Forrest Valkai Debunked Will Spencer, or So He Thought

Creation vs. Evolution: Forrest Valkai Debunked Will Spencer, or So He Thought · Φιλολoγικά/Philologica: How Do We Know History?

Here is the Video by Will Spencer:

What Your Teachers Won't Tell You About EVOLUTION
The Will Spencer Podcast | 8 Febr. 2025
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ARBTZEE1Qxs

Here is the supposed debunk:

When Creationism becomes Conspiracy Theory | Reacteria
Forrest Valkai | 1 April 2025
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qgp1GUdydXs

Before going to the title quote, here is a quote about Darwinism leading to Racism in the past, which Will Spencer considered as a logical conclusion:

those are absolutely not 40:35 logical conclusions the only reason that early biologists believed things like 40:41 that is because they didn't have the data that we do today so they just went 40:46 along with their worldview which was already warped with that kind of racism

Now, there are a few things to unpack here.

1) The "early biologists" (actually early evolutionists, biology had been around for quite a while) went beyond logical conclusions, because they believed things (like racism) anyway.

a) Not true. 1900 was way more racist than 1800, for a reason, the Theory of Evolution.
b) But even if it were true, what about the things that people now believe "anyway"?

2) The early Evolutionists went beyond logical conclusions, because they didn't have the data we do today.

a) And we are supposed to have all the data we'll have 50 years from now?
b) or, at least, the data we lack, unlike the ones those guys lacked, are not supposed to be the needed antidote to sth which otherwise only Christian dogma could save us from?

3) While Will Spencer actually evoked Racism, he stated "more evolved than others" and by contrast "less evolved" ... the actual wording "intermediate forms" is tying it to racism, but if we exchange that to "less evolved" it seems the same conclusion is being drawn today.

Only, the modern version is:
a) those mental traits were really useful when trying to survive
b) but now they have lost their purpose and tend to make society more violent or the individual less happy in it ...

Psychiatry has taken the place of Eugenics, without always leaving Eugenics totally behind.

Now, to the kind of statement that Forrest Valkai termed "conspiracy theory" here is the wording of Will Spencer:

second anyone questioning 1:51 Evolution faces public outrage people 1:54 risk their reputations by speaking up 1:56 and not just scientists either even 1:58 everyday people like and me feel afraid 2:01 to ask informed questions there's no 2:03 logical reason for this fear except for 2:06 the third reason because Darwin created 2:08 his origin Theory to replace another 2:11 explanation of our Origins the one from 2:13 the Bible as you can probably now see 2:16 Evolution has won this battle at the 2:19 institutional level

This is basically what Forrest Valkai considers a conspiracy theory, and instead of proving that Institutions are genuinely open to Creationists, he states "the real reason is, Evolution is such a good theory" ... he can get away with it with lots of the public because of precisely the institutuions still dominated by the theory, and who prone trust in such statements and in arguments backing them up.

Now, Forrest comes with another contradiction to Will Spencer, namely, "there is no shaming of Creationists" and he cites the fact that Will tries to promote Creationism as a proof there is no such shaming.

He also brags about project Steve, in response to 1000 signatures for Creationism, he cites 1600 signatures for Evolution and condemning Creationism by scientists named Steve ... so, in response to the charge of deliberate marginalisation shaping what people see, he cites the extent of the marginalisation. I consider that an own goal.*

But apart from that, under Will's video, there is a comment pretty close to the top, which illustrates the shaming:

Jure Ambrož

@jureambroz9557

It really is insane that you can just lie with no consequences and be smug while doing so

So, he is basically asking for Will Spencer to be censored and punished for "spreading misinformation" or in cruder Communist terms, "just lie" ... he is also outraged at Will Spencer showing no signs of qualms of conscience. Could this Jure Ambrož be the same as I find in ...

O fakulteti / Zaposleni: Jure Ambrož
https://www.bf.uni-lj.si/sl/o-fakulteti/zaposleni/2022012513144089/ambroz-jure

... a faculty in Ljubljana? (Biotechnic faculty of the University of Ljuljana)

I have stated more than once, economically, Jugoslavia was not Marxist Leninist, since it was highly Distributist (Kulak friendly). I can add, unfortunately, in learning and culture and education, Jugoslavia unfortunately was Marxist Leninist, and one sign thereof is the habit of calling Creationists (or other proponents of Christianity as being factually true, not just socially useful) liars. I have unfortunately been around a step father from Romania, an Anti-Communist in economic terms, and in attitude to Bureaucracy, who had this Communist attitude towards Christianity.

Yes, even if Will Spencer says the things are fortunately starting to change, they have far from changed everywhere.

And so, no, the statement is NOT a Conspiracy theory.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
St. Nicetius of Lyons
2.IV.2025

* An own goal occurs in sports when a player performs actions that result in scoring points for the opposition, such as when a footballer puts a ball into their own net.

There Was a Time When Young Earth Creationists Wanted This Kind of Stuff

What If Exodus was 18th Dynasty and not 13th? · Testing for Pharao of Exodus = Amenophis II, with Three Alternative's for Joseph's Pharao · Advice, perhaps? · There Was a Time When Young Earth Creationists Wanted This Kind of Stuff

CARBON-14 Dating Models and Experimental Implications
By Paul Giem | Published 2006
https://www.academia.edu/127215895/CARBON_14_Dating_Models_and_Experimental_Implications

Any model of carbon-14 dating must satisfy certain constraints. First, since carbon-14 dating is objective and reproducible, it cannot be ignored. One cannot simply dismiss it out of hand; there should be an explanatory model for the data. Second, it has been validated at least back to 300 B.C. by comparison with many other reliable dating methods. 1 Therefore, any model must account for this data, and it is not reasonable to consider carbon-14 dating completely unreliable before that point, particularly when used as a relative dating method.

I started providing my take in 2015, Correction de la table, taux de C14, et implications. I made major updates pretty quickly. I did an overhaul with a few updates this Christmas. Newer Tables: Preliminaries · Flood to Joseph in Egypt · Joseph in Egypt to Fall of Troy.

My explanation model is simple:

1) In the Flood year, Carbon 14 was very low. Before the Flood it wasn't higher, and as a percentage, whatever the case with absolute quantities, but arguably in absolute quantities too, it had been produced at a lower rate than now.

2) From the Flood to a certain point, Carbon 14 started rising with a more than 10 times quicker production of Carbon 14 than now in some early post-Flood times. This would have been acted out by angelic movers of Sun and other celestial bodies emitting cosmic radiation, as part of God's intention of reducing human lifespans, and its side effects were a quicker rise of Carbon 14 as well as at least part of the explanation for the Ice Age. I do not dispute the validity of Michael Oard's model about heated water after the Flood, as far as the explanation is valid, I just think the Cosmic Radiation speeded up the process. Yes, ionising particles in the atmosphere will cool the weather.*

3) This has not continued, we can be fairly certain that Carbon 14 has already reached an equilibrium. That's why Carbon 14 works for "at least back to 300 BC" (I started out putting that point at c. 500 BC, taking of Jerusalem by Babylonians, I pushed it back to Fall of Troy).**

4) There may have been or not been a point where Carbon 14 was higher than 100 pmC, before 750 BC (notably founding of Rome) was dated as 550 BC in the Hallstatt plateau.

5) By nodes between Bible and archaeology, the rise can be figured out.

This explanation model remains the same when I mistook the carbon date for Genesis 14 as "3200 BC" (as per end of chalcolithic overall) and when I corrected it to "3500 BC" (carbon dates of reed mats evacuated from Asason-Tamar / En-Geddi, yes, this has been excavated and dated). If I now were to change a 13th Dynasty Pharao for Amenophis II as Pharao of the Exodus, this would change my calibration, but not my explanation model.

Changing the point of reached equilibrium from 1179 BC (fall of Troy) to Exodus, with real date 1446 BC, dated between 1457 and 1424 BC, would change my calibration and my Biblical chronology (I could also say that it's really 1510 BC that dates as 1457 / 1424, that's what I was asking advice about ... that would be a "higher than 100 pmC point" if that were the case, see point 4). It would still not change my explanation model.

For some reason, once I started providing, interest is not the way it was when Paul Giem made the statement in 2006. Perhaps because I'm Catholic. Perhaps because I use a Biblical Chronology codified in the Roman Martyrology reading for Christmas Day, sometimes referred to as the Christmas Proclamation***. Or perhaps because I use Göbekli Tepe as calibration points for Babel (beginning after Noah died, ending when Peleg was later born, the LXX chronology nearly fits a tradition of it being 40 years if there is no Second Cainan, if on the other hand there is, the beginning must be calibrated as way after Noah died). Or perhaps both.

Paul Giem seems to be a Seventh Day Adventist.° Not the most Catholic friendly denomination there is on the Protestant spectrum. To the point that my maternal grandmother, an agnostic verging on atheist, when I converted to Catholicism in 1988 asked me specifically to not tell my paternal grandmother, who was still a Seventh Day Adventist. I obeyed because I lived with my maternal grandmother. Also a good point in case anyone pretends I'm incel because of my faith hampering my sexual daring, my living with granny was very hampering irrespective of my religion. Yes, my Atheist (or on and off Theist but mostly Atheist) granny made the social life impossible which I would have needed to get a fiancée.

So, part of the problem could be, CMI and others might lose a huge chunk of their support if they offended SDA. This could be both about LXX (Jack Rand / RnJ answering my comments, see Agreeing with Robert Carter on Skeleta, Disagreeing on LXX) and about Göbekli Tepe (SDA could be so ignorant of geography as to say "Babel was in Mesopotamia, which is Iraq, not Turkey" ...). So, it's not too improbable that SDA and some others are waiting for me to get around to SDA positions. Not likely. No, YEC isn't specifically an SDA position, while they were unique among Protestants, Catholics were still very commonly YEC.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
Deposition of Abbot
St. Eustace of Luxeuil
29.III.2025

In monasterio Luxoviensi, in Gallia, depositio sancti Eustasii Abbatis, qui sancti Columbani discipulus et ferme sexcentorum Monachorum Pater fuit; ac, vitae sanctitate conspicuus, etiam miraculis claruit.

* The Little Ice Age was missing from the Southern Hemisphere, which I put down to there being less land and more water there, but in the Northern Hemisphere it coincided with a rise in pmC values. 1750 carbon dates (uncalibrated raw dates) as 1950, 1850 as 1850 and 1950 as 1750. Back in the Little Ice Age, Charles X Gustav could cross the Belt on the ice sheet with the whole army, today it's unlikely to be even covered with ice in winter.

** If the pmC has risen from 80 to 100 since Fall of Troy, that corresponds to the halflife being twice as long as 5730 years, namely 11460 years. If the halflife is 5730 but the pmC is rising, the apparent halflife will be shorter than 5730 years. So, if the pmC is rising and the apparent halflife is 5730 years, the real halflife must be longer. It's more economic to assume the actual and apparent halflife are both 5730 years and so stability has been reached since quite a long time ago.

*** It was originally left out from Novus Ordo it would seem, and then in the 1990's they created a new version, the first translation by the USCBC starting "unknowing ages" ...

° Paul A. Giem, MD
Adjunct Assistant Professor, Emergency Medicine
https://llu.edu/academics/faculty/giem-paul/education

Loma Linda University is "A Seventh-day Adventist Organization"

Advice, perhaps?

What If Exodus was 18th Dynasty and not 13th? · Testing for Pharao of Exodus = Amenophis II, with Three Alternative's for Joseph's Pharao · Advice, perhaps? · There Was a Time When Young Earth Creationists Wanted This Kind of Stuff

Before I could replace Newer Tables partly (from IV—V on) with taking Amenophis II instead of a 13th Dynasty Pharao, I'd need to consider whether I'd take the carbon date 1457 as basically 1446 (as per Assyrian chronology and 480 years in III Kings 6 being exact) or whether I take it as an alias for the real year 1510 BC, as the Exodus is dated in the Roman Martyrology.

III Kings 6:1 And *it came to pass in the four hundred and eightieth year after the children of Israel came out of the land of Egypt, in the fourth year of the reign of Solomon over Israel, in the month Zio, (the same is the second month) he began to build a house to the Lord.

Ver. 1. Eightieth year. This chronology meets with the approbation of most people. See Usher. (Chap. xii.) Some, however, find a difficulty in reconciling it with Acts xiii. 20., which seems to attribute 450 years to the government of the judges. (Calmet) --- Septuagint have 440; Josephus 592, though Ruffin neglects the 90 in his version; Petau 520; Severus 582; Clement of Alexandria 566; Vossius 580; Cano 590; Serarius 680. --- Houbigant would read 350 in the Acts. But Capellus would add 100 here, &c. (Haydock) --- Second of the sacred year, corresponding with our April. Syriac, Chaldean styles it "of the splendour of flowers." (Menochius) --- The Hurons, and other nations of America, call this "the moon of plants;" the Flemings, "the month for mowing," Grasmaand. Our Saxon ancestors gave descriptive names to the months. See Verstegan. (Haydock) --- At first, the Hebrews only described the months by their order; "first, second," &c. In Solomon's time we begin to find other names, taken from the Phenicians, (Scaliger) Chaldean names were adopted; (Haydock) 1. Nisan; 2. Jar; 3. Sivan; 4. Tammus; 5. Ab; 6. Elul; 7. Tisri; 8. Marshevan; 9. Casleu; 10. Thebet; 11. Schebet; 12. Adar; (Calmet) 13. Veadar, the intercalary month, when requisite, according to the lunar system, which was not perhaps yet adopted. Each of these months generally corresponded with two of ours; Nisan with the end of March and the beginning of April, &c. Septuagint here take no notice of Zio, though they do, ver. 37. (Haydock) --- The temple was begun on Monday, May 21, in the year of the world 2992. (Usher) --- It was finished in the year of the world 3000, or in the following year, when it was solemnly dedicated. (Button.)

In the former case, I'd have to make a remake of the chronology. I'd immediately get the pre-Flood time corrected to 2262 years instead of 2242. I could chose between two different LXX readings of Genesis 11, without or with the II Cainan. Most parts of the table would be the same.

		without II Cainan		with II Cainan
Temple		966		966
King David		915		915
Jericho		1406		1406
Exodus		1446		1446
Genesis 14		1870		1870
Promise		1876		1876
Birth of Abraham		1950		1950
Babel		2491		2491
Flood		2892		3020
Creation		5154		5282

Of these years, I'd only make tables for:

		without II Cainan		with II Cainan
Exodus		1446		1446
Genesis 14		1870		1870
(Promise)		1876		1876
(Birth of Abraham)		1950		1950
Babel		2491		2491
Flood		2892		3020
Creation		5154		5282

The items in brackets would not be nodes.

On the other hand, if I stick to the Roman martyrology, and I accept Amenophis II, I'm obliged to argue that the bases of conventional Egyptian chronology after his time have been shortened, but only to the time of the fall of Troy:

1179 BC

dated as 1179 BC

1510 BC

dated as 1424 BC

dated as 1457 BC

331 actual years would be conventionally dated as only 278 or even as 245 years. Here is where the advice comes in. Is this possible? I don't know.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
Annunciation of Our Lady
25.III.2025

Annuntiatio beatissimae Virginis Genitricis Dei Mariae.

I Just Saw a Breakdown of Neo-Nazi Groups, Looked Up Nordfront, and Found Wernher von Braun

Wernher von Braun föddes den 23 mars 1912 i den tyska provinsen Posen (som etniskt rensades på tyskar efter kriget och nu är en del av Polen). Han anses som raketforskningens fader och mannen som förde människan till månen.

Nordfront: Wernher von Braun – mannen som förde människan till månen
Publicerad: 2018-03-23 00:00
https://nordfront.se/wernher-von-braun-mannen-som-forde-manniskan-till-manen

The Neo-Nazi group that is fairly close to Nordfront (but separate entities) is the Nordic Resistance Movement. I'm not totally happy with members bombing a refugee shelter and seriously injuring one, I'd have preferred no serious violence at all (they think the violence is a necessity, I hope they are wrong). But I am happy that they didn't actually kill anyone. Meanwhile, Nordfront is a journalistic enterprise. This article is probably refeatured every 23 of March since 2018 when it was published, since it's Wernher von Braun's birthday, back in 1912 (one week before the death of Karl May, and no, he wasn't racist, he was pretty pro-German chauvinist, but not a racist), and the first point they make is, Wernher von Braun was born in Posen, not present Poznań, but retrospectively called Prowincja Poznańska. The particular division of country around the city of Posen or Poznań has been reorganised, as Germans were subject to ethnic cleansing after WW-II. However, Wernher von Braun was in fact not just a German patriot, but also an official in the Nazi Era German Reich, and a member of the party and of the SS.

After the war, he came to the US.

He actually constructed useable rockets, including space rockets.

Now, in so far as spacecraft are a parallel to airplanes in getting off the ground, Wernher von Braun would be parallel to Orville and Wilbur Wright. Meanwhile, the air plane paper constructions of Leonardo da Vinci are pretty useless. However, he was a precursor to Orville and Wilbur.

Readers of my blog will be aware that I consider Wernher von Braun had a similar precursor, who absolutely couldn't have pulled it off. And that he was sth far worse than a National Socialist, bad as that on occasion may be, namely Nimrod Ben Kush. Based on what?

a) Graham Hancock, who believed in Ancient Alien Astronauts and maybe still does, considered Göbekli Tepe looks as if it were constructed as a landing place for alien spacecraft.
b) I do not believe in Aliens, but I cannot preclude Ancient Aspiring Austronauts, and GMr. Hancock's remark set me looking things up. Tower described in ways compatible with rocket, check. Göbekli Tepe fits the Geography, check. Göbekli Tepe is preceded by linguistic or at least cultural unity from Indonesia to Spain, check. Göbekli Tepe is followed by blatant cultural and obviously even linguistic diversity, check. Göbekli Tepe, like Babel, comes somewhere midway between Flood and Genesis 14, check.

And Nimrod wanted to get into heaven. I e into outer space. And God's remark doesn't include the word "lest" in English:

And he said: Behold, it is one people, and all have one tongue: and they have begun to do this, neither will they leave off from their designs, till they accomplish them in deed Come ye, therefore, let us go down, and there confound their tongue, that they may not understand one another's speech
[Genesis 11:6-7]

Compare:

And he said: Behold Adam is become as one of us, knowing good and evil: now, therefore, lest perhaps he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever
[Genesis 3:22]

There are two "lest" in Genesis 3, verses 3 and 22. It's the Hebrew conjunction "pen-" ... but there is only one "lest" or "pen-" in Genesis 11, verse 4.

God is not stating He tries to avoid men accomplishing what they had undertaken.

We must see the confusion of their language, the halting of their project, as a temporary halt, meant to allow knowledge to accumulate, since Wernher von Braun was just a little bit better equipped in know-how and applicable knowledge than Nimrod back in the Neolithic. This also answers an Atheist talking point: "if God was angry at a tower, why has He allowed skyscrapers and even spacecraft now" ... the text in Genesis 11 actually doesn't state that God is angry. If someone's mummy wags her head, takes a nearly just toddler away from the stove and tells him to put on an oven glove before taking out the cookie he baked, doesn't mean she is angry with him, just that she cares for his safety.

On this view, Wernher von Braun is actually prophecied in this chapter of the Bible. Another prophecy of the Bible was accomplished last week.

Though thou be exalted as an eagle, and though thou set thy nest among the stars: thence will I bring thee down, saith the Lord
[Abdias (Obadiah) 1:4]

And some spacemen were safely brought down:

'Stranded' Astronauts Spent 9 Months in Space. Here's How Much They Might Earn – and Why It Doesn't Include Overtime
David Chiu Wed, March 19, 2025 at 6:56 PM GMT+1
https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/stranded-astronauts-spent-9-months-175623510.html

I would say at nine months they can be said to have nested among the stars. Nests being to egg hatching what nine months are to pregnancies. Hat tip to Allie Beth Stuckey for mentioning this fact.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
Oculi LD
23.III.2025

Testing for Pharao of Exodus = Amenophis II, with Three Alternative's for Joseph's Pharao

What If Exodus was 18th Dynasty and not 13th? · Testing for Pharao of Exodus = Amenophis II, with Three Alternative's for Joseph's Pharao · Advice, perhaps? · There Was a Time When Young Earth Creationists Wanted This Kind of Stuff

The three possible Pharaos are: Djoser (whom I have favoured so far), Senusret III (whom I have so far taken to be the pharao who died when Moses was very young), and what was the alternative by Damien Mackey again ... here we are:

Mentuhotpe [Mentuhotep] II ... came to the Theban throne under the name S'ankhibtawy ... his domain stretched from the First Cataract to the tenth nome of Upper Egypt; in other words, it was still curtailed to the north by the territory of the princes of Asyut. A hostile peace was maintained between the two kingdoms, but this was disrupted when the Thinite nome, suffering grievously from famine, revolted against the Herakleopolitan clan. Mentuhotpe captured Asyut and passed through the fifteenth nome without encountering resistance - this was effectively the fall of the Herakleapolitan dynasty.

Joseph in Egypt’s Eleventh Dynasty, Moses in Egypt’s Twelfth Dynasty
Part One: Joseph ruled like Pharaoh in ancient Egypt
by Damien F. Mackey
https://www.academia.edu/125338500/Joseph_in_Egypt_s_Eleventh_Dynasty_Moses_in_Egypts_Twelfth_Dynasty

Table 3: Amarna and Thebes
Mentuhotep II, Dyn. 11, N° 9, Capital Thebes, Provenance Deir el-Bahri
Historical Median 2032, BR 2010 model 2059+/-2, calibrated 2004+/-20

Radiocarbon Chronology for Dynastic Egypt and the Tell el Dab^Ca debate: a regional hypothesis
By Graham Hagens
https://austriaca.at/0xc1aa5572%200x00321daa.pdf

Let's calculate the time from Genesis 14 to Exodus with the three different pharaos, and I'll put each at the head of the calculation:

Djoser

1935 BC

82.753 pmC, so dated 3500 BC

1700 BC

87.541 pmC, dated as 2800 BC

1510 BC

100.655 pmC so dated as 1457 BC

The path between Genesis 14 and c. death of Joseph's pharao is the same as in IV—V in Newer Tables, Flood to Joseph in Egypt. What remains is the change between Joseph's pharao and Exodus.

190 years, 0.977278, 0.02272

87.541 pmC * 0.977278 + 2.272 pmC = 87.824 pmC
100.655 pmC - 87.824 pmC = 12.831 pmC
12.831 + 2.272 = 15.103 pmC
15.103 pmC / 2.272 pmC = 6.647 times as fast

Mentuhotep II

1935 BC

82.753 pmC, so dated 3500 BC

1700 BC

95.75 pmC, so dated 2059 BC

1510 BC

100.655 pmC so dated as 1457 BC

235 years, 0.97197, 0.02803

82.753 pmC * 0.97197 + 2.803 pmC = 83.236 pmC
95.75 pmC - 83.236 pmC = 12.514 pmC
12.514 pmC + 2.803 pmC = 15.316 pmC
15.316 pmC / 2.803 pmC = 5.465 times as fast

190 years, 0.977278, 0.02272

95.75 pmC * 0.977278 + 2.272 pmC = 95.847 pmC
100.655 - 95.847 pmC = 4.808 pmC
4.808 pmC + 2.272 pmC = 7.081 pmC
7.081 pmC / 2.272 pmC = 3.116 times as fast

Senusret III

1935 BC

82.753 pmC, so dated 3500 BC

1700 BC

98.344 pmC, so dated 1838 BC

1510 BC

100.655 pmC so dated as 1457 BC

235 years, 0.97197, 0.02803

82.753 pmC * 0.97197 + 2.803 pmC = 83.236 pmC
98.344 pmC - 83.236 pmC = 15.108 pmC
15.108 pmC + 2.803 pmC = 17.91 pmC
17.91 pmC / 2.803 pmC = 6.39 times as fast

190 years, 0.977278, 0.02272

98.344 pmC * 0.977278 + 2.272 pmC = 98.382 pmC
100.655 - 98.382 pmC = 2.273 pmC
2.273 pmC + 2.272 pmC = 4.546 pmC
4.546 pmC / 2.272 pmC = 2 times as fast

Djoser in the Middle

1841 BC

Abraham died

1838 BC

84.77 pmC, dated as 3204 BC

From my table IV—V, but for the following:

94 years, 0.98869, 1.131 pmC

Mentuhotep II in the Middle

1841 BC

Abraham died

87.996 pmC, so dated 2898 BC

1.131 pmC * 5.465 = 6.179 pmC
82.753 pmC * 0.98869 + 6.179 pmC = 87.996 pmC
5730 * log(0.87996)/log(0.5) + 1841 = 2898 BC

Senusret III in the Middle

1841 BC

Abraham died

89.043 pmC, so dated 2800 BC

1.131 pmC * 6.39 = 7.225 pmC
82.753 pmC * 0.98869 + 7.225 pmC = 89.043 pmC
5730 * log(0.89043)/log(0.5) + 1841 = 2800 BC

Both with Mentuhotep and Senusret in the middle, it is credible that the pharao he met could have died between Genesis 14 and his own death and be Hor Aha or even Narmer. With Senusret in the middle, Abraham would have had occasion to see Djoser, them dying about the same time.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
Oculi LD
23.III.2025

What If Exodus was 18th Dynasty and not 13th?

What If Exodus was 18th Dynasty and not 13th? · Testing for Pharao of Exodus = Amenophis II, with Three Alternative's for Joseph's Pharao · Advice, perhaps? · There Was a Time When Young Earth Creationists Wanted This Kind of Stuff

RADIOCARBON, WINE JARS AND NEW KINGDOM CHRONOLOGY*
By David Aston
https://www.academia.edu/39997434/Radiocarbon_Wine_Jars_And_New_Kingdom_Chronology

I'll not give his full list of radiocarbon dates, but here are those of Amenophis II, also known as Amenhotep II.

Radiocarbon dates 2010
King		68%		95%
Amenophis II		btw 1441 & 1431 BC		btw 1445 & 1423 BC
Radiocarbon dates 2013
King		68%		95%
Amenophis II		btw 1451 & 1434 BC		btw 1456 & 1419 BC

I'll make two radio carbon views on this one.

A) I use my calibration, where, as in David Down, Moses was Amenemhet IV, up to his fortieth year, his sister (formerly adoptive mother) the next pharao, and the pharao of the Exodus by consequence a little known pharao of the 13th dynasty. When in Biblical chronology does this land?
B) I'll use Amenophis II as pharao of Exodus, i) with Exodus in 1510 BC, as per Roman Martyrology, ij) with Exodus in 1446 BC, as per the idea of exactly (not at least but exactly) 480 years before 966 BC. I'll also check where this lands the carbon levels sinking from Exodus to Take of Jericho.

A) Amenophis II would have died in early 14th C. BC:

1398 BC

99.29 pmC, dated as 1457 BC

1374 BC

99.37 pmC, dated as 1426 BC

1510 - 1398 = 112 years after the Exodus, in the Judges period.

1510 - 1374 = 136 years after the Exodus, in the Judges period.

B i) Replacing eruption of Santorini with Death of Amenophis II:

1510 BC

100.655 pmC so dated as 1457 BC

1470 BC

99.037 pmC so dated 1550 BC

First of all, the lowering of carbon 14 levels would not square with the radiocarbon dates for later 18th dynasty kings. But apart from that, what would the change imply?

100.655 * 99.517 % = 100.169 pmC

B ij) and also replacing the Biblical years of the Roman martyrology.

1446 BC

99.879 pmC so dated as 1457 BC

1406 BC

98.273 pmC so dated as 1550 BC

99.879 * 99.517 % = 99.397 pmC

B, in both cases, even with no added carbon 14 into the atmosphere, the simple decay of atmospheric carbon during 40 years will bring the carbon 14 level one pmC unit above the one needed for dating Jericho to 1550 BC ...

However, 1550 BC was Kenyon's dating by other methods, it would seem. Recently there have been carbon dates, sometimes reported as totally confirming Kenyon. Here is another view of them:

Carbon-14 Dates at Jericho and the Destruction Date
/ Uncategorized / By Archae27
https://apxaioc.com/?p=10

However, it was discovered years later that the result of this sample testing was incorrect, and was later reissued on a list of erroneous dates due to a problem with equipment calibration at the laboratory for the years 1980-1984. The dates were corrected to 3300 +/- 110 BP, (Bowman, G.E., Ambers, J., Leese, M.N. “Re-Evaluation of British Museum Radiocarbon Dates Issued Between 1980 and 1984.” Radiocarbon 32, 1990, 74, BM-1790) which calibrates to approximately 1883-1324 BC, rendering the resulting C-14 date useless for settling the debate between a destruction in ca. 1550 BC or ca. 1400 BC (Using http://calib.qub.ac.uk/calib/calib.html).

Previous to that, a sample from Jericho had dated to 1400 BC +/- 40 ... suspicious how big the gap between earliest and latest date suddenly became ...

So, maybe the 1550 BC date for Jericho is not just not a carbon date, but totally a red herring.

Let's ignore Jericho, and do both versions again, but taking them to Troy instead.

B i)

1510 BC

100.655 pmC so dated as 1457 BC

1179 BC

100 pmC so dated 1179 BC

331 years, 96.075 %, 3.925 pmC normal buildup
100.655 * 96.075 / 100 + 3.925 = 100.629 pmC, so, the buildup would have been slower.
3.925-0.629 = 3.296, 3.296 / 3.925 = 83.975 % of normal buildup speed.

B ij)

1446 BC

99.879 pmC so dated as 1457 BC

1179 BC

100 pmC so dated 1179 BC

267 years, 96.822 %, 3.178 pmC normal buildup
99.879 * 96.822 / 100 + 3.178 = 99.883 pmC
100-99.883 = 0.117, 3.178 + 0.117 = 3.295, 3.295 / 3.178 = 103.682 % of normal buildup speed.

Unlike for "Jericho carbon dated 1550 BC" this gives no problem.

Perhaps a tip for revision?

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
Oculi LD
23.III.2025

PS, this was inspired by:

Tombeau du pharaon de l'Exode : ce qui a été découvert et pourquoi vous ne le savez pas !
(Tomb of Exodus' Pharao : what has been discoverd and why you don't know it!*)
Expedition Bible | 22 mars 2025
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mJP4pVjnWpk

* In France, the title is shown in French, not sure how to turn that off. I tried to change the keyboard, and recharge the page, the title was still in French.

What Would 440 Before the Flood Date To? Carbon Wise? Or 600 Before the Flood?

What Would 220 Before the Flood Date To? Carbon Wise? · What Would 440 Before the Flood Date To? Carbon Wise? Or 600 Before the Flood?

0.5^(440/5730) = 0.9481657393132604

0.9481657393132604 * = decay
0.0518342606867396 = normal replacement

A) with 3.611 times as fast production, like on this view the half as long period after the Flood?
B) with same production as now?
C) with ten times slower production than now (as generally pre-Flood)?

3398 BC

x -> pmC

A) x * 0.9481657393132604 + 3.611 * 0.0518342606867396 = 0.016277
x * 0.9481657393132604 = 0.016277 - 3.611 * 0.0518342606867396
x = (0.016277 - 3.611 * 0.0518342606867396) / 0.9481657393132604
x = -0.180239 ... (minus value, impossible)

B) x * 0.9481657393132604 + 0.0518342606867396 = 0.016277
x * 0.9481657393132604 = 0.016277 - 0.0518342606867396
x = (0.016277 - 0.0518342606867396) / 0.9481657393132604
x = -0.0375 ... (minus value, impossible)

C) x * 0.9481657393132604 + 0.00518342606867396 = 0.016277
x * 0.9481657393132604 = 0.016277 - 0.00518342606867396
x = (0.016277 - 0.00518342606867396) / 0.9481657393132604
x = 0.0117

How about taking the final 440 years as rising twice as fast as the medium?

D) x = (0.016277 - 2 * 0.00518342606867396) / 0.9481657393132604
x = 0.006233

C) 5730 * log(0.0117) / log(0.5) + 3398 = 40 169 BC
D) 5730 * log(0.006233) / log(0.5) + 3398 = 45 375 BC

What about 600 Before the Flood, when Noah was born?

3557 BC

x -> pmC

0.5^(600/5730) = 0.9299905477435162

0.9299905477435162 * = decay
0.0700094522564838 = normal replacement

0.0700094522564838 / 5 = 0.01400189045129676
0.0700094522564838 / 10 = 0.00700094522564838

A) x * 0.9299905477435162 + 0.01400189045129676 = 0.016277
x * 0.9299905477435162 = 0.016277 - 0.01400189045129676
x = (0.016277 - 0.01400189045129676) / 0.9299905477435162
x = 0.002446379

B) x * 0.9299905477435162 + 0.00700094522564838 = 0.016277
x * 0.9299905477435162 = 0.016277 - 0.00700094522564838
x = (0.016277 - 0.00700094522564838) / 0.9299905477435162
x = 0.0099743538

A) 5730 * log(0.002446379) / log(0.5) + 3557 = 53 266 BC
B) 5730 * log(0.0099743538) / log(0.5) + 3557 = 41 648 BC

Three possible tables. Both are on average 1/5 of the normal replacement. The latter part is, but the former part is 1/10 normal replacement. Both are on average 1/10 normal replacement. Hmm ... may have to think the compromise through, tomorrow ...

3557 BC

0.245 pmC, 53 266 BC

3398 BC

0.623 pmC, 45 375 BC

3557 BC

0.997 pmC, 41 648 BC

3398 BC

0.623 pmC, 45 375 BC

3557 BC

0.997 pmC, 41 648 BC

3398 BC

1.17 pmC, 40 169 BC

.... Thinking — could this happen?*

I mean, if the pmC is 0.997 in 3557 BC, could it drop to 0.623 in 3398 BC? Not by decay. In 159 years, the decay is a multiplication by 0.98095. By carbon escaping from somthing which never had carbon 14? Perhaps. So, no, as that is not overlikely in the calm pre-Flood times, probably not. Actually the opposite combination would be more likely:

3557 BC

0.245 pmC, 53 266 BC

3398 BC

1.17 pmC, 40 169 BC

How fast would that have gone?

0.00245 * 0.98095 = 0.0024
0.0024 + 0.01905 = 0.02145 (2.145 pmC)

0.0024 + 0.01905/2 = 0.011925 (1.1925 pmC)

Less than half as fast as modern speed to reach 1.17 pmC. Now, that could happen.

Why am I just speculating, between incompatible scenarii? Because I have no anchor point prior to the Flood, that's why.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
St. Cyril
18.III.2025

Hierosolymis sancti Cyrilli Episcopi, Confessoris et Ecclesiae Doctoris; qui, ab Arianis multas pro fidei causa perpessus injurias et ex Ecclesia sua saepe depulsus, tandem, sanctitatis gloria clarus, in pace quievit. Ipsius porro intemeratam fidem prima Constantinopolitana Synodus oecumenica, sancto Damaso Papae scribens, praeclaro testimonio commendavit.

* The middle one, obviously. The other two can.