A Fault in my Tables? A Plan for Improvement?

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

I cite IRC, article 117, John Baumgartner : Carbon Dating Undercuts Evolution's Long Ages

Routinely finding 14C/12C ratios on the order of 0.1-0.5% of the modern value—a hundred times or more above the AMS detection threshold—in samples supposedly tens to hundreds of millions of years old is therefore a huge anomaly for the uniformitarian framework.

Flood was 4973 years ago. That means since the Flood there has been a real decay of 54.795 %.

This means that the present values should be divided by 0,54795 to get what they were at the Flood.

0.00182498403138972533990327584634
or 0.182498403138972533990327584634 % or roughly 0.1825 %

0.00912492015694862669951637923168
or 0.912492015694862669951637923168 % or roughly 0.9125 %.

However, I had marked 3.90625 % as my estimate of medium value of organic material at Flood. Or in other essays 3.22265625 % or 4.6875 %.

This last number was from 3/64, a medium between 4/64 or 1/16 = 3 halflives extra = Flood items dated at 20,000 years and 2/64 or 1/32 = 4 halflives extra, beyond that.

This was based on an estimate in CMI. For instance note 4, quoted here:

A sample purporting to be from the Flood era would not be expected to give a ‘radiocarbon age’ of about 5,000 years, but rather 20,000–50,000 years. Indeed, that is consistently what one obtains from specimens of oil, gas and fossil wood from layers allegedly ‘millions of years’ old. The reason is: radiocarbon dating assumes that the current 14C/12C ratio of about 1 in a trillion (after adjusting for the Industrial Revolution) was the starting ratio for the objects dated. But this ratio would have been much smaller before the Flood due to the fact that the earth had a much stronger magnetic field. Because pre-and para-Flood objects would have started with a much lower initial ¹⁴C/¹²C ratio, the measured amount today would also be smaller, and be (mis-)interpreted as much older. See What about carbon dating? Chapter 4, The Creation Answers Book. Return to text.

On this page:

Triceratops soft tissue
More dinosaur soft tissue found and carbon dated
Joel Tay | Published: 19 November 2016 (GMT+10) | Feedback archive → Feedback 2016
http://creation.com/triceratops-soft-tissue

I admit, I do not know which of the ballparks (20,000 years to 50,000 years or 0.1825 to 0.9125 %) is more correct, and also, I was perhaps overdoing the amount of leaning toward 20,000 years rather than 50,000 years.

Also, I do not know exactly where to put Tower of Babel in the LXX version of the Biblical chronology used by St Jerome. As Masoretic/King James based has 325 years between Flood and Abraham, it has ToB very early after Flood. I have on site a table in which Peleg lived the years Anno Diluvii 529 - 868. But it is not the same text that St Jerome had, since it has Abraham even further away from Flood than in St Jerome's version.

1070 – 1245 Anno Diluvii in this table, but the Chronology of St Jerome has Abraham born Anno Diluvii 942. So, I don't know exactly how much I should squeeze in lifetime of Peleg. Perhaps St Jerome simply did not count Cainan, since the difference of 128 years for Abraham's birthday correspond to the 265-135 difference for when Shelah was born, if Arphaxad's son was Shelah himself or Cainan.

But I don't know for certain that this is how St Jerome counted, though in that case, he would have had a predecessor in Sextus Julius Africanus, after what I have read somewhere. On the other hand, Sextus Julius Africanus is "by the wikipedia(ns)"* said to have come to the conclusion Earth was 5500 years old at Incarnation:

Africanus wrote Chronographiai, a history of the world in five volumes. The work covers the period from Creation to the year AD 221. He calculated the period between Creation and Jesus as 5500 years, placing the Incarnation on the first day of AM 5501 (our modern March 25 1 BC).[7] (Note that this dating implies the that the birth of Jesus was in December, nine months later.) This method of reckoning led to several Creation eras being used in the Greek Eastern Mediterranean, which all placed Creation within one decade of 5500 BC.

In St Jerome's chronology, Christ is born "Anno a creatione mundi, quando in principio Deus creavit caelum et terram, quinquies millesimo centesimo nonagesimo nono" (Anno Mundi 5199). The Christmas chronology does NOT date His Birth after Tower of Babel, so I don't know exactly where to put it. Obviously, the confusion of tongues could be chronologically confusing as well. And, unlike Creation and Flood, it was not the kind of act of God which directly led up to Incarnation. Rather it led up to certain aspects of praeparatio evangelica, which are intimated by the words "Olympiade centesima nonagesima quarta; ab urbe Roma condita, anno septingentesimo quinquagesimo secundo; anno Imperii Octaviani Augusti quadragesimo secundo, toto Orbe in pace composito,".

I would, as mentioned in other articles, identify Tower of Babel with two things:

• in reconstruction, an attempt not at a super sky scraper, but at a rocket, of which lower parts are thrown off and do not reach into heaven; but with the bad plan of fuelling it with Uranium, which God prevented;
• in archaeology, probably, Göbekli Tepe, on which some have stated it looks like a launching ramp. And I agree.

However, this means a certain date perhaps a bit before 529 after Flood, perhaps a bit before just 401 after Flood, would correspond to a carbon date of 8000 BC for when it was abandoned. With deduction of 401 from Flood reaching back BC, we get an extra of 5428 years, which is a carbon 14 percentage of 51.86 %.

This means, carbon levels had to rise from 0.5475 % to 51.86 % in 401 years.

In my Fibonacci inspired rise table, I had 358 years for a rise from 3.90625 % to 62.75068 %. And this meant, supposing only direct proportionality to be taken into account was cosmic radiation, a cosmic radiation per year at Flood of 20 times the present, which is a little more than the total background radiation of Princeton. With a rise to only 51.86 % in a somewhat longer time, this is of course even lower.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
All Souls' Day
2.XI.2016

* That anonymous lot!

Does CMI Understand Theory of Knowledge?

1) Creation vs. Evolution : Does CMI Understand Theory of Knowledge? · 2) HGL's F.B. writings : Exchange with Robert Carter, Starting All Saints' Day

A quote from today's article.

Thus, we have suddenly been besieged by people who have huge questions about things that are easily shown to be true or not. “Did the United States land multiple astronauts on the moon?” “Are we at the absolute center of the universe?” Or “Is the earth actually global?”

These types of questions are different from “Did humans evolve from ape-like ancestors?” or “Is the earth billions of years old?” In fact, and as anyone who has spent time following us knows, we can divide most questions into two camps: operational vs. historical science.

Robert Carter in CMI : How to think (not what to think)
by Robert Carter | Published: 1 November 2016
http://creation.com/how-to-think

No, all non-historic questions are not automatically operational science.

Also, if I did know you distinguish operational science from historic, I did not yet know, despite following you a long time, that you were denying or minimising the existence of other types of question.

Saint Thomas Aquinas was once answering on the limits of Science. He excluded : contingents that are far off, in the past or hidden.

First criterium, it is a contingent. Supposing there had been a date millions of years ago, or going back to the date for creation of Adam (presumably 5199 BC), two plus two was four back then, and we can know that today because it is necessary. We don't need to have been around in order to know it was so back then.

Second criterium, one of three alternative scenarios : in the past, hidden or far off.

Of these, it seems that CMI, as per the words of Robert Carter, acknowledges only "in the past" as contingents on which we cannot properly speaking have science, that is "cognitio necessaria per causas", a necessarily true knowledge or apprehension, by the four causes (the intrinsic dividing into formal vs material, and extrinsic into final vs efficient).

Too bad.

Now, of the three questions, one is indeed "operational science". Earth is a globe. But is it so for the reasons given?

For example, if the earth was flat and spinning about the North Pole, one can easily explain why the stars rotate counter-clockwise around the north star. But this is also explained with a spherical earth, so this is a “zone II” argument. However, and this is the kicker, flat-earth theory cannot explain why stars rotate clockwise about the southern pole for stargazers in the southern hemisphere. This is simply not possible unless the earth is indeed a rotating sphere.

For one thing, Robert Carter is mixing the question of Earth being a globe or flat with the other question what, of Earth or Heaven is implied in the diurnal rotation.

Whether Earth is indeed Flat or a Globe may well be decided by the Southern Cross, and stars rotating around it, but that does NOT indicate it is really Earth that is rotating and stars that are standing (relatively) still. As far as I know Flat Earth community, they seem to think Southern Cross is a Jesuit hoax, easy to perpetrate when Chile and Argentina are under the Spanish. I am not Anticatholic and do not share that kind of conspiracy thinking. 500 years since Magellan or so, rather soon, is a bit long for being able to perpetrate a hoax repeatedly.

What is rotating can come under two headings, rationally.

Either, what we see on Earth. In that case the case is clear, Earth is not rotating. Heaven is.

Or, what could be verified from very far off, if we were watching "our solar system" from the fixed edge of the Universe. And in that sense it falls under "contingents that are far off", to any man except those in Heavenly Jerusalem (Our Lord, Our Lady, possibly St John, probably not even Henoch and Elijah, since they are probably in a lower Heaven).

But this is masked by the fact that the question is not one of past fact, but of continually repeated fact. And by CMI touting a dichotomy into TWO categories, operational and historic, ONLY. And the question, as not past but continually repeated in the present, can be easily seen as not historic. It does not follow it is operational.

Is it a least a question where necessity by causes helps out? No. God was free to create the universe any way He wanted to and make it appear any way He wanted to. If anything, this does not suggest we can decide it by "necessities inherent in creation" or in created realities (like those trying to decide it on Newtonian laws of movement, as if they gave an exhaustive explanation on why things move), it suggests we can have a certain moral certitude, based on God making it look same way as it actually is, because He is truthful.

The third question, whether men ever walked on the moon the last few decades, is in fact historic.

It is contingent, since any trace of man walking on the moon could also have been fabricated. See how Star Trek, Star Wars and a few more were made. It is also historic, since, whatever might have been the case back then, the last thirty years man has as little been repeating putting men on the Moon as God is ever going to repeat the Flood. So, it falls Under the heading of past contingent fact and on these we cannot have (at least positively) a "certain knowledge, necessary, through the four causes", but only a historic knowledge, namely by testimony and by evaluation of how trustworthy it seems.

Can it be evaluated negatively? Well, man could have been propelled past the Van Allen radiation belt, but could he have done so without the radiation causing temporal or permanent discomfort or even damage to the bodies of the astronauts? In fact this is slightly beyond me, since I am up to now no expert on either how broad the belt is, or how fast the rocket went or how long man can be exposed to how much radiation without harm or how much the material in rocket and perhaps space suits would have shielded them. But as far as I can see, this could be a real counterargument, by necessary knowledge from causes. As long as we don't have news of any medical problems about the astronauts.

So, Robert Carter can be happy I am not his professor in Theory of Knowledge, since if I had been, he would not have had top grades.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
All Saints
1.XI.2016

Graham Hancock had sth to Say on Göbekli Tepe

Creation vs. Evolution : 1) Henry Makow wrong about OT · 2) Graham Hancock had sth to Say on Göbekli Tepe · Φιλολoγικά/Philologica : 3) Stonehenge and Göbekli Tepe?

Graham Hancock had sth to Say on Göbekli Tepe · Revisiting a Tablet in Ur · Clay Tablet. Catalog number AO-6018

Never mind he misspells it Gobekli Tepe. Here is the link:

Gobekli Tepe image on Sumerian tablet?
Graham Hancock | Published 17th May 2016
https://grahamhancock.com/gobekli-tepe-image-on-sumerian-tablet/

And I will be giving two quotes on dates, and comment as per my recalibration of C14 method.

Gobekli Tepe itself was founded around 9600 BC and deliberately buried about a thousand years later after which it remained completely unknown and untouched by later cultures until the excavations of the German Archaeological Institute began in the second half of the 1990’s.

9600 BC - 8600 BC - Carbon dates, I presume? I'll use my Fibonacci table*.

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
0179 real years appear as

10328
06449
03879 carbon dated years

3879:1000 = c. 4.

179:x = 4?

179 = 4x
179:4 = 4x:4
45 = x

So, was GT perhaps on stage for 45 years? Or were earliest times of it not recorded by any organic remains from them? Strictly non-organic ones can't be carbon dated.

Early Sumerian tablet discovered by Madeleine Daines ... Uruk V (3500 - 3350 BC), five thousand years after etc. [I am assuming pictorial accuracy is good enough, comparably to the usual standard on such tablets. It is not all like but not all unlike, but rather blurred on tablet.]

8600 BC to 3500 BC. Still Carbon dates, I presume.

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.

2420 av. J.-Chr.

76,66562 % + 2200 ans, 4620 av. J.-Chr.

2241 av. J.-Chr.

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

2778
2241
0537 real years appear as

10328
03441
06887 carbon dated years

6887:5100 = 1,350392156862745
537:1,350392156862745 = 398 years (rounding off, since years count as units)

So, the tablet was not made 5100 years after they covered GT, but only 398 years after it.

Short enough time to keep a tradition going - especially if GT was, as I presume, a "Cape Canaveral" type Tower of Babel. Especially if its project leader was being elevated to the status of a god in the meantime.

Some things get less mysterious when the time perspective is radically shortened. Precisely as two exoplanets (presumed comparable in size to Earth) having years around their stars of only days become less mystical if both star and planet in each case are closer and smaller.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
St Luke the Gospeller**
18.X.2016

* It is so named because one parameter in deciding the successive additions of C14 to athmosphere, counted along with deterioration in same period (each time from 100% of what is already there to 97.8572%, thirtysecond root of 50%), one of the parameters is multiplied by a Fibonacci series starting c. 2500 years ago and rising back towards Flood. Since 610 is a Fibonacci number, the first rise involves one addition which is 610 times as great as the ones about 2500 years ago. The next one is only 377 times as great and so on. I am sorry, but I forgot the exact details apart from that.

** In Bithynia natalis beati Lucae Evangelistae, qui, multa passus pro Christi nomine, obiit Spiritu Sancto plenus. Ipsius autem ossa postea Constantinopolim translata sunt, et inde Patavium delata.

Saint Augustine Again

The very quote which Galileo used.

St Augustine as quoted

It is to be held as an unquestionable truth that whatever the sages of this world have demonstrated concerning physical matters is in no way contrary to our Bibles, hence whatever the sages teach in their books that is contrary to the holy Scriptures may be concluded without any hesitation to be quite false. And according to our ability let us make this evident, and let us keep the faith of our Lord, in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom so that we neither become seduced by the verbiage of false philosophy nor frightened by the superstition of counterfeit religion.

Galileo's words after quote

From the above words I conceive that I may deduce this doctrine That in the books of the sages of this world there are contained some physical truths which are soundly demonstrated, and others that are merely stated; as to the former, it is the office of wise divines to show that they do not contradict the holy Scriptures And as to the propositions which are stated but not rigorously demonstrated, anything contrary to the Bible involved by them must be held undoubtedly false and should be proved so by every possible means.

Now if truly demonstrated physical conclusions need not be subordinated to biblical passages, but the latter must rather be shown not to interfere with the former, then before a physical proposition is condemned it must be shown to be not rigorously demonstrated─and this is to be done not by those who hold the proposition to be true, but by those who judge it to be false.

Quoted here from on the Stanley Jaki blog : Galileo on Science & the Bible
http://stanleyjaki.blogspot.com/2016/04/galileo-on-science-bible.html

Well, for one thing, Galileo's theses about geokinetism and heliocentrism (the latter in an absolute sense now abandoned by mainstream science) were shown not to have been rigorously demonstrated, before they were condemned in connexion with his first book on the matter in 1616, and therefore also before the next condemnation, in connexion with Galileo himself being a suspect in 1633.

Furthermore, the not rigorous demonstration back then has not been supplemented with a more rigorous one since.

And for another thing, Galileo seems a bit mistrusting about clarity of Bible, so that St Augustine's liberty to start either way, the Christian confronted with un-Biblical or apparently such matters being free to chose where he first wants to seek the error, is here being shifted to a kind of priority of the physical or generally speaking scientific research.

I think this wrong.

I think someone who does correctly condemn a physical thesis as un-Biblical even before investigating the physical evidence, because the Bible is sufficiently clear, will defintely be rewarded for the confidence by later finding the physical evidence insufficient for the thesis he condemned.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
Feast of St Luke
the Gospeller
18.X.2016

Henry Makow wrong about OT

Creation vs. Evolution : 1) Henry Makow wrong about OT · 2) Graham Hancock had sth to Say on Göbekli Tepe · Φιλολoγικά/Philologica : 3) Stonehenge and Göbekli Tepe?

Somewhere he [Makow] wrote that the God of the OT is not God, but an egregore. Context was about Judaism, where the non-OT book was gong to be described as worse. But even for OT, he considered the God it presents as "not God, but an egregore".

I had to look that up.

You see, I am not a specialist in esoterica.*

Egregore means emanation of a collective mind.

There are individual minds, there is collectively shared mind content, but there are no collective minds, and therefore no emanations of collective minds, no egregores.

Moreover, believing there are such things as egregores is the kind of thing which Cabbalistic philosophies (not that I know such beyond generalities and a few details I didn't manage to avoid hearing about) are more prone to than Christianity is. In fact, Christianity doesn't believe such things. God is creator of all spirits as well as of all material objects and also all living things with a spirit in them. There is no room for egregores.

Moreover, if this were true, where would that leave Our Lord Jesus Christ?

Would He be an egregore of a newer community? Or would He have been mistaken about the God of the OT?

In the latter case, how would He be divine, how would He be God?

In the former case, how is that different from the old heresy of docetism?

So, for the sake and honour of Our Lord Jesus Christ, do not call the God of the OT an egregore.

Now, perhaps Makow is the kind of half Christian who doesn't really care about the honour of God Who Became Man for our sake.

Seeing he's of Jewish origin and these often do convert to half Christian rather than fully Christian theology, it would not be surprising.

However, no. I cannot share the sentiment.

Christ is True God and True Man. If He said the God of the OT is God, if He called Him Father, that is good enough for me.

Now, perhaps Makow meant God (in OT) was behaving more like a reflex of Jewish good but also bad traits than as one could expect from God.

But the fact remains, God is God.

It is our expectations which fall short of Him, not the other way round. Otherwise He would be just OUR egregore. He's not.

I can with full honesty, intellectually and morally, say that whatever passage in OT gave this impression, the passage can be understood in a better way.

God kills off all men because some are wicked? except Noah of course?

Or God buries a world contaminated with radiactivity in the waves, so as to give post-Flood humanity a better future (for some Millennia) than a third killed off by nuking, if not more.

God disperses tongues because jealous?

Or God avoids a second nuke disaster just after previous ones, by depriving a tyrant of the men he had come to use as tools.

You see, I certainly DO think and of whole heart believe every thing in the Bible is inerrant. Also, that every positive thing all Church Fathers agree on about it is infallible. But I do not believe it is always straightforward.

Here are two verses or passages that hide something, until you stumble across the solution, if mine is the right one.

[5] And God seeing that the wickedness of men was great on the earth, and that all the thought of their heart was bent upon evil at all times, ... [11] And the earth was corrupted before God, and was filled with iniquity. [12] And when God had seen that the earth was corrupted (for all flesh had corrupted its way upon the earth,) [13] He said to Noe: The end of all flesh is come before me, the earth is filled with iniquity through them, and I will destroy them with the earth.

I think this wickedness is described in more historic detail - but without the theological understanding - in Mahabharata. That would argue atomic bombs and waste were used as weapons. Not just perpetrators, but also victims would be bending their heart - that is intellect - on wickedness all the time. And so much flesh would have been sacrificed to wicked perversions, even among the most innocent ones. That too, even more, was a hopeless situation in which death, in itself the last enemy, in God's wise hands (and not in someone else's) became a deliverer.

But suppose there could have been a general repentance (and some did repent while waters rose), it would have required a physical miracle to clean up the radioactive waste if this scenario is true. It came, but in a punishing way.

[4] And they said: Come, let us make a city and a tower, the top whereof may reach to heaven: and let us make our name famous before we be scattered abroad into all lands.

A first note : Nimrod didn't first get power, then become a tyrant, then foist this on them. THEY decided, and he became a tyrant when carrying out their will, democratical or oligarchal as the decision might have been. It was certainly in a sense popular - for the moment.

But more, it does not say "a tower reaching into heaven", but "a tower, the top whereof may reach to heaven".

Cape Canaveral. Rocket on ramp looks like top of the overall tower. Rocket itself looks like a tower, and only its top is finally going into space.

Now, we are using H₂ as rocket fuel. We are so far not provoking nuke disasters, whatever else we may provoke by this. But imagine Nimrod hadn't known about this use of H₂. Imagine he only came across U as an idea. U as in Uranium, that thing which some still recalled not just the effects of in the later poem Mahabharata, but the causes of.

Imagine he had come across the idea this could cause a disaster on earth, but given up or even not cared to contemplate to warn people. "Oh, some people left on earth would no doubt die" - one can imagine him saying - "but would it matter for Humanity if instead of Earth we could invade and live in Heaven?"

And he didn't know, in order to get past the pearly gates alive, you need Sanctifying Grace. And he and the hopeful aspiring astronauts who were planning on knocking them down and chasing God from above (yes, Satan as seen in Isaiah inspiring his and their fury) most certainly didn't have it and would have died if passing the Pearly Gates that way.

God prevented not just this disaster from happening, but even another attempt from being made the next, say 4500 years. Up to now.

No, that is NOT an egregore of a traumatised nation which reflects their pettiness in some things. Not even an egregore in the psychological sense the word might also carry.

It is a God who can act with utmost concern for the wellbeing of His creatures, and then stand back not taking full credit for it until, millennia later, some geek with lots more curiosity than goodwill, lots more learning than holiness, gets caught in a debate about this - and gives an answer, a guess.

A geek who might not have thought even this far, if he hadn't been educated by reading Tolkien's Akallabêth. One of the best novels there are about what Flood, what Tower of Babel and Nimrod, what end of days and Matthew 24 are all about.

But a geek who has - at least in theory, when not put to the test - full confidence in the God of the OT being the loving Father - or the loving Son, the Saviour. His answer to Nimrod's plan was going down and knocking down the gates of Hades.

And really doing some good to those caught down there by Adam's sin.

The plouman ansuered then the preste
Sir I beleue in Ihesu Christe
who suffred deth and harwed Helle
as I haue herd mine elders telle.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
Saint Teresa of Spain
15.X.2016

* I had read a French fantasy novel in which egregores are taken back to the land of the collective unconscious. Only four or six egregores had actually become human during the training which had made them agents. However, I do not recommend the concept. It sounds a bit too much like "mental hygiene" of the type which gave us psychiatry.

80 002 / 80 015 Readers Yesterday

All time:

Land and total	Thousands	Hundreds	Decades	Units
United States 18775	18 000	700	70	5
Ukraine 10953	28 000	1600	120	8
Russia 10599	38 000	2100	210	17
France 10368	48 000	2400	270	25
Germany 3592	51 000	2900	360	27
China 2110	53 000	3000	370	27
Netherlands 1232	54 000	3200	400	29
Poland 1036	55 000	3200	430	35
United Kingdom 1015	56 000	3200	440	40
Australia 872	56 000	4000	510	42

56 000 Thousands above
04 000 Hundreds above
00 510 Decades above
00 042 Units above
60 552 Total for top ten

80 002 Total
60 552 Total for top ten
19 450 Total for other countries

Australia "could theoretically" be first of 24 countries with 872 readers, except the last having fewer page views, but more probably they grade down from 872 downward and are lots more numerous than 24.

Most read posts and pages, excluding indexing, number furthest to the right is the number of views:

AronRa, did I mention you are worthless on history... http://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2012/02/aronra-did-i-mention-you-are-worthless.html		27 Feb 2012, 2 comments		1073
I Like "Miacis Cognitus" http://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2012/09/i-like-miacis-cognitus.html		3 Sep 2012, 8 comments		842
Have "Humans Interbred with Neanderthals and Denis... http://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2012/08/have-humans-interbred-with-neanderthals.html		22 Aug 2012, 1 comment		442
Dr. Jonathan Sarfati takes out one Heliocentric YE... http://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2015/03/dr-jonathan-sarfati-takes-out-one.html		10 Mar 2015, 2 comments		417
Was St. Jerome Calling Genesis a Myth, and if so i... http://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2012/08/was-st-jerome-calling-genesis-myth-and.html		24 Aug 2012, 1 comment		412
Note on this one, the reference by C. S. Lewis was at best a lapse of memory on the latter's account.
Dawkins said Edgar Andrews had his book From Nothi... http://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2013/03/dawkins-said-edgar-andrews-had-his-book.html		19 Mar 2013		410
On Reading The Greatest Show by Dawkins - Parts of... http://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2012/10/on-reading-greatest-show-by-dawkins.html		13 Oct 2012, 1 comment		407
The Abiogenesis Problem http://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2014/02/the-abiogenesis-problem.html		28 Feb 2014, 1 comment		391
(it seems stats were deflated, when writing the comment they were 452)
Following pages not indexing or redirecting had over 200 readers:
FR : Un blog a été donné à vos étudiants. http://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/p/un-blog-ete-donne-vos-etudiants.html		15 Jun 2011		1094
Can we get this straight? I never said I was atheist up to becoming Catholic http://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/p/can-we-get-this-straight-i-never-said-i.html		10 Oct 2014		611
Weakness of CMI : Church History http://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/p/weakness-of-cmi-church-history.html		5 Nov 2014		600
A Catholic who will go unnamed http://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/p/a-catholic-who-will-go-unnamed.html		5 Nov 2014		503

Last month 1,338

1088 from six countries mentioned in all time

Turkey 23
Netherlands 15
Romania 14
Canada 13 = 65

185 from at least 15 countries, probably more.

Radioactive Methods Revisited, Especially C-14 http://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2016/09/radioactive-methods-revisited.html		22 Sep 2016		33
Sandwalk blogger does not get what "observed" mean... http://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2015/09/sandwalk-blogger-does-not-get-what.html		7 Sep 2015, 2 comments		27
What Some of You are Thinking / Ce que certains de... http://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2016/10/what-some-of-you-are-thinking-ce-que.html		6 Oct 2016		24
Were Evolutionists More Willing to Debate in Early... http://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2016/09/were-evolutionists-more-willing-to.html		23 Sep 2016		23
Archaeology vs Vertabrate Palaeontology in Geology... http://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2016/06/archaeology-vs-vertabrate-palaeontology.html		4 Jun 2016		16
A Taste of NioC? http://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2016/09/a-taste-of-nioc.html		22 Sep 2016		14
Searching for the Cretaceous Fauna (with appendix ... http://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2013/11/searching-for-cretaceous-fauna-with.html		15 Nov 2013		13
C14 Calibrations, comparing two preliminary ones, ... http://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2016/08/c14-calibrations-comparing-two.html		23 Aug 2016		12

Last week, no total

Country not mentioned so far:

Spain 5 (8 of top 10)

Posts not mentioned so far:

"They even have little papers they sign that say t... http://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2016/10/they-even-have-little-papers-they-sign.html		13 Oct 2016		6
Answering Rationalwiki on Genesis 5:1 to 6:4 http://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2016/10/answering-rationalwiki-on-genesis-51-to.html		7 Oct 2016		6
Creation Ministries International - a Galileo Fan ... http://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2015/02/creation-ministries-international.html		25 Feb 2015		5
Letter to Nature on Karyotype Evolution in Mammals... http://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2011/11/letter-to-nature-on-karyotype-evolution.html		7 Nov 2011, 7 comments		4
How do Fossils Superpose? http://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2013/11/how-do-fossils-superpose.html		2 Nov 2013, 1 comment		4

Last 24 h

Countries not mentioned so far:

Brazil 1
Portugal 1
Singapore 1

Post not mentioned so far:

Guy Berthault's Results May Not Prove the Flood Fa...
http://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2016/07/guy-berthaults-results-may-not-prove.html

15 Jul 2016, 2 views

I will actually give 24 more hours ... integrally, all of the stats:

United States 182		Supplementary Evidence from Fayetteville, Noah's A... http://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2016/10/supplementary-evidence-from.html
		14 Oct 2016, 11 views
Turkey 30		What Can the Altaic Flood Legend Teach about the R... http://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2016/09/what-can-altaic-flood-legend-teach.html
		12 Sep 2016, 6 views
France 15		I wish He had Linked the Parts, if not indexed http://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2016/06/i-wish-he-had-linked-parts-if-not.html
		24 Jun 2016, 5 views
Germany 2		Radioactive Methods Revisited, Especially C-14 http://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2016/09/radioactive-methods-revisited.html
		22 Sep 2016, 5 views
Russia 2		"They even have little papers they sign that say t... http://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2016/10/they-even-have-little-papers-they-sign.html
		13 Oct 2016, 5 views
Bangladesh 1		Archaeology vs Vertabrate Palaeontology in Geology... http://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2016/06/archaeology-vs-vertabrate-palaeontology.html
		4 Jun 2016, 5 views
China 1		Some Rabbis consider(ed) Holy Land was an Exceptio... http://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2016/08/some-rabbis-considered-holy-land-was.html
		10 Aug 2016, 5 views
India 1		Cardinal Lavigerie Fought Slavery http://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2016/05/cardinal-lavigerie-fought-slavery.html
		31 May 2016, 5 views
Mauritius 1		What Some of You are Thinking / Ce que certains de... http://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2016/10/what-some-of-you-are-thinking-ce-que.html
		6 Oct 2016, 5 views
Poland 1		Guy Berthault's Results May Not Prove the Flood Fa... http://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2016/07/guy-berthaults-results-may-not-prove.html
		15 Jul 2016, 5 views
		Blogs by same author http://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/p/blogs-by-same-author.html
		22 Feb 2016, 3 views
		Apologetics Section http://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/p/apologetics-section.html
		1 Feb 2016, 1 view

Supplementary Evidence from Fayetteville, Noah's Ark was Built on Highest Mountain

Fayetteville, NC Flooding 8OCT2016 Kayaking INSIDE a building. Hurricane Matthew
Mark Huneycutt
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MXc9c2Vuv1A

If you look at the video, someone is kayaking on the rather low Flood (about height of car roofs, so far) in Fayetteville.

IF the Ark, a lot bulkier than this kayak, had been running into snags that often, it would arguably have got a hole and sunk.

How was God avoiding this?

Well, God had probably told or inspired Noah (or directed him by providential placing of whereabouts of building) to start building precisely on the highest mountain.

This way, once the Ark was floating it was not running into any snags that were stuck in the ground below the sea.

And of course, this allowed Noah to make an accurate measure about how high waters were over that Highest Mountain (as well as the rest) when he was floating or nearly so.

Genesis 7:[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.

Noah was in measure to measure that - AND Noah's Ark got stuck on no snag. Both are very easy to understand if the Ark was built on one of them.

It would not have been safe to come close enough to one of them to measure height if starting from lower, since it could have stuck the Ark (unless of course the measure was taken from when it was stuck over the mountains of Armenia or just before it got stuck, but that was after waters had started residing, so makes somewhat less sense). And it would also not have been safe to be on the plains when they were flooded, since the objects on them would have jagged up over bottom of ark while still being stuck in ground. But if Noah's Ark was on a mountain, it rested safely there while the plains were being flooded, as now at Fayetteville, and once it floated, all that was stuck in the plains was deep under where the Ark was floating and all that was abreast the Ark was already loosened from bottom. So, whatever flotsam they came across, whatever snag, it would not have been blocked in any way from responding smoothly to contact with the outside of the Ark.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
St. Burchard of Würzburg
and Burial of St Dominic
with the Chainmail
14.X.2016