New overview of bases of C14 dating

These bases are common to the conventual dating of recent 3 millennia usually shared by us Creationists, to conventual dating giving "30 000 years ago" and to my recalibration of less recent millennia, with time implications calibrated between real time since and carbon mirage from start.

Whichever be the nature of the crude carbon time implications, the sizes are the same before calibration, and here is how I get these:

0.5^(1/16) 0.5^(1/256)
0.5^(2/16) 0.5^(2/256)
...
0.5^(15/16) 0.5^(15/256)
0.5^(16/16) 0.5^(16/256)

So, I use fraction 1/16 to 16/16, 1/256 to 16/256 (=1/16) for what power I raise the decimal fraction 0.5 to.

5730*(1/16) 5730*(1/256)
5730*(2/16) 5730*(2/256)
...
5730*(15/16) 5730*(15/256)
5730*(16/16) 5730*(16/256)

Here it is the years of the halflife which are multiplied with the same fractions. These go together. After 5730 years "times 16/16" (which is simply 5730 years), I get 0.5 "to the power of 16/16" (which is simply 0.5 or half) of the C14 level I start with. If I doubled the years, I'd have to raise 0.5 to 2 and get 0.25. But here is simply shorter spans of time, since any one that is longer, I can take 5730 or multiples of it and for the fraction I can halve it.

Long				Short
Years		Fraction		Years		Fraction
358.125		0.9576032807		22.3828125		0.99729605609
716.25		0.9170040432		44.765625		0.99459942348
1074.375		0.87812608019		67.1484375		0.99191008243
1432.5		0.84089641525		89.53125		0.98922801319
1790.625		0.80524516597		111.9140625		0.98655319613
2148.75		0.7711054127		134.296875		0.98388561162
2506.875		0.73841307297		156.6796875		0.9812252401
2865		0.70710678119		179.0625		0.97857206209
3223.125		0.67712777347		201.4453125		0.97592605812
3581.25		0.64841977733		223.828125		0.97328720879
3939.375		0.62092890604		246.2109375		0.97065549476
4297.5		0.5946035575		268.59375		0.96803089675
4655.625		0.56939431738		290.9765625		0.96541339549
5013.75		0.54525386633		313.359375		0.96280297182
5371.875		0.52213689121		335.7421875		0.96019960658
5730		0.5		358.125		0.9576032807
Ultrashort:
5730*(1/512) = 11.19140625				0.5^(1/512) = 0.99864711289

So, suppose I am talking of 5013.75 + 313.359375 + 11.19140625 years, this being 5338.30078125 years, I need to get the fractions 0.54525386633 * 0.96280297182 * 0.99864711289, which is 0.52426181499, or in other words, 5338 years imply 52.426 pmC.

Or, if I talk of 1074.375 - 67.1484375 - 11.19140625 years, which is 996.03515625, I need the fractions, 0.87812608019 / (0.99191008243 * 0.99864711289) which is 0.88648730428, in other words, 996 years imply 88.649 pmC.

Let's check this with carbon 14 dating calculator:

Carbon 14 Dating Calculator
https://www2.math.upenn.edu/~deturck/m170/c14/carbdate.html

I put 5338 years into upper slot of upper square, and calculate the Carbon 14 left as 52.428 pmC. I put 88.649 pmC into upper slot of lower square and get 1000 +/- 5 (and 996 is only 4 less than 1000, so within the margin of error).

By copying the fractions to a paper, I think I have a tool fairly equivalent to the carbon 14 dating calculator. How I calibrate*, and how this relates to what info I think can trump the crude carbon date, is obviously a question of what I think reliable - namely, the Bible.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
St. Sylvester
31.XII.2020

* Creation vs. Evolution : New Tables
https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2020/08/new-tables.html

Circularity between disciplines

I recall the book by Andrews*, Swedish translation of two writings, which were later combined in original English under the new title From Nothing to Nature.

Geologists date fossils taking the evolutionary model into account. Evolutionists date them taking geology into account ... who says the circle is ever broken?

That's one of the contributions to my Creationist thought.

For C14 I have other models, like I know that it works for recent centuries and at least two millennia - and my latest update, not yet into tables, is, a man who was Cro-Magnon by father, Neanderthal by mother (that is by mitochondriae) was dated to 35000 BP. This pushes the carbon date for the Flood forth to 33000 BC. And pushes the carbon content back then up to over 2 pmC. And makes the buildup from then to Babel (Göbekli Tepe) a matter of 9.66 times faster than at present.

For "geological column" it still works very well, and for C14 it is somewhat relevant as one claims independent support from tree rings.

Now, I am not alone in this, here is Alinei:

Renfrew was the first scholar to point out the circularity in the interdisciplinary relationship between archaeology and linguistics, the circularity which had contributed to the crystallization of the traditional theory. Archaeology started from the assumption that the linguistic conclusions regarding the IE prehistory were reliable and based itself on them in elaborating its own ideas. Linguistics relied on archaeological interpretations of IE, considering them independent and objective, although they were derived from linguistics [Renfrew 1987, 18-19]. This critical observation is of great importance because it provides the only possible explanation of the mystery of statements like "as it has been demonstrated by archaeology" or "as it has been demonstrated by linguistics", which are totally unfounded, but which have found their way into innumerable manualsof historical linguistics and archaeology.

Mario Alinei, Merits and Limits of Renfrew's Theory, "Quaderni di Semantica" 27, 2006.
Translation from Italian, with revisions, of Chapter 10 (Meriti e limiti della teoria di Renfrew) of Le origini delle lingue d’Europa. Vol. I. La teoria della continuità, Bologna, Il Mulino, 1996. English translation by S. Kostic.
http://www.continuitas.org/texts/alinei_merits.pdf

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
Christmas Eve
24.XII.2020

* Edgar Andrews.

A second look at part of the evidence

1) Creation vs. Evolution Number of Alleles Question (on Junior High Genetics Level), 2) Correspondence of Hans Georg Lundahl CMI / Carl Wieland on "Genetic Entropy" Theme, 3) Creation vs. Evolution I missed a point in Sanford, 4) A second look at part of the evidence

Second, despite pervasive and demonstrable natural selection among these viruses, the 1918 version of the human H1N1 virus went extinct, twice, at the appearance of a competing strain, apparently due to a lack of robustness caused by mutation accumulation. The first time was in 1957 when a competing serotype appeared. After an accidental reintroduction of human H1N1 in 1976, the second extinction occurred when a recombined version of the swine H1N1 appeared in humans, and after more than 10% of the human H1N1 genome had ‘rusted away’.

More evidence for the reality of genetic entropy
by Robert W. Carter | This article is from
Journal of Creation 28(1):16–17, April 2014
https://creation.com/evidence-for-genetic-entropy

What does this prove?

It proves, not that all organisms indistinctly have genetic entropy, but that H1N1 has entropy in humans.

Why this observation on the implication?

Because the new strains outcompeting them from swine had not suffered as much entropy.

Why would H1N1 suffer more entropy in humans? Immune systems. European races have for centuries been selected for strong immune systems (this backfires with unusual levels of allergy, I think), and this means, un-mutated viruses have less of a chance in immune systems that have already been exposed.

The virus every time it attacks the same host needs a new mutation to slip through, and this means, the more robust viruses that are not mutated are selected against by human immune systems. This means, every virus is likely to get weaker and weaker, at least except those that never leave the host.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
St. Viviane of Rome
2.XII.2020

6078 Words

Genesis 1:1 to 11:32, taking away all verse numbers, has in the Greek LXX (Septuagint) 6078 words.

Iliad A', taking away all line numbers, has in Greek 4522 words.

The way in which Homer was transmitted from the poet himself to Peisistratus' time, or that of his sons, was by poet apprentices learning song after song (24 of the Iliad, 24 of the Odyssey, a few hymns) by heart.

This means, the 6078 words of the Greek LXX would be a possible feat to memorise orally.

So, this is a challenge to CMI (or others interested) : learn the first 11 chapters of Genesis by heart.

I am supposing all of it was transmitted orally, except chapter 1, since it was revealed to Moses on Sinai, while the chapters from 12 to 50 could be preserved in writing in the single Beduin tribe of Abraham and get stocked in Egypt. Homer, to make a scene easy to recall, stated the same thing over and over again, and used long descriptions so the audience (including the apprentice poets) were able to pick it up, the flow was not too fast. The redactors from Adam to Abraham would have instead made each "chapter" short, so it could be repeated over and over again. In fact, Bible chapters were divided by a bishop who was riding on hunt, and who knew all the Bible by heart.

Classically, scrolls of the books of the Bible have always been divided by blank spaces at the end (petuhoth) or middle (setumoth) of the lines. However, Langton is believed to be the one who divided the Bible into the standard modern arrangement of chapters. While Cardinal Hugo de Sancto Caro is also known to have come up with a systematic division of the Bible (between 1244 and 1248), it is Langton's arrangement of the chapters that remains in use today.

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

But while we cannot rely on all pieces of Genesis "chapters 1 to 11" or even "2 to 11" (as the portion is known since Stephen Langton's day) correspond to Langton's chapters, we note that his chapter divisions often coincide with natural divisions of the content.

If on top of that chapter 1 (772 words, like JRRTOLKIEN adds up to 772 in ASCII, but that's before I took out the extra words, 1, 2 ... 31 that just number the verses, which are an even later division), if on top of that chapter 1 was not originally transmitted, but was revealed to Moses, this makes the burden on a memory even shorter. 772 - 31 = 741. 6078 - 741 = 5337. And 5337 is not all that much longer than Iliad A'. It's 118 % of it.

In other words, if Greeks could learn all of the Iliad, patriarchs could learn the reports on what happened from previous patriarchs, plus the ones they were redacting, in both cases by heart.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
St. Nahum
1.XII.2020

Sancti Nahum Prophetae, in Begabar quiescentis.

I missed a point in Sanford

1) Creation vs. Evolution Number of Alleles Question (on Junior High Genetics Level), 2) Correspondence of Hans Georg Lundahl CMI / Carl Wieland on "Genetic Entropy" Theme, 3) Creation vs. Evolution I missed a point in Sanford, 4) A second look at part of the evidence

It is true that most lab experiments do not show clear degeneration. But Scott should realize that anything alive today must have been degenerating slowly enough to still be here, even in a young earth scenario. All three of the downward decay curves I show in my book indicate that degeneration slows dramatically as it becomes more advanced. If a species is alive today and has been around for thousands of years, the rate of degeneration must be very slow (too subtle to measure in most cases). Obviously, genetic degeneration is not going to be clearly visible in most lab experiments.

CMI : Critic ignores reality of Genetic Entropy
by Dr John Sanford | Published: 7 March 2013 (GMT+10)
https://creation.com/genetic-entropy

If genetic entropy is by now (man has been around for 7219 years, if we consider Christ born one week before January 1st AD 1 and this as happened 5199 after creation), very slow, we are not practically concerned with it, just theoretically as an argument about impossibility of evolution.

My concern about Sanford's point is, some people have been getting practically concerned with what they considered as cases of genetic entropy : eugenics, as condemned by Pope Pius XI./HGL