mardi 23 août 2016

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

Creation vs. Evolution : 1) C14 Calibrations, comparing two preliminary ones, mine and Tas Walker's · 2) Radioactive Methods Revisited, Especially C-14 · 3) What Some of You are Thinking / Ce que certains de vous sont en train de penser · Great Bishop of Geneva! : 4) Carbon Dating of Turin Shroud and Hacking and Conventional vs Creationist Dating · Creation vs. Evolution : 5) A Fault in my Tables? A Plan for Improvement? · 6) Pre-Flood Biomass and More · 7) Advantages of a Shorter Carbon 14 Chronology · 8) Hasn't Carbon 14 been Confirmatively Calibrated for Ages Beyond Biblical Chronology? By Tree Rings? · HGL's F.B. writings : 9) Comparing with Gerardus D. Bouw Ph. D., Debating with Roger M Pearlman on Chronology · 10) Continuing with Pearlman, Especially on Göbekli Tepe and Dating of Ice Age

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
3000  0.9
6000   >0.6
10,000   <0.4
13,000  0.3
19,000  >0.2
20,000  <0.2

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

* 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

Approved by Nobu Tamura!

Defining terms:

What is a salvage blog?

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

Palaeocritti Blog

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

Mission failed

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

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

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:

on Hilton's Coast Seafoods Company

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