread - Genesis 11:[9] And therefore the name thereof was called Babel, because there the language of the whole earth was confounded: and from thence the Lord scattered them abroad upon the face of all countries. - ... partly followed same ethnicities as the earlier one, which as more sporadic would have been not mentioned in Bible.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
Vigil of Saint Batholomew, Apostle
23.VIII.2016

* Meaning the full decimal as shown on calculator. Not the one I showed, which is only three first decimals.

samedi 13 août 2016

Why was Palaeocritti Site Important to the Creationist Cause?


First off, it is down.

"Notice: This domain name expired on 07/13/16 and is pending renewal or deletion"

Second, I had agreed with Nobu Tamura, one project leader for it, to save as much as possible before it went down:

I Hope This Blog will Get More Writers - it is a Salvage Blog
http://palaeocritti.blogspot.com/2013/11/i-hope-this-blog-will-get-more-writers.html


Approved by Nobu Tamura!
http://palaeocritti.blogspot.com/2013/11/approved-by-nobu-tamura.html


Defining terms:

What is a salvage blog?
http://palaeocritti.blogspot.com/2013/11/what-is-salvage-blog.html


Third, I found no other writers, but did some job anyway.

Palaeocritti Blog
http://palaeocritti.blogspot.com


Fourth, when I saw the original site was down, I knew I had failed:

Mission failed
http://palaeocritti.blogspot.com/2016/08/mission-failed.html


Now, you may wonder why the original site, and by extension my back-up blog or salvage blog was so important to a Creationist?

It was managed by Evolutionists ... yes. But Evolutionists who were being unusually candid about what kind of material we have for each species or genus, how many fossils, how well preserved, where the type fossil - called holotype - was found, how many countries around the world it is found in (Pterodactylish things are found in UK, Austria and Brazil, for one ... not always same species).

My dream would have been to prove that no where in the world do vertebrate fossils overlap, except perhaps in NW Mexico shrimps and prawns from "Palaeocene" being situated above Ceratopsians from "late Cretaceous". And shrimps and prawns aren't vertebrates anyway.

My other dream would have been to use the fossil map to make a map over the pre-Flood world. One part of Austria you have a Pterodactylish thing, as said, so it was presumably land. Near Vienna you have a very old seal, probably coast. Elsewhere - in Salzburg I think - you have a whale, so it was probably sea. West Morocco has trilobites, probably sea, perhaps shallow seas or lakes. In Karoo you consistently find land animals, so Karoo area was land. Jonkeria, Moschops, the skeleton which looks like an otter or teckel (dachshund), except its legs are reptilian (could some geneticist have been doing an evil experiment on real mammals?)

But in order to fulfil it, I would have needed either a prolongation on the part of the palaeocritti site, or fellow writers for the salvage blog, so it could have been completed quicker.

Site is down, though not yet deleted. I went through very few countries. Algeria was a short one. So was Antarctica. Austria - the whale not from Vienna/Nussdorf (there was one there, next to the seal) was from Linz, not Salzburg - Belgium, Brazil. United Kingdom only got started. For US, I only did Arizona. Linking to complementary articles on the web. In Africa, I started with South Africa and got started on a few more, see the page Locations. Where I also tried to make a new list about how well preserved they were ...

I hope someone donates - or that they charitably try to supplement at least the world map part, according to fossils - which I could never make. If they, being scientists and evolutionists, are interested in doing such a service for a creationist who is in letters rather than science.

Meanwhile, Creationists who unlike me and like the team behind palaeocritti are scientists, are missing this opportunity:

CMI : Fossil snakes and the Flood boundary in North America
by Chad Arment
http://creation.com/fossil-snakes-and-the-flood-boundary-in-north-america


The placement of the geological boundary between Flood deposits and post-Flood deposits is a point of debate within creation science. One method for estimating the placement of this boundary utilizes biostratigraphy. [footnote] Ross, M.R., Evaluating potential post-Flood boundaries with biostratigraphy—the Pliocene/Pleistocene boundary, J. Creation 26(2):82–87, 2012.


Well, the thing is ANY such kind of layer could be pre-Flood. Perhaps not the one with two snakes of same kind (unless Noah's pair was one of each species, so they could diversify back into the two after Food), but in my experience from the site which is now down, there is no such thing in vertebrate palaeontology as biostratigraphic layers above each other.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris V
St Hippolytus of Rome
and St Radegundis of Poitiers
13.VIII.2016

vendredi 5 août 2016

Fun Fact about Readers Last Week


Russia dominates:

Russia 1335
United States 65
France 41
Ukraine 24
Australia 21
Germany 14
United Kingdom 11
Canada 7
China 5
Japan 3

+ ALL pages noted above on top of blog have had exactly 65 page views during the week.

mercredi 3 août 2016

Triploid Oysters?


Here is the story:

TRIPLOID OYSTERS
on Hilton's Coast Seafoods Company
http://www.coastseafoods.com/triploid_oysters.html


OK, that takes care of my idea of mammals always staying diploid and not augmenting chromosome numbers by ploidy variations, right?

Wrong. Oysters are not mammals.

I am not sure why, but tetraploid (one ploidy more than triploid, four rather than three or the normal two chromosomes in EACH pair/group) mammals, at least some mammalian types, like human chromosome setup, will either spontaneously abort or - one boy - be born very sickly and die very quickly. I suppose it is the mother's immune system. Anyway, oysters aren't developing in placentas or uteri, so the triploid oysters don't have that problem./HGL

dimanche 31 juillet 2016

Probabilities in reference to question of finding fossils all three major levels (PMC) a place


I had a debate with Tony Reed (upcoming in sorted version) in which he had said "since the chances are basically nil to get a fossil preserved anyway, just forget about finding it in two or three major levels".

Let us get to Pascal's Triangle. First of all, very unrealistically, as it works out with an equal chance of finding or not finding a fossil at any given level.

 0 levels 1 level 2 levels 3 levels
1 level 1 1
2 levels 1 2 1
3 levels 1 3 3 1


Now, how about 1 chance in 4? 1 chance for, 3 chances against finding a fossil at any given level?

 0 levels 1 level 2 levels 3 levels
1 level 3 1
2 levels 9 6 1
3 levels 27 27 9 1


Notice a thing? In first, unrealistic, example, the 1:1 for each level came back as 3:3 for 1 vs 2 levels out of three. In second, equally unrealistic, or nearly so, example, the 3:1 for each level came back as 27:9 for 1 vs 2 levels out of three.

Now, what if there were one chance in 10 or in 100? That would mean 9:1 or 99:1 against a fossil being there in each level.

 0 levels 1 level 2 levels 3 levels
1 level 9 1
2 levels 81 18 1
3 levels 729 243 27 1


Before reaching third line, I needed to do some counting:

 0 = 81 1 = 18 2 = 1
not next * 9 729 162 9
next * 1 81 18 1
 0 levels 1 level 2 levels 3 levels
 729 162 9
  81 18 1
 729 243 27 1


And for 99:1 against a fossil?

 0 levels 1 level 2 levels 3 levels
1 level 99 1
2 levels 9801 198 1
3 levels 970299 29403 297 1


Before reaching third line, I needed to do some counting:

 0 = 9801 1 = 198 2 = 1
not next * 99 970299 19602 99
next * 1 9801 198 1
 0 levels 1 level 2 levels 3 levels
 970299 19602 99
  9801 198 1
 970299 29403 297 1


For 9:1 per level we get 243:27 = 9:1 for one vs two levels.

For 99:1 per level we get 29403:297 = 99:1 for one vs two levels.

The curious thing is, when we check my older post "How Fossils Superpose"*, and look at how many you have per pure Palaeozoic, pure Mesozoic, pure Cenozoic, and how many you have on two of these levels, we are seeing a ratio not too far from 99:1 - as far as modern, Geological and Palaeontological classifications are concerned.

If these were correct, one would expect also to find about 1 in 99 places a fossil at each level.

But the problem is - does it really look like a superposition of faunas where we find two of the three major levels? No. In Yacoraite we see rather same fauna below and above a K/T boundary. In Karoo we find the Permian/Palaeozoic and Triassic/Jurassic/Mesozoic faunas ... side by side. As if they were in reality different faunas from same Pre-Flood world.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris XV
XI Lord's Day after Pentecost
31.VII.2016

* Creation vs. Evolution : How do Fossils Superpose?
http://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2013/11/how-do-fossils-superpose.html


Sorry for about a day, or near two, when the footnote was attached to the calendar numeric date, corrected Tuesday./HGL

mercredi 27 juillet 2016

Why Curse of Ham Became Negroes among Muslims


1) Did Catholic Church Ever Teach any Curse of Cham? · 2) Cardinal Lavigerie Fought Slavery · 3) Why Curse of Ham Became Negroes among Muslims

I am reading a somewhat longer article than just answering this one, and one which errs in considering that the account in Genesis were a fabrication from the times of David or Solomon to justify slavery of Canaanite neighbours.

It also adds that to Jews, towards beginning of Christian era, Canaanites were more prone to be Black (Kushim) or Slavs. And that to Christians, at first there was no predeliction of ethnic nature as to who were next in line for what was really a penal servitude, then later Slavs were to West Europeans targetted well before Negroes - but that the sugar plantations started to change this near 1500.

Now, as I already spoke about Jews, what the article has to say about Muslims is very interesting.

Black Slavery, according to William McKee Evans*, was not a Muslim priority stemming from the Quran.

It started to become so when light skinned slaves, very rich in supply up to Muhammed, had become scarce since the permanent state of internal warfare between Arab principalities had ceased with Muhammed.

This means that up to Muhammed, Arabs on the Peninsula had been hunting each other for slaves, much as Negroes in Africa up to Western Colonisation, and sometimes beyond.

This confirms a bit what St Thomas said** about what people were first to examine the credentials of Muhammed as "prophet":

[4] On the other hand, those who founded sects committed to erroneous doctrines proceeded in a way that is opposite to this, The point is clear in the case of Muhammad. He seduced the people by promises of carnal pleasure to which the concupiscence of the flesh goads us. His teaching also contained precepts that were in conformity with his promises, and he gave free rein to carnal pleasure. In all this, as is not unexpected, he was obeyed by carnal men. As for proofs of the truth of his doctrine, he brought forward only such as could be grasped by the natural ability of anyone with a very modest wisdom. Indeed, the truths that he taught he mingled with many fables and with doctrines of the greatest falsity. He did not bring forth any signs produced in a supernatural way, which alone fittingly gives witness to divine inspiration; for a visible action that can be only divine reveals an invisibly inspired teacher of truth. On the contrary, Muhammad said that he was sent in the power of his arms—which are signs not lacking even to robbers and tyrants. What is more, no wise men, men trained in things divine and human, believed in him from the beginning, Those who believed in him were brutal men and desert wanderers, utterly ignorant of all divine teaching, through whose numbers Muhammad forced others to become his followers by the violence of his arms. Nor do divine pronouncements on the part of preceding prophets offer him any witness. On the contrary, he perverts almost all the testimonies of the Old and New Testaments by making them into fabrications of his own, as can be. seen by anyone who examines his law. It was, therefore, a shrewd decision on his part to forbid his followers to read the Old and New Testaments, lest these books convict him of falsity. It is thus clear that those who place any faith in his words believe foolishly.


Let me highlight:

What is more, no wise men, men trained in things divine and human, believed in him from the beginning, Those who believed in him were brutal men and desert wanderers, utterly ignorant of all divine teaching, through whose numbers Muhammad forced others to become his followers by the violence of his arms.


Well, if they hunted each other for slaves up to the time of Muhammed, as William McKee Evans* said, then it is not possible to deny they were so.

Not by race, but by the culture in those days indigenous - somewhat like that of Swedes prior to Olof Skjötkonung or perhaps even more like that of Ashantis prior to Brazza.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
St Pantaleon
27.VII.2016

* Evans, William McKee. "From the Land of Canaan to the Land of Guinea: The Strange Odyssey of the "Sons of Ham"" The American Historical Review 85.1 (1980): 15-43. Web.

** Contra Gentiles, Book I, chapter 6
[quoting paragraph 4], by St Thomas Aquinas, OP.
http://dhspriory.org/thomas/ContraGentiles1.htm#6