Creation vs. Evolution: octobre 2020

jeudi 29 octobre 2020

John Baumgardner's Model for carbon 14 raise

Quote:

Just a brief comment relating to the ¹⁴C dates of more than 5 kyr for human bones and artifacts. In my chapter on ¹⁴C in the 2005 RATE technical report, I pointed out that the significant quantity of accelerated nuclear decay during the Genesis Flood would have generated a significant quantity of ¹⁴C in crustal rocks. This ¹⁴C would have outgassed from the crust during the centuries following the Flood, increasing the atmospheric ¹⁴C concentration from about 0.01 pMC at the end of the Flood to near the modern level by, say, 1500 BC. That history of atmospheric ¹⁴C levels would have the effect of producing falsely inflated ages as one goes back in time beyond about 1500 BC.

Disagreements and possible problems for his model:

1) I think the ¹⁴C level at the end of the Flood was c. 1.4 pmC. Not 0.01 pmC.
2) Baumgardner himself considers fossils from Flood to range from carbon ages 44 000 BP to 20 000 BP (from memory), and this means the extra years range from 15 500 to 39 500 - or original ¹⁴C level from 0.841 to 15.335 pmC. Perhaps he means those with 15.335 pmC at Flood are remains with unusual nuclear activity, but that would leave any carbon in crustal rocks at 15.335 pmC at most too. Of which 58.022 % would be left now, accounting for only 8.898 pmC out of 100 today. Or of which 88.606 % would have been left 1000 years later, in 1500 BC, accounting for only 13.588 pmC out of 100 back then.
3) If he thinks concentration of ¹⁴C in crustal rocks was far superior to 15.335 pmC, where are the fossils with those higher original pmC?
4) I have another theory on why ¹⁴C levels rose: by divine fiat or by obedience of sun's angel, cosmic rays were turned on to max, effecting three things:
- a) ice age (see Correspondence of Hans Georg Lundahl : With Jay L. Wile on C14 Build-up)
- b) lowered life spans (exposition to milliSieverts higher than present was bad, and this would be how God realised the project of Genesis 6:3)
- c) rapid rise in ¹⁴C levels.

However, the model he gives might give more room for tables of calibration corresponding to his chronology (both as to Masoretic and as to Neanderthals after Flood, perhaps even as to Exodus and taking of Jericho after Hyksos, though I doubt it), it does not in any way invalidate my tables (Roman Martyrology, 40 000 BP as carbon date for the Flood in 2957 BC). I have no deep quarrel, I am just saying, and I think my points 2 and 3 above would argue against the crustal rocks explaining all of it./HGL

Carbon level / years correspondence, as per
Carbon 14 Dating Calculator
https://www.math.upenn.edu/~deturck/m170/c14/carbdate.html

lundi 26 octobre 2020

France Before the Flood

Source for locations of fossils: Palaeocritti
https://sites.google.com/site/palaeocritti/by-location/france

Sea: Voulte-sur-Rhône, since Proteroctopus ribeti

Shore: Champ-Garimond (Gard) and Villeveyrac (Hérault), Campanian; Quarante (Hérault), Campanian or Maastrichtian? Trets (Bouches-du-Rhône), Maastrichtian, since Dortoka vasconica,

Land: Calvados, since Dubreuillosaurus valesdunensis and since Piveteausaurus divesensis, Manche, since Lophostropheus airelensis, Fresne d’Argences, Calvados, since Loricatosaurus priscus, Octeville beach, Cap de la Hève, since Dacentrurus armatus, Velaux-La Bastide Neuve (Aix-en-Provence Basin) since Atsinganosaurus velauciensis, Fox-Amphoux vicinity in Var, since Variraptor mechinorum, somewhere else in S. France for Hypselosaurus priscus, Bellevue lez Carcassonne, since Ampelosaurus atacis, as far as I can make out.

To land I would add any find of Neanderthals, since I think they were pre-Flood./HGL

dimanche 25 octobre 2020

Romania Before the Flood

Source: Palaeocritti, by Location
https://sites.google.com/site/palaeocritti/by-location/romania

Sea: Moldova (Chișinău, Serravalian); Romania (Mădulari, Serravalian), since containing whales known as Cetotherium priscum.

Land: Sebeș River, since Balaur bondoc, Hațeg Basin, Judeţul Covurlui, since Magyarosaurus dacus, Valioara, northwestern Hațeg Basin, Transylvania, since Hatzegopteryx thambema.

It doesn't matter that Serravallian is supposed to be later than Late Maastrichtian, Chișinău and Mădulari are not on top of Hațeg Basin./HGL

PS : Romanian orthography corrected./HGL

Examples of using my tables

CMI:

You may also be basing your old Egyptian dates on carbon-14 dating, but accepting these dates uncritically, is fraught with difficulties, as even the experts disagree. For instance, even accepting the dates of the LXX for Noah’s Flood of 3,168 BC does not solve the dating of some of the oldest Egyptian remains.

For instance, secular archaeologists consider Paleolithic dwelling remains in Wadi Halfa are dated to 100,000 BC. Tool making, known as the Aterian industry is dated to 40,000 BC. The Khormusan tool industry is dated to 32,000 BC. The Nabta Playa archaeological site, is considered one of the earliest from the Egyptian Neolithic Period, and dated to c. 7,500 BC. Neolithic settlements appear all over Egypt and are dated to 6,000 BC. A small settlement near Cairo, known as the The El Omari culture is dated to the Archaic period at 4,000 BC. I could go on… For a setting of these Egyptian eras and archaeological remains within a biblical framework see this article, and CMI’s brand new Egyptian tour guide.

https://creation.com/chronology-chronogenealogies-ussher

Aterian on wiki actually have other dates, from 150,000 BP to 20,000 BP, and one "Aterian" site is also considered as Iberomaurusian.

Taforalt or Grotte des Pigeons is a cave in northern Oujda, Morocco, and possibly the oldest cemetery in North Africa (Humphrey et al. 2012). It contained at least 34^[1]:347 Iberomaurusian adolescent and adult human skeletons, as well as younger ones, from the Upper Palaeolithic between 15,100 and 14,000 calendar years ago. There is archaeological evidence for Iberomaurusian occupation at the site between 23,200 and 12,600 calendar years ago, as well as evidence for Aterian occupation as old as 85,000 years.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taforalt

12 600 - 2020 = 10 580 BC
14 000 - 2020 = 11 980 BC
15 100 - 2020 = 13 080 BC
23 200 - 2020 = 21 180 BC

So, what are the real and Biblical dates for this? I quote my tables with appropriate selection, and insert these dates:

2890 B. Chr.: 0.09274 pmC/100, so dated as 22 540 B. Chr.
"21 180 BC"
2867 B. Chr.: 0.119246 pmC/100, so dated as 20 467 B. Chr.
...
2733 B. Chr.: 0.27679 pmC/100, so dated as 13 333 B. Chr.
"13 080 BC"
2711 B. Chr.: 0.302799 pmC/100, so dated as 12 611 B. Chr.
"11 980 BC"
2688 B. Chr.: 0.328739 pmC/100, so dated as 11 888 B. Chr.
...
2644 B. Chr.: 0.380408 pmC/100, so dated as 10 644 B. Chr.
"10 580 BC"
2621 B. Chr.: 0.406138 pmC/100, so dated as 10 071 B. Chr.

Tables quoted : New Tables
https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2020/08/new-tables.html

So, the 34 skeleta are from between 2733 and 2688 BC, that is between 224 and 269 years after the Flood. Sufficiently late for 34 premature deaths (all deaths before the death of Noah after the Flood are premature, which gives a skewed vision of life expectancy for the searchers who consider Upper Palaeolithic lasted for tens of thousands of years, as opposed to 350), I said for 34 premature deaths to not take too great a toll on the population leading up to Babel.

What are Iberomaurusian skeleta?

The ancient Taforalt individuals carried the mtDNA Haplogroup N subclades like U6 and M which points to population continuity in the region dating from the Iberomaurusian period.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iberomaurusian

Now, for Khormusan ...

The Khormusan industry in Egypt began between 42,000 and 32,000 BP.[4] Khormusans developed tools not only from stone but also from animal bones and hematite.[4] They also developed small arrow heads resembling those of Native Americans,[4] but no bows have been found.[4] The end of the Khormusan industry came around 16,000 B.C. with the appearance of other cultures in the region, including the Gemaian.[5]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prehistoric_Egypt#Khormusan_industry

The timespan for its beginning would extend both before and after the Flood, if carbon dated. BUt note 4 links to a page not mentioning carbon dates.

Paleolithic Egypt
https://web.archive.org/web/20100601171500/http://www.mnsu.edu/emuseum/prehistory/egypt/history/paleolithic%20egypt.htm

If we deal with 32 000 BP = 30 000 BC as a carbon date, we deal with the twenty years following the Flood:

2957 B. Chr.: 0.012788 pmC/100, so dated as 38 957 B. Chr.
2935 B. Chr.: 0.039541 pmC/100, so dated as 29 635 B. Chr.

This is problematic, but not out of the possible. And certainly not if the carbon dates, if any, are more modest (as with Mungo Man).

I find this:

ProQuest ; F. Wendorf, R. Schild, Prehistory of the Nile Valley (Book Review)
Strouhal, Eugen.Archív Orientální; Praha Vol. 49, (Jan 1, 1981): 306-307.
https://search.proquest.com/openview/86ff3dd78a0989a41eb2f5d1dbacb20a/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=1817606

This suggests the end of Khormusan (or the new industry replacing it) is carbon dated, 16 carbon dates for 17 000 - 15 000 BC.

2800 B. Chr.: 0.198337 pmC/100, so dated as 16 150 B. Chr.
2778 B. Chr.: 0.224559 pmC/100, so dated as 15 128 B. Chr.
2756 B. Chr.: 0.250709 pmC/100, so dated as 14 206 B. Chr.

So, this end of Khormusan extends from soon after 2800 BC to a little past 2778 BC and these sites do not extend to 2756 BC. I still do not know if the beginning of Khormusan is or is not based on a carbon date.

Next, Nabta Playa, I did an article on it three years ago:

Φιλολoγικά/Philologica : Nabta Playa, Hieraconopolis and Buto
https://filolohika.blogspot.com/2017/08/nabta-playa-hieraconopolis-and-buto.html

My then values for three earliest dates on Nabta Playa were: 9500 BC = 2637 BC, 7500 BC after 2424 BC and before 2391 BC, 6500 BC after 2391 BC and before 2358 BC OR 9500 BC after 2778 BC and before 2688 BC, 7500 BC = 2599 BC, 6500 BC after 2599 BC and before 2510 BC, omitting the Syncellus values.

My now values would be:

2607 B. Chr.: 0.428224 pmC/100, so dated as 9607 B. Chr.
"9500 BC"
2585 B. Chr.: 0.45483 pmC/100, so dated as 9085 B. Chr.
...
2466 B. Chr.: 0.532551 pmC/100, so dated as 7666 B. Chr.
"7500 BC"
2444 B. Chr.: 0.545151 pmC/100, so dated as 7444 B. Chr.
...
2355 B. Chr.: 0.596678 pmC/100, so dated as 6605 B. Chr.
"6500 BC"
2332 B. Chr.: 0.609109 pmC/100, so dated as 6432 B. Chr.

So, the one earliest date for Nabta Playa has gone into the Babel era. The next one, cited in CMI quote, has gone between two from back then. The third is close to one of the values. But more important : all is still within the Biblical timeline. The Masoretic one? No, my tables have mainly used the chronology of Roman Martyrology which for Genesis 5 and 11 seems based on LXX without the second Cainan. But still Biblical. You want Masoretic? You copy the principle behind my tables, but calibrate with Masoretic instead - a fair warning, I can do with carbon 14 levels rising by a 10 times faster production at times, Masoretic will take between 16 and 25, and 16 will only do with a recent carbon date for the Flood.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
Feast of Christ the King
25.X.2020

PS, Baumgardner commented on the link, and here is what he said:

Just a brief comment relating to the 14C dates of more than 5 kyr for human bones and artifacts. In my chapter on 14C in the 2005 RATE technical report, I pointed out that the significant quantity of accelerated nuclear decay during the Genesis Flood would have generated a significant quantity of 14C in crustal rocks. This 14C would have outgassed from the crust during the centuries following the Flood, increasing the atmospheric 14C concentration from about 0.01 pMC at the end of the Flood to near the modern level by, say, 1500 BC. That history of atmospheric 14C levels would have the effect of producing falsely inflated ages as one goes back in time beyond about 1500 BC.

I told him in response (and hoping he permits my republication of above):
It also answers one of my objections to Masoretic, since this is in alternative against production in high atmosphere due to cosmic radiation that also involves higher radiation doses. That would have been one of my preferences of Roman Martyrology over Masoretic, since I can do with 10 times faster production, you'd need 25, but on this view it is not really production with this side effect. /HGL

mercredi 21 octobre 2020

Answering Tas on his Answer to my Comment

The heritage trail at Siccar Point, Scotland
(Commemorating an idea that did not work)
by Tas Walker | This article is from
Creation 35(2):18–19, April 2013
https://creation.com/siccar-point-trail

CMI was beginning to block my comments, so, I translated Hans Georg to Ioannes Georgius, while keeping Lundahl as Lundahl (the correct contemporary way to Latinise a name, like Marcel Lefèbvre is not simply that, but also not Marcellus Faber, he's Marcellus Lefèbvre).

Ioannes Georgius L[undahl]
FR May 12th, 2014: Playfair was Presbyterian. Cuvier was Lutheran. Lyell was Anglican. Darwin was Anglican. Hume was Presbyterian. So was pres-hume-ably Hutton.

These men were not compromising away their Christianity with an already existing ideology, they were sacrificing it to their take on what it meant to be a Protestant.
Tas Walker
May 12th, 2014: Actually they had compromised. They certainly rejected the Bible's history as being true. Just because someone grows up in a church does not mean they are a follower of Christ and accept what He taught. Teillard de Chardin was a Catholic priest but promoted evolution as the great creative force and the truth to which everything should bow. He was clearly not promoting othodox beliefs. Richard Dawkins was confirmed as an Anglican but he rejected that and is now the foremost advocate of atheism.

Well, yes, they rejected the truth of Biblical history.

But that is not a compromise of Christianity, it is in more than one of them a complete sacrifice of Christianity to sth else : namely their take on what it meant to be Protestant.

And note, being a Protestant in historic context (as opposed to present day Anglo-Saxon world) does not mean attempting to be "a follower of Christ".

Teilhard and Dawkins are different : Teilhard actually compromised (one could argue he too so much there was not any Christianity left), and Dawkins sacrificed Christianity (starting with about as much as Teilhard ended up with) to the Evolutionist ideology that already existed.

But Plaifair, Cuvier, Lyell all went before Teilhard down that road, and they would arguably have sacrificed it wholesale, not just compromise with something else, and that sth else they sacrificed it to was a product of their Protestantism : Reformers had rejected the Pope, they rejected what some of you call the "paper pope", Reformers had rejected Catholic tradition, and they rejected the tradition of seeing the Bible as God's word, inerrant.

Ergo, they were better Protestants than Christians, I would tend to say, not Christians at all (some of them openly)./HGL

lundi 19 octobre 2020

Could Moses Have Expressed "One Million Years"?

Part of the idea behind "Day Age" theory is, like Moses needed (on my view) "water" for "hydrogen" (above = in the upper part of the firmament), like he needed "a tower, the top whereof may reach to heaven" for "rocket", so also, he would have needed "day" for "millions of years".

Could he have said sth like "in a million years, God created light, in a million years, God divided waters, in a million years, God divided land from water, in a million years, God made green herb and fruit trees ..." etc, if it took millions of years, and there were no precise limits between the stages?

"No, the Hebrews were a primitive Bronze Age people, they came from Bronze Age Egypt ..." (or so some would answer).

Now, did Bronze Age Egypt have a symbol for "million"? Yes.

MacTutor : Egyptian numerals
https://mathshistory.st-andrews.ac.uk/HistTopics/Egyptian_numerals/

In other words, if Moses used the word day, it was not because he lacked the words for "a million years" - he was aware both of "million" and of "years" as raised at the Egyptian court - it was because it was really a matter of days. Not years. Not thousands of years. Not millions of years. But days. And with separate creation acts on separate days, hence "it was evening and it was morning, the fourth day" and so on./HGL

dimanche 18 octobre 2020

More Seriously, Biblical Inerrancy

The Catholic Church teaches that Sacred Scripture is truly the Word of God. Through the Bible, God gradually reveals Himself, communicates His plan of salvation, and calls us to a relationship with Him.

The Church has always taught that we can approach the Scriptures with a rock-solid confidence because they are inspired by God Himself and therefore contain no error. This inerrancy is a great gift because it gives the Bible a credibility on which we can base our lives. God inspired the Scriptures in order to give us a fully trustworthy source about what we are to believe and how we are to act. When read within the Church’s living Tradition and magisterial teaching, the Bible is a sure guide for our lives.

The basis for the Church’s teaching on biblical inerrancy is inspiration. Here we must remember that the Bible is different from any other book. It is unique because it has a unique author: God Himself. As Saint Paul says:

“All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work (2 Timothy 3:16-17).

Divine inspiration literally means “God-breathed.” This is why the Church teaches that the Scriptures have God as their author. God worked through human writers who consigned to writing whatever he wanted written, and no more. So while the human writers made full use of their own powers and abilities, they were at the same time inspired by the Holy Spirit so that the words of Scripture are written exactly the way God Himself intended. Indeed, the Scriptures contain the very words of God expressed in the words of men.

Since the words of Scripture are inspired by God Himself, the Church has always taught that every part of the Bible is without error. Otherwise “error” in the Bible would have to be attributed to God, who is supreme Truth and who can neither deceive nor be deceived.

Since, therefore, all that the inspired authors, or sacred writers, affirm should be regarded as affirmed by the Holy Spirit, we must acknowledge that the books of Scripture firmly, faithfully and without error, teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the sacred Scriptures.

The Church teaches that the Bible is inerrant in all that the sacred writers intended to affirm. The Church makes the important distinction between the literal sense of Scripture and a literalistic interpretation. The literal sense is “that which has been expressed directly by the inspired authors.” To arrive at the literal sense, one must interpret the text according to the literary conventions of the time and consider the author’s intention, literary genre, and historical context.

For example, when Christ warns that it is better for you to cut your hand off if it causes you to sin (Mark 9:43), He is using a literary metaphor. However, a literalistic reading would take this teaching of Christ at face value and wrongly encourage cutting off portions of the body that cause one to sin! Similarly, when Psalm 73:20 speaks of God awakening, this is not meant to teach that Yahweh actually sleeps at night and gets up in the morning, but rather this figurative language describes how God, after remaining seemingly unresponsive to a situation, begins to take action like a man awaking from sleep.

From the FAQ of Pope Michael, 4th node from bottom, position shared by me (prior to accepting him as Pope):

https://www.vaticaninexile.com/frequently_asked_questions.php

mardi 13 octobre 2020

On the Lighter Side ...

Not by me, just sharing:

The Babylon Bee : Old Earth Creationist Interprets Popcorn Instructions As 'Microwave For 1.7 Million Years'
September 21st, 2017
https://babylonbee.com/news/old-earth-creationist-interprets-popcorn-instructions-microwave-1-7-million-years

6 days = 168 hours ... wait, no 7 days is that = 5040 minutes

5040 / 2.5 = 2016
and
2016 * 1 700 000 years = 3 427 200 000, 3.4 billion years .../HGL

dimanche 11 octobre 2020

And What About the Lowering of Carbon 14 Level?

Creation vs. Evolution : Article and Details, Please? · Baumgardner Gave the Title, I Found the Link · My Tables End In Real Year 1032 (1028) BC, Dated As 940 · And What About the Lowering of Carbon 14 Level? · HGL'S F.B. WRITINGS : Interaction with John Baumgardner

In 760 to 450, carbon levels either drop from 102.573 to 98.798 pmC, or from 102.14 to 98.38.

760 - 450 = 310 years. From 100 pmC to 96.319 pmC.

102.573*96.319/100 = 98.79728787 pmC
102.14*96.319/100 = 98.3802266 pmC

Very precise coincidence with what the carbon levels should have dropped to to explain the diagram.

BOTH the scenario in which 550 BC is a Cambridge halflife date and the one in which it is a Libby halflife date are compatible, with, roughly speaking, no new carbon 14 produced and released in the atmosphere and initial carbon level just falling for samples ranging from 760 to 450. This is an approximation, since there are wiggles between 760 and 450 BC, but the wiggles are indeed around 2500 radiocarbon years or years before present, this being counted uniformly from 1950 back.

So, some new was produced, explaining the peaks, but then decayed.

Let's check if the valleys within the wiggles correspond to the decay theory.

Wait, wrong! Initial carbon content is inversely proportional to radiocarbon years!

Some new was produced, explaining the valleys, but then decayed, explaining the peaks.

From 665 to 595, there is an uneven peak, going from carbon years 2450 to 2540.

1950-2450 = -500
1950-2540 = -590

665-500 = 165 years too young 102.016 pmC
595-590 = 5 years too young or 100.061 pmC

With remaking of Libby to Cambridge?

2450*1.03 = 2523.5
2540*1.03 = 2616.2

1950-2523.5 = -573.5
1950-2616.2 = -666.2

665-573.5 = 91.5 years too young, 101.113 pmC
595-666.2 = -71.2, 71.2 years too old, 99.142 pmC

665 - 595 = 70 years, decay from 100 to 99.157 pmC.

102.016*99.157/100 = 101.15600512 > 100.061 pmC
101.113*99.157/100 = 100.26061741 > 99.142 pmC

Here, for some reason, it would seem that the carbon level has fallen slightly lower within the timespan than only "decay of atmospheric sample" could explain.

100.061*100/102.016 = 98.08363393977
99.142*100/101.113 = 98.05069575623

100 - 99.157 = 0.843
100 - 98.08363393977 = 1.91636606023
100 - 98.05069575623 = 1.94930424377

Counting in pmC points disappearing, more than twice as fast as normal decay. I am somewhat non-plussed.

I'll consult Baumgardner on what he thinks could have happened.

But first, I'll try to extrapolate the half lives extrapolated from this decay ...

5730 / 70 = 81.85714285714
1/81.85714285714 = 0.01221640489
0.5^{0.01221640489} = 0.99156798395
0.5^x = 98.08363393977
0.5^x = 98.05069575623

From there, 1/x*70 = what the halflife would be if calibrated on just that stretch.

But right now, I don't know how to get x, so I'll thank the sites that help me calculate all this (neither of them creationist):

https://www.math.upenn.edu/~deturck/m170/c14/carbdate.html
for carbon level / years

http://calc.name/
for simple calculations.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
XIX Lord's Day after Pentecost
11.X.2020

samedi 10 octobre 2020

My Tables End In Real Year 1032 (1028) BC, Dated As 940

1028 BC: 1.010887 pmC/100, so dated as 938 BC

New Tables
https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2020/08/new-tables.html

Now, what do we get from that Cambridge site?

We have two alternatives, depending on whether radiocarbon years were given in Libby or Cambridge halflife. Let's start with assuming Cambridge halflife, and see where that leads:

760: dated as 550, so 102.573
450: dated as 550, so 98.798
330: dated as 230, so 101.217

But if the radiocarbon years were expressed in Libby dates, here is the same rearranged into Cambridge dates and what that implies

760: dated as 625, so 102.14
450: dated as 625, so 98.38
330: dated as 295, so 100.424

1032 - 760 = 272 years to go from 101.089 pmC to 102.573 pmC or 102.14 pmC? No problem.

The problem in knowledge is of course to know how well the calibration of archaeologists into real dates of provenance of samples is based on good historic dating. I would already here consider dendrochronology rather iffy. But as far as it goes, this is of course at least a slight cofirmation of my tables - with the proviso, the calibration by Cambridge further back than 760 BC is not confirmed by or confirming my own tables.

760 is, providentially, very close to 753 BC - the founding of Rome by Romulus. As I cited Raymond Bloch Les Origines de Rome (probably the 1959 work, not the 1946 one, since citing arcaheology done in 1948), the city carbon dated then to 6th C. BC could be from way earlier ....

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
St. Francis Borgia, SJ
10.X.2020

Creation vs. Evolution

Pages