CMI Weakness : "It's not in X, it's in Y"

Example* from today:

Now Plimer is notoriously unreliable (see Plimer Files), and here he claimed that Vilna is in Poland when it’s in Lithuania, and seemed to be unaware that pi is an irrational number, so I don’t take his word for things.

I have no idea on whether Plimer denied that pi is an irrational ratio, but if he said "Vilna is in Poland" that's not simply false and unreliable.

Back in the time when Gedimynas founded Vilnius, it was in Lithuania. Now it is in Lithuania. After the three partitions, it was in Russia, as in Russian Empire. Between 1945 (or subsequent years) and 1990, it was in the Soviet Republic of Lithuania. At a certain point during World War II, it had been under German occupation, except for a very brief interval 1939 to 1940 when it was under Lithuania. The same is true for World War I.

What was it between World War I and World War II?

On 20 February 1922, after the highly contested election in Central Lithuania, the entire area was annexed by Poland, with the city becoming the capital of the Wilno Voivodeship (Wilno being the name of Vilnius in Polish). Kaunas became the temporary capital of Lithuania. ... By 1931, the city had 195,000 inhabitants, making it the fifth largest city in Poland with varied industries, such as Elektrit, a factory that produced radio receivers.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vilnius#Interwar_Poland

Are they among the guys who say things like "Göbekli Tepe is not in Mesopotamia, it's in Turkey"?

I actually fear so!/HGL

(While it's not visible on the map, the sources of both rivers are actually 38° N and some more, while Göbekli Tepe, East of Euphrates, is 37° N and some more, short of 38° N.)

* https://creation.com/bible-contradiction-claims

Width of the Atlantic

Wolgemuth has been posting this on FB:

The diagram below shows the Atlantic Ocean with North America and Africa have been separating at a rate of 1.2 in/yr. So if the earth were 10,000 years old, The Atlantic would be less than 1/4 mile across! What does this mean about young-earth creationism?

Also a screen shot stating:

3,500 miles = 220,000,000 in

220,000,000 in / 180,000,000 years = 1.2 in/year

I would say, the Atlantic did not exist to the time of the Flood.

I will for the purpose of this one ignore the idea of Atlantis, though I'll be back to it at the end.

The Flood was 2958 BC. 2958 + 2024 = 4982 years.

220,000,000 in / 4982 years = 44,159 in / year

If we presumed that the speed has been declining constantly, this means, the Atlantic would have been expanding 3610 feet or a little more than 2/3 of a mile per year back in 467 BC. This is not very credible.

How about, the decline has declined, it both started out more rapidly than 7220 feet per year in the Flood, and declined more rapidly than reaching half distance in 467 BC.

1.2 in / year * 4982 years = 5978.4 = 498.2 feet, less than 10 % of a mile.

220,000,000 in / 5978.4 in = 36,799 times faster.

36,799 * 36,799 = 1,354,166,401* times faster initially? No:

1 354 166 401 * 1.2 = 1,624,999,681.2 inches in the sole year of the Flood.
= 135,416,640.1 feet in the sole year of the Flood.
= 25,647 miles in the sole year of the Flood.

That's wider than it is today.

I think I just might take kind of a Fibonacci view of modelling decreasing velocity of the spreading out of the Atlantic. Peak velocity during the Flood.**

Let the period 4982 years be divided into 27 shorter periods. 184.518518 etc years.

Now take the Fibonacci series to the 27. The sum of all of these is 504228.

220,000,000 in / 504,228 = 436.310,557,922 in

The last period would have had 436.311 inches added, giving 2.365 inches per year as medium since 1840. And even since 1656, since the previous period would also have had 436.311 inches added.

Let this then be the module, multiplied by the diverse Fibonacci numbers.

2957 BC — 2772 BC

1283.7 mi

2772 BC — 2588 BC

835.9 mi

2588 BC — 2403 BC

516.6 mi

2403 BC — 2219 BC

319.3 mi

2219 BC — 2034 BC

197.3 mi

2034 BC — 1850 BC

122 mi

1850 BC — 1665 BC

75.4 mi

1665 BC — 1481 BC

46.6 mi

1481 BC — 1296 BC

28.8 mi

1296 BC — 1112 BC

17.8 mi

1112 BC — 927 BC

11 mi

927 BC — 743 BC

6.8 mi

743 BC — 558 BC

4.2 mi

558 BC — 374 BC

13707 ft, above 2 miles

374 BC — 189 BC

8472 ft, above a mile

189 BC — 5 BC

5236 ft, nearly a mile

5 BC — 180 AD

3236 ft

180 AD — 364 AD

2000 ft

364 AD — 549 AD

1236 ft

549 AD — 733 AD

764 ft

733 AD — 918 AD

473 ft

918 AD — 1102 AD

291 ft

1102 AD — 1287 AD

182 ft

1287 AD — 1471 AD

109 ft

1471 AD — 1656 AD

73 ft

1656 AD — 1840 AD

36 ft

1840 AD — 2025 AD

36 ft

So, is 1283.7 mi / 185 years too much? 7 miles a year. 100 feet a day.*** Too much for a stable world one could live in even far inland way from the Atlantic? Perhaps.

Does it add up?

1283.7 + 835.9 + 516.6 + 319.3 + 197.3 + 122 + 75.4 + 46.6 + 28.8 + 17.8 + 11 + 6.8 + 4.2 = 3465.4 mi
13,707 + 8472 + 5236 + 3236 + 2000 + 1236 + 764 + 473 + 291 + 182 + 109 + 73 + 36 + 36 = 35,851 ft = 6.8 mi

Nearly. Decently close.

So, for precise information on the width of the Atlantic, this is pretty lame. The sum total is too far from 3500 miles. It's just 3472.2 miles.

3472.2 is however the value for 220,000,000 inches. So, no, it's pretty exact, given the input data given. Not pretty lame after all.

What can be done about the 100 feet per day during the time after the Flood? Well, obviously, during the Flood itself, it could have been widening even more than that per day. The more it widened during the Flood, the less it had to widen after the Flood. That's one part.

Another part, what about Atlantis? What if in one go, by the sinking of a North Atlantic quasi continent, or an island larger than Australia, the Atlantic went from two straits of sea water to a huge ocean?

The thing is, The Old World and The New World, on this scenario, would already have been somewhat apart during pre-Flood times.

I think, the width of the Atlantic is no total problem, unless you dogmatise that 1.2 inches per year had to be the speed for all of the time, just because it's the speed we observe now.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
St. Francis of Sales
29.I.2024

* Idea after:

Creation vs. Evolution: Himalayas, ter
https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2020/05/himalayas-ter.html

** Idea after:

New blog on the kid : Avec un peu d'aide de Fibonacci ... j'ai une table, presque correcte
http://nov9blogg9.blogspot.com/2015/10/avec-un-peu-daide-de-fibonacci-jai-une.html

*** 30.48 m per day; 1.27 m per hour; 2.1166666667 cm per minute; 0.3527777778 mm per second

Cheddar Man : Conventional plus a few of my tables

Carbon Date of Ötzi : Conventional plus a few of my tables · Cheddar Man : Conventional plus a few of my tables

First Conventional:

Cheddar Man has been directly radiocarbon dated on two separate occasions, giving calibrated dates of 8540–7990 BC and 8470–8230 BC.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheddar_Man#Archaeological_context

Footnote cites: Meiklejohn, C (2011). "Radiocarbon Dating Of Mesolithic Human remains in Great Britain". Mesolithic Miscellany. 21: 20–58.

I take it, then the second carbon date was a narrowing down of the first. 8470—8230 BC.

Monday 5 October 2015

My very first table:

Datation de Carbone 14, comment ça carre avec la Chronologie Biblique
https://nov9blogg9.blogspot.com/2015/10/datation-de-carbone-14-comment-ca-carre.html

I only now realised how I was supposed to read it. From 2957 to 500 BC, I see the carbon 14 level in the air's carbon content as building up in stages of 1/32 of "n" = "now" = 100 pmC. On, obviously, 1/32 of the timespan of 2457 years. At 25/32 that would give, for 4030 BP, normally, 6080. Instead I make it 6019 (2015 + 4004), in reference to that being when AronRa places Ur ... which I then supposed to be the birthplace of Abraham (4030 = 2015 + 2015). So, where would this place this man? Somewhere between 15/32 and 16/32.

n*25/32		4030		6019
n*24/32		4068
...
n*16/32		4369
n*15/32		4407
...
n*13/32		4482		11930

16/32 = 50 % = 5730 years more = 10099 - 2015 = 8084 BC
15/32 = 46.875 % = 6250 years more = 10657 - 2015 = 8642 BC
(14/32 = 43.75 % = 6850 years more = 11295 - 2015 = 9280 BC)

Saturday 31 October 2015

My Fibonacci table:

Avec un peu d'aide de Fibonacci ... j'ai une table, presque correcte
https://nov9blogg9.blogspot.com/2015/10/avec-un-peu-daide-de-fibonacci-jai-une.html

2778 av. J.-Chr.

40,23593 % + 7550 ans, 10 328 av. J.-Chr.

2599 av. J.-Chr.

62,75068 % + 3850 ans, 6449 av. J.-Chr.

(2778 + 2599) / 2 = 2689 BC
(40.23593 + 62.75068) / 2 = 51.493305 pmC
5500 + 2689 = 8189

(2778 + 2778 + 2599) / 3 = 2718 BC
(40.23593 + 40.23593 + 62.75068) / 3 = 47.74085 pmC
6100 + 2718 = 8818

So, I would have set, for carbon dates 8189 and 8818 BC, surrounding those of Cheddar man, the real dates 2689 to 2718 BC.

Tuesday 14 February 2017

Modified Fibonacci

Table modifiée, analysée par convergence avec l'a priori
https://nov9blogg9.blogspot.com/2017/02/table-modifiee-analysee-par-convergence.html

2733 av. J.-C.

49,279 % + 5850 ans, 8583 av. J.-C.

2688 av. J.-C.

56,3215 %, + 4750 ans, 7438 av. J.-C.

(2733 + 2733 + 2733 + 2688) / 4 = 2722 BC
(49.279 + 49.279 + 49.279 + 56.3215) / 4 = 51.039625

5550 + 2722 = 8272 BC

So, 8583 BC and 8272 BC pretty well surround the limit dates for Cheddar man, making on this view 2733 to 2722 BC the likely real year.

jeudi 13 août 2020

New Tables

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

2556 B. Chr.

0.481415 pmC/100, so dated as 8606 B. Chr.

2534 B. Chr.

0.494539 pmC/100, so dated as 8334 B. Chr.

2511 B. Chr.

0.507242 pmC/100, so dated as 8111 B. Chr.

(2556 + 2534 + 2534) / 3 = 2541 BC
(48.1415 + 49.4539 + 49.4539) / 3 = 49.01643 pmC
5900 + 2541 = 8441 BC

(2534 + 2511 + 2511) / 3 = 2519 BC
(49.4539 + 50.7242 + 50.7242) / 3 = 50.30077 pmC
5700 + 2519 = 8219 BC

Since 8441 is a bit later than 8470, and 8219 a bit later than 8230 BC, the real dates would be a bit later than 2541 and 2519 BC.

lundi 22 janvier 2024

Revisions of New Tables

The Revision of I-II, II-III, III-IV May be Unnecessary, BUT Illustrates What I Did When Doing the First Version of New Tables
https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2024/01/the-revision-of-i-ii-ii-iii-iii-iv-may.html

2573 BC

48.992 pmC, so dated 8473 BC

2556 BC

51.761 pmC, so dated 8006 BC

2573 BC would be the first limit date "8470 BC"

(2573 + 2556) / 2 = 2565 BC
(48.992 + 51.761) / 2 = 50.3765 pmC
5650 + 2565 = 8215 BC

The other one, a bit before 8215 BC, would be a bit before 2565 BC.

Cheddar man's from 2573 to 2565 BC. If this revision holds./HGL

Carbon Date of Ötzi : Conventional plus a few of my tables

Carbon Date of Ötzi : Conventional plus a few of my tables · Cheddar Man : Conventional plus a few of my tables

Here is first conventional:

Using the radiocarbon dating method Ötzi’s age was placed between 5,348-5,298 years, at the end of the European Neolithic.

Cal State East Bay : THE ICE MAN “FOUNDETH”
https://www.csueastbay.edu/museum/pre-exhibit/dna/history-iceman.html

This can be translated as 3348 to 3298 BC.

Monday 5 October 2015

My very first table:

Datation de Carbone 14, comment ça carre avec la Chronologie Biblique
https://nov9blogg9.blogspot.com/2015/10/datation-de-carbone-14-comment-ca-carre.html

I had no clue at all.

Saturday 31 October 2015

My Fibonacci table:

Avec un peu d'aide de Fibonacci ... j'ai une table, presque correcte
https://nov9blogg9.blogspot.com/2015/10/avec-un-peu-daide-de-fibonacci-jai-une.html

2241 av. J.-Chr.

86,26541 % + 1200 ans, 3441 av. J.-Chr.

2062 av. J.-Chr.

91,58056 % + 730 ans, 2792 av. J.-Chr.

Between 2241 and 2062 BC, much closer to 2241.

(2241 + 2241 + 2241 + 2062) / 4 = 2196 BC
(86.26541 + 86.26541 + 86.26541 + 91.5805) / 4 = 87.5941825 pmC

1100 + 2196 = 3296 BC

So, Ötzi would have been from 2196 BC verging towards 2241 BC. But not quite as far back. My own estimate would have been within a closer range than the 50 year range of the conventional carbon daters.

Tuesday 14 February 2017

Modified Fibonacci

Table modifiée, analysée par convergence avec l'a priori
https://nov9blogg9.blogspot.com/2017/02/table-modifiee-analysee-par-convergence.html

1928 av. J.-C.

83,689 % + 1472 ans, 3400 av. J.-C.

Ici

l'épaisseur des années considérées pour calcule est dimidiée, encore une fois:

1883 av. J.-C.

84,882 %, + 1350 ans, 3233 av. J.-C.

Between 1928 BC and 1883 BC.

(1928 + 1883) / 2 = 1905~1906
(83.689 + 84.882) / 2 = 84.2855 pmC

1400 + 1905 = 3305 BC

jeudi 13 août 2020

New Tables

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

1868 B. Chr.

0.841262 pmC/100, so dated as 3318 B. Chr.

1845 B. Chr.

0.845892 pmC/100, so dated as 3245 B. Chr.

3318 already falls within the span, but ... I cannot get closer to 3298 BC without going beyond it, towards 3245.

lundi 22 janvier 2024

Revisions of New Tables

The Revision of I-II, II-III, III-IV May be Unnecessary, BUT Illustrates What I Did When Doing the First Version of New Tables
https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2024/01/the-revision-of-i-ii-ii-iii-iii-iv-may.html

As Ötzi is not on III—IV, but on IV—V, his date is not affected./HGL

Do You Believe Homo Sapiens Underwent a Neurological Mutation to Us?

Here are a few seconds from a video:*

0:02 — 0:21
humans have been the smartest creatures on the planet for a long time but while species appeared to do nothing remarkable over the first 200,000 years has long been a mystery to many in fact the abrupt emergence of human culture over a stunningly short period continues to be one of the great enigmas of human evolution

Oh, yeah?

I suppose this means, a) Homo sapiens has existed for 300 000 years, b) Homo sapiens has been producing human culture for only 100 000 years. Or, if you like, shorten it down even to 240 000 and 40 000.

But, let's not forget, this is not historic memory. This is reconstruction. It's a reconstruction from finds and datings.

Let's reformulate.

a) Homo sapiens skeleta have been found dated to anything from near present to 300 000 BP
b) Homo sapiens skeleta have been found with unambiguous proofs of actual culture, dated to anything from near present to 100 000 years ago.

What can be known immediately about a skeleton that was dated to 150 000 years ago? It was NOT carbon dated.**

Carbon dates have as utmost limit, either 60 — 70 000 BP or even just 50 — 60 000 BP.

I looked it up, it's 55 — 60 000 BP.

So, what can we know about any date that's prior to 60 000 BP?
a) It's not a carbon date.
b) It's still not historic memory, so it's some kind of other date.

There is a very big problem with the other dating methods commonly used in Earth Sciences. None of them has been tested on recent archaeology. None of them can have the half life verified by organic material (bodies, body parts or artefacts) of known historic age. If I want to verify that carbon 14 works, with a halflife of 5730 years, it's pretty easy.

After 500 years, I am supposed to have 94.131 pmC left.*** So, 2024 - 500 = 1524. Plenty of historic material. Was there wood in the throne that Gustav Wasa hade made in 1527, is it preserved? Carbon date that.

Or, did Henry VIII own a tournament shield? Was there wood in that? Carbon date that. For 750 years it's 91.327 pmC, for 1000 years 88.606 pmC, and so on.

By contrast, whatever method one is using to date a Homo sapiens skeleton to 300 000 years ago has never, ever, been used to date historic material of known age.

A pretty common one is K-Ar. And as more rapid cooling of the lava results in more Argon getting trapped, making for bad K-Ar dates, I would simply pose that a K-Ar date of 300 000 BP means the person was covered by a lava layer or buried in mud covered by a lava layer, during the Flood.

The reason (very typically) that a skeleton dated to 300 000 years ago shows no cultural items is, no one had to bury him in the Flood, and his clothes may have been burned by lava as well. The reason a Neanderthal dated 47 000 BP in a Gibraltar cave (not Gorham) is preserved, with cultural items is, the burial actually had a tendency to preserve these even beyond the Flood of Noah.

So, if we believe Young Earth Creationism, we have no need to ask why "for 200 000 years" men supposedly exhibited existance, but not intelligence.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
Conversion of St. Paul
25.I.2024

* https://youtu.be/yendY1ZA9wo?si=LPXJ8fG-WqjDcBPL
** Or else the carbon date was discarded.
*** Apart from the Carbon 14 Dating Calculator I also refer to the calculation: 500 being out of 5730 the fraction 500/5730 (or 50/573), the remainder of carbon would be 50 % or 0.5^(50/573) = 0.9413087854383377 = 94.131 % (pmC = % modern Carbon).

The Revision of I-II, II-III, III-IV May be Unnecessary, BUT Illustrates What I Did When Doing the First Version of New Tables

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 · Tables I-II and II-III and III-IV, Towards a Revision? · The Revision of I-II, II-III, III-IV May be Unnecessary, BUT Illustrates What I Did When Doing the First Version of New Tables · Convergence of Uneven pmC? · [Calculation on paper commented on] · Other Revision of I-II ? · Where I Agree with Uniformitarian Dating Experts

I, II, III, IV are "nodes" = material things which can be carbon dated and also historically dated, archaeology with organic material meeting (mostly) Biblical history.

I—II, II—III, III—IV are "tables" = tables at which divisions of the historic (mostly Biblical) chronology are supplied, from the nodes, with intermediate, probable, carbon 14 levels (counted in "percent modern Carbon" = pmC). The left hand of each states how many years are involved, what carbon decay that normally involves and what compensation that normally involves, so, 100 years normally mean a decay to 98.798 % of the initial value, which means that the normal carbon 14 production is 100 - 98.798 = 1.202 pmC.

The right hand of each calculates how much faster the carbon 14 actually rose, so, 1) initial pmC * decay-remainder percentage = what's left of the original carbon when it ends, 2) that value is subtracted from the final pmC, to get the pmC units added, 3) then that addition is divided by the normal addition for such a time.

If for instance, in 100 years, carbon 14 had risen from 25 pmC to 40 pmC, then 1) 25 pmC * 98.798 % = 24.6995 pmC; 2) 40 pmC - 24.6995 pmC = 15.3005 pmC; and 3) 15.3005 pmC / 1.202 pmC = 12.729,201,331,114,808,7 times faster. During these initial calculations, I'll give the decimals in full, without rounding, to get as exact a value of the rise as possible in each table.

I) 2957 BC 1.628 pmC => 34 000 extra years => 34 000 + 2957 = 36 957 BC = c. 39 000 BP
I - II 2957 - 2607 = 350 95.854 %, compensates normally 4.146 pmC		I - II 1.628 * 95.854 / 100 = 1.56050312 43.438 - 1.56050312 = 41.87749688 41.87749688 / 4.146 = 10.1006987168355041
II) 2607 BC 43.438 pmC => 6900 extra years => 6900 + 2607 = 9507 BC
II - III 2607 - 2556 = 51 99.385 %, compensates normally 0.615 pmC		II - III 43.438 * 99.385 / 100 = 43.1708563 51.76 - 43.1708563 = 8.5891437 8.5891437 / 0.615 = 13.9660873170731707
III) 2556 BC 51.76 pmC => 5450 extra years => 5450 + 2556 = 8006 BC
III - IV 2556 - 1935 = 621 92.763 %, compensates normally 7.237 pmC		III - IV 51.76 * 92.763 / 100 = 48.0141288 82.753 - 48.0141288 = 34.7388712 34.7388712 / 7.237 = 4.8001756528948459
IV) 1935 BC 82.753 pmC => 1550 extra years => 1550 + 1935 = 3485 BC

Now we get to divide each table into intermediate moments in time, and since the death of Noah to the birth of Peleg is 51 years, roughly corresponding to Babel, I will take a third of that, 17 years, as my "module" ... we still need as full decimals as possible right now, bear with me, please.

17 years / 5730 years = 0.0029668411867365

Now we raise 50 % or I'll actually use 0.5 to this value:

0.5^0.0029668411867365 = 0.9979456554564613851

For normal replacement in 17 years, we deal with:

1 - 0.9979456554564613851 = 0.0020543445435386149

Let's translate it to pmC, which, being a percentage, multiplies the value by 100 because percentages automatically involve dividing by 100.

The normal substitution for carbon 14 in 17 years is then 0.20543445435386149 pmC.

Before calculating each table, I then multiply this by the "how much faster" ratio. This is what is added within the table after each multiplication by the 17 year decay, instead of the normal substitution for carbon 14. The result in each place of a table is then used to calculate the extra years and is only after that actually rounded to 3 decimals. The second line of each place only gives the back then carbon 14 content and the carbon date, not the term in between, the extra years as conclusion from the pmC value and as added to real date to give the carbon date.

I - II
0.20543445435386149 * 10.1006987168355041 = 2.075031529485850690578760965727109

2957 BC

1.628 pmC, so dated 36 957 BC

2940 BC

3.7 pmC, so dated 30 240 BC

2923 BC

5.767 pmC, so dated 26 523 BC

2906 BC

7.83 pmC, so dated 23 956 BC

2889 BC

9.889 pmC, so dated 22 039 BC

2872 BC

11.944 pmC, so dated 20 422 BC

2855 BC

13.994 pmC, so dated 19 105 BC

2838 BC

16.041 pmC, so dated 17 988 BC

2821 BC

18.083 pmC, so dated 16 971 BC

2804 BC

20.121 pmC, so dated 16 054 BC

2787 BC

22.154 pmC, so dated 15 237 BC

2770 BC

24.184 pmC, so dated 14 520 BC

2753 BC

26.209 pmC, so dated 13 803 BC

2736 BC

28.23 pmC, so dated 13 186 BC

2719 BC

30.247 pmC, so dated 12 619 BC

2702 BC

32.26 pmC, so dated 12 052 BC

2685 BC

34.269 pmC, so dated 11 535 BC

2668 BC

36.274 pmC, so dated 11 068 BC

2651 BC

38.274 pmC, so dated 10 601 BC

2634 BC

40.271 pmC, so dated 10 134 BC

2617 BC

42.263 pmC, so dated 9717 BC

II - III
0.20543445435386149 * 13.9660873170731707 = 2.869115527441312168292912422926343

As this one is the fastest buildup of all, you may ask why? Well, I think the Younger Dryas added radioactive carbon, and that during the following decades, it's mixing with the air further down.

2607 BC

43.438 pmC, so dated 9507 BC

2590 BC

46.218 pmC, so dated 8990 BC

2573 BC

48.992 pmC, so dated 8473 BC

2556 BC

51.761 pmC, so dated 8006 BC

Here the carbon 14 substitution slows down.

III - IV
0.20543445435386149 * 4.8001756528948459 = 0.986121466055143495675731583494391

2556 BC

51.76 pmC, so dated 8006 BC

2539 BC

52.64 pmC, so dated 7839 BC

2522 BC

53.518 pmC, so dated 7672 BC

2505 BC

54.394 pmC, so dated 7555 BC

2488 BC

55.268 pmC, so dated 7388 BC

2471 BC

56.141 pmC, so dated 7221 BC

2454 BC

57.012 pmC, so dated 7104 BC

2437 BC

57.881 pmC, so dated 6937 BC

2420 BC

58.748 pmC, so dated 6820 BC

2403 BC

59.613 pmC, so dated 6703 BC

2386 BC

60.477 pmC, so dated 6536 BC

2369 BC

61.339 pmC, so dated 6419 BC

2352 BC

62.199 pmC, so dated 6302 BC

2335 BC

63.057 pmC, so dated 6135 BC

2318 BC

63.914 pmC, so dated 6018 BC

2301 BC

64.769 pmC, so dated 5901 BC

2284 BC

65.622 pmC, so dated 5784 BC

2267 BC

66.473 pmC, so dated 5667 BC

2250 BC

67.323 pmC, so dated 5500 BC

2233 BC

68.17 pmC, so dated 5383 BC

2216 BC

69.017 pmC, so dated 5266 BC

2199 BC

69.861 pmC, so dated 5149 BC

2182 BC

70.704 pmC, so dated 5032 BC

2165 BC

71.544 pmC, so dated 4915 BC

2148 BC

72.384 pmC, so dated 4798 BC

2131 BC

73.221 pmC, so dated 4731 BC

2114 BC

74.057 pmC, so dated 4614 BC

2097 BC

74.891 pmC, so dated 4497 BC

2080 BC

75.723 pmC, so dated 4380 BC

2063 BC

76.553 pmC, so dated 4263 BC

2046 BC

77.382 pmC, so dated 4146 BC

2039 BC

78.209 pmC, so dated 4089 BC

2022 BC

79.035 pmC, so dated 3972 BC

2005 BC

79.859 pmC, so dated 3855 BC

1988 BC

80.681 pmC, so dated 3788 BC

1971 BC

81.501 pmC, so dated 3671 BC

1954 BC

82.32 pmC, so dated 3554 BC

1937 BC

83.137 pmC, so dated 3487 BC

Tables I-II and II-III and III-IV, Towards a Revision?

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 · Tables I-II and II-III and III-IV, Towards a Revision? · The Revision of I-II, II-III, III-IV May be Unnecessary, BUT Illustrates What I Did When Doing the First Version of New Tables · Convergence of Uneven pmC? · [Calculation on paper commented on] · Other Revision of I-II ? · Where I Agree with Uniformitarian Dating Experts

I have already noted, my table I begins too early in the carbon "chronology" ....

I = the Flood, and it seems that the carbon date of this event was not 40 000 BP, but 39 000 BP.

Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : So Far Confirming my Theories
https://assortedretorts.blogspot.com/2022/09/so-far-confirming-my-theories.html

33:11 Unlike Toba, this was carbon dated.

39 000 BP - like my carbon date for the Flood.

Except it's 1000 years off.

39 000 BP - 2000 AD = 37 000 BC
37 000 BC - 2957 BC = 34043 extra carbon years.

According to an Earth Science from Australia provided Carbon 14 Calculator, 34 043 years = 1.628 pmC.

I had put my level at 1.4 pmC.

In and of itself, that would concern table I-II only.

But, there seems to be at least a slight revision on Göbekli Tepe's beginning, which is node II, and a further one on node III, end of Göbekli Tepe, which affects both table II-III and table III-IV.

TEPE TELEGRAMS : The Site
https://www.dainst.blog/the-tepe-telegrams/the-research-project/

This immense ruin hill was formed of the debris of monumental constructions dating back to the mid-10th and late-9th/early-8th millenium cal. BC. Göbekli Tepe (i.e. the time between 9500/9250-8000/7750 cal. BC) was first noted as an archaeological site during a combined survey by the Universities of Chicago and Istanbul in the 1960s (Benedict 1980 – external link) due to its remarkable amount of flint flakes, chips, and tools, but the architecture the mound was hiding remained unrecognized until its re-discovery in 1994 by Klaus Schmidt, Murat Akman and Michael Morsch. Excavations started the following year and are still ongoing.

Note, 9500 and 8000 would seem to be the "raw" dates with Cambridge halflife.

So, new values for the first three nodes, according to this:

I) 2957 BC

1.628 pmC => 34 000 extra years => 34 000 + 2957 = 36 957 BC = c. 39 000 BP

II) 2607 BC

43.438 pmC => 6900 extra years => 6900 + 2607 = 9507 BC

III) 2556 BC

51.76 pmC => 5450 extra years => 5450 + 2556 = 8006 BC

This may get incorporated./HGL

PS: the update on Göbekli Tepe spanning more carbon years for the 51 (or 40 ou of 51) real years could be the answer about what happened to atmospheric radiocarbon was affected by the Younger Dryas impact./HGL

Durupınar Site is Geographically Possible, but the Drogue Stones are a Bad Argument

I just saw someone promoting a Wyatt page for the landing place.

I wondered what the coordinates were, and instead of Arzep, I founda Arzap:

Durupınar site : Arzap drogue stones
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Durup%C4%B1nar_site#Arzap_drogue_stones

Now, I'll quote each of the 3 paragraphs. I'll then discuss why this is not a good argument for each.

The Arzap drogue stones are a number of large standing stones found near the Durupınar site by amateur archaeologist Ron Wyatt with the aid of David Fasold and others. Fasold interpreted the artifacts as drogues, stone weights used to stabilize the Ark in rough seas, because they all have a chamfered hole cut at one end as if to fasten a rope to them, and his reading of the Epic of Gilgamesh, the Babylonian mythical account of the flood, suggested to him that such stones were used.[10][27]

The Gilgamesh epic has a Flood story with a very impossible "Ark" — a giant version of a coracle. Not my go-to for sea safety matters on the Ark.

But let's underline a few words:

to stabilize the Ark in rough seas

Rough seas occur only in shallow water. The Schooner Wyoming, which has been touted so much as a refutation of the Ark, despite huge differences, explicit or probable, sank in the Nantucket Sound — a place where the medium depth of water is 9 meters.

Bea Tremblay made the point that rough seas would have destroyed the Ark quickly. I looked up a few things, and it seems her go to was a sea with a depth of 100 fathoms (the Spanish ones being shorter than the English ones).

The Ark would not yet have been in water when the rising waters were only that deep. We find a hint it was built on the highest pre-Flood mountain of the whole earth, I'm quoting chapter 7:

10 And after the seven days were passed, the waters of the flood overflowed the earth. 11 In the six hundredth year of the life of Noe, in the second month, in the seventeenth day of the month, all the fountains of the great deep were broken up, and the flood gates of heaven were opened: 12 And the rain fell upon the earth forty days and forty nights. ... 17 And the flood was forty days upon the earth, and the waters increased, and lifted up the ark on high from the earth. 18 For they overflowed exceedingly: and filled all on the face of the earth: and the ark was carried upon the waters. 19 And the waters prevailed beyond measure upon the earth: and all the high mountains under the whole heaven were covered. 20 The water was fifteen cubits higher than the mountains which it covered.

One not totally stretched reading is, it's after forty days that two things happen at once:

• [T]he waters ... lifted up the ark on high from the earth.
• The water was fifteen cubits higher than [all] the [high] mountains which it covered.

Probably the waters kept increasing after that, but Noah had no way to know exactly how much. For the moment when the Ark started floating, it would have been fifteen cubits known from the water line.

In other words, once the water covered the mountain, which was as high as or higher than any other mountain on earth, by 15 cubits, the ark popped up to match the new height of the water level. It makes perfect sense if the water line was 15 cubits up.

Everything outside that mountain would have been lower and already covered by lots more water than 15 cubits. Unlike the mountain which was flooded after 40 days, the plane outside was flooded after only seven. In other words, the Ark was not risking any shallows. Until obviously, the landing, which may have been somewhat rough.

Drogue stones were the equivalent of a storm anchor on ancient ships. They have been found in the Nile and elsewhere in the Mediterranean area, and like the stones found by Wyatt and Fasold, they are heavy and flat with a hole for tying a line at one end. Their purpose was to create drag in the water or along shallow sandy bottoms: the stone was attached to one end of a boat, and the drag produced would cause the bow or stern to face into the wind and wind-blown waves.[10]

Let me underline:

to create drag in the water or along shallow sandy bottoms:

This was neither needed nor possible during the global Flood.

A geological investigation of samples from the stones, published by geologist Lorence Collins in co-authorship with their original discoverer David Fasold, found that they are of local rock and thus could not have been brought from Mesopotamia, the Ark's supposed place of origin.[17] Similar stones found throughout ancient Armenia are recognised as pagan "holy stones" converted to Christian use by the addition of crosses and other Christian symbols. Many are found in Christian cemeteries, as these were.[26]

For my part, I don't see why the Ark would be from Mesopotamia. The Gilgamesh epic says that, but then that is probably to glorify Shuruppak, which clearly existed after the Flood, even after Abraham, and did so before the tablets we have of Gilgamesh were written. Insofar as the Ark was built on a very high mountain, Armenia could make sense. However, I think the present mountain range of Armenia is post-Flood. In fact, if it had been in place, exactly as now, even a high mountain in it would have been a bad place to build the Ark, since the there were too many other mountains near by.

If you ask me where I think the Ark was built, I'd say Spain or Russia, as in Altai. In both places you had Neanderthals and Denisovans (in Spain referred to as Heidelbergian or Antecessor, for the Denisovans) before the Flood, which makes either a likely place of origin for Noah's inlaws. That makes either of them likely. Theologically it is interesting that neither of the places has a majority of Protestants in the population. I favour a mountain which was scraped off the place and left the high plain known as the Meseta in Spain.

Back to the landing place. Durupınar Site is in the Mountains of Armenia, so is Mount Judi. Durupınar Site is East of Göbekli Tepe, so is Mount Judi. Both places match Genesis 8:4. If Babel is Göbekli Tepe, both also match Genesis 11:2, with the correct translation of miqqedem. If Babel is geographically near Classical Babylon, neither does, you'd have to go as far East in Armenia as Arzak to find a place from which the voyage there would be a voyage from the East, and even then it would be more North-South than East-West.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
Pope St. Marcellus
16.I.2024

Romae, via Salaria, natalis sancti Marcelli Primi, Papae et Martyris; qui, ob catholicae fidei confessionem, jubente Maxentio tyranno, primo caesus est fustibus, deinde ad servitium animalium cum custodia publica deputatus, et ibidem, serviendo indutus amictu cilicino, defunctus est.

He's the guy Marcel Lefebvre was named for./HGL

PS, the following image is precisely how you should not imagine the Ark in the Flood. Unlike the following picture, the Ark was not a boat, and the Flood was not a storm in a coastal region./HGL

Credits to a video about / by Hancock, 1 min 36 sec in:
https://youtu.be/MvThRpP8MTw?si=IuCPRMNjGHwR_A6W&t=96

Funnel Beaker, Corded Ware, Bell Beaker, Dates

EUpedia, partly accessed via this video:

German DNA History 🇩🇪🧬
Ancestralbrew | 10 June 2023
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rNIwtJEPqa0

Gives:

Funnel Beaker a) 4200 — d) 2650
Corded Ware b) 3000 — e) 2350
Bell Beaker c) 2900 — f) 1800

To recalibrate the dates Biblically within this framework:

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

The following comes close enough to my mind, I have avoided to get as far away as fifty years from the target:

A) (2041+2019)/2=2030 (76.6964+77.8962)/2=77.2963 2150 + 2030 = 4180		D) (1700+1678+1678)/3=1685 (87.575+89.4653+89.4653)/3=88.8352 980 + 1685 = 2665
B) 1778 85.976 1250 + 1778 = 3028		E) (1655+1633)/2=1644 (91.4498+93.3283)/2=92.38905 650 + 1644 = 2294
C) (1756+1734+1734+1734)/4=1739.5 (86.4346+86.8913+86.8913+86.8913)/4=86.777125 1150 + 1739.5 = 2889.5		F) (1588+1566)/2=1555 (97.068+97.441)/2=97.2545 230 + 1555 = 1785

Apart from reducing an important part of European pre-history from 4200 BC to 1800 BC to the lesser span of 2030 BC to 1740 BC, 2400 years reduced to 290 years, 8 times less extended, I have also shown how my tables work, since part of what is not shown is explicitated in these calculations. Line 1 of each is the Biblical year. Line 2 of each is the carbon level back then (and not the one remaining right now), Line three is a sum, first the extra years resulting from the carbon level being back then lower than 100 pmC, then the real year, which added together give the carbon dated year.

Let's check. This time we'll do a date involving the age up to now and the remaining carbon now. We'll take the oldest.

2030+2024 = 4054
61.238*77.2963/100=47.334708194
6200 old - 2024 AD = 4176 BC

So, the apparent age is close enough to what it's supposed to be./HGL

Do I Reject Natural Selection?

I'm writing this on St. Genevieve's Day, Jan. 3, but leaving previous posts on top to honour Christmas.

Some people don't go to my main blog and see me honour Christmas there, this year I had two Christmas themed things that were also Genesis themed, so, I can show the guys who read only this one, I do honour Christmas.

Here is CMI:

The fact of natural selection
First published 16 Nov 2014; last updated 23 Nov 2023.
https://creation.com/natural-selection-fact-contra-guliuzza

Here are a few featured positions commented on in this post:

• Guliuzza believes God could have programmed kinds to be able to do "continuous environmental tracking";
• he denies that the term "natural selection" is appropriate, since it personifies nature, which is undue.
• CMI accepts natural selection as being at work in preserving different genes in different environments.
• CMI accepts epigenetics as partially fulfilling the role of "continuous environmental tracking".

Here is the argument by CMI for natural selection:

CMI scientists are unanimous that natural selection is a fact, and part of this fallen creation where unfit creatures die and sometimes even become extinct. Creationists proposed it before Darwin, so why should we be fearful of the term, and let Darwinists monopolize this phenomenon? So our major books like The Greatest Hoax on Earth? and Evolution’s Achilles’ Heels each have a whole chapter explaining this.

Now, I accept epigenetics and reject other options for "continuous environmental tracking. However, this is not directly telling us why kinds diverge into different species that keep different genes.So, it is not really the issue.

But I also accept Guliuzza's rejection of the term "natural selection" for two reasons:

• "nature" is quasi personified into an agent
• it involves "survival of the fittest".

Instead I propose "providential selection", that is God is constantly using the kinds for his purposes, and on some occasions letting the fittest survive is not the means that best serves God's purpose.

Psalm 103 (as it is in Catholic Bibles), also a go to for Geostasis,* has a few verses.

20 Thou hast appointed darkness, and it is night: in it shall all the beasts of the woods go about: 21 The young lions roaring after their prey, and seeking their meat from God. 22 The sun ariseth, and they are gathered together: and they shall lie down in their dens.

Often when lions hunt gazelles, the weakest and naturally slowest gazelle is the one caught, which means in a way the culling of the least fit. However, this would not necessarily mean gazelles are all the time primed to be fitter and fitter, it would, if totally systematic, mean that God in that way preserves a gazelle population from degrading.

However, there are occasions when this is clearly not so, since the slowest gazelle might be slowest for being born last. It could have excellent material genetically and epigenetically. But it would on such an occasion still be lost. Or the gazelle caught could have stumbled on an obstacle, if the fright by the lions came very abrupt for all the gazelle herd, each gazelle off-tracked when it came to detecting stumbling blocks, it would be a matter of providence that this particular gazelle was the one which took the path that led to the stumbling.

There is even a Biblical example:

Genesis 22:13 Abraham lifted up his eyes, and saw behind his back a ram amongst the briers sticking fast by the horns, which he took and offered for a holocaust instead of his son. 14 And he called the name of that place, The Lord seeth. Whereupon even to this day it is said: In the mountain the Lord will see.

If you have any sense of what sacrifice means, it is inconceivable that God was culling a herd of its least fit member, rather the ram had the absolute best genetic material, and was not transmitting more of it, when Abraham was done.

So, instead of "natural selection" I propose a "providential selection" which often, but far from always, coincides somewhat with what "natural selection" would predict.
/Hans Georg Lundahl

* It's neutral between flat earth Geostasis in a boxed universe that could be vertically assymetric, and globe earth Geostasis in a globe shaped or orange shaped universe, which by definition means Geocentrism. I hold to the latter.

Joy to the World

Yes, He will one day give us New Heavens and a New Earth, but on this old one, there are thorns for a reason. However, Someone was born to end them:

No more let sins and sorrows grow,
Nor thorns infest the ground;
He comes to make His blessings flow
Far as the curse is found,
Far as the curse is found,
Far as, far as, the curse is found.

Joy to the World | Isaac Watts
https://library.timelesstruths.org/music/Joy_to_the_World/

Hat tip to Calvin Smith:

This Video About Christmas Will OPEN Your Eyes
Answers in Genesis Canada | 21 Dec. 2023
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EC6i-cFX-RA