Article and Details, Please?

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

I was reading this:

https://creation.com/carbon-dating-fooling-whom

My eyes fell on this:

Unless the experimenter is claiming to be omniscient, then the further one goes back in time the more unreliable the dates obtained will be. The Hallstat Disaster/Plateau graph discussed in my article is a known example of this, and no amount of calibration can yield accurate dates in the period 400 – 800 BC. And yes, it’s an “official calibration curve”, as you put it, that does exactly the opposite of what you claim, showing for all to see an area of unresolvable inaccuracy.

Whose article? Robert Carter's or Gavin Cox? I tried to click this, but it is Baumgardner, from another quote (and yes, small time spans on internet force me to too hasty reading):

http://www.icr.org/i/pdf/technical/Carbon-14-Evidence-for-a-Recent-Global-Flood-and-a-Young-Earth.pdf

Petrovich and Darwin - two quick notes

Douglas N. Petrovich has made a real or supposed discovery, which if correct, and if the stele is associated with some organic material (if there are blood, sweat, tears or plant fibres on or under the stone, to use common language, or charcoal in the colours on it), this could overturn my identification of archaeological and Biblical events with a new node, that might overturn my Exodus and Joseph in Egypt nodes:

HEBREW THE WORLD’S OLDEST ALPHABET – A CONVERSATION WITH DR. DOUGLAS PETROVICH
Dr. Douglas Petrovich and Steven Law | September 25, 2020 | Interviews
https://patternsofevidence.com/2020/09/25/conversation-with-dr-douglas-petrovich/

which links to:

NEW DISCOVERIES INDICATE HEBREW WAS WORLD’S OLDEST ALPHABET – PART 2
Steve Law | January 12, 2017 | Evidence
https://patternsofevidence.com/2017/01/12/new-discoveries-indicate-hebrew-was-worlds-oldest-alphabet-part-2/

Darwin made some important work on pigeons, and especially on pigeon baraminology, as we would now call it.

Pigeons don’t fancy Darwin
by David Catchpoole | This article is from
Creation 38(3):16–19, July 2016
https://creation.com/darwin-pigeons

I used to be an avid reader of Edgar Andrews' From Nothing to Nature back in the late 80's in the Swedish translation (as I recall it, the Swedish translation Ur intet first combined two earlier English works, which were then reissued as From Nothing to Nature with same combination as in Swedish, but with original English texts, later, in 1993).

I was challenged to pick up a lent copy of Origin of the Species. I was thrilled by the very good discussion on pigeons (as such), but very much put off when this discussion of a band species was used as a prop to promote even pigeons and eagles, birds and bears and batrachians, being ultimately parts of band species that had lost intermediates and were therefore no longer band species. From the smaller to the greater, the consequence is invalid, two pigeon species can very well be band species descended from an older pigeon species, while pigeons and eagles were all the way created different and do not descend from archaeopteryx./HGL

Cox and Bates : Not CMI's Best on Egypt, I'd Say (but then I am Biassed)

One of the things we noticed is that you presumed that the Exodus took place in the 13th Dynasty. We know some Christians have advocated this period. But conventionally this dynasty has been attributed to the Middle Kingdom or even added to the 2nd Intermediate Period of the Hyksos. We would advocate a New Kingdom Exodus and most likely during the 18th Dynasty.

CMI, Feedback archive → Feedback 2020
Can we understand Egyptian chronology before the Exodus?
Published: 12 September 2020 (GMT+10), CMI’s Gavin Cox and Gary Bates respond.
https://creation.com/understanding-egyptian-chronology-before-exodus

However, getting Moses born in the 12th and Exodus in the 13th is advocated on CMI:

Searching for Moses
by David Down | This article is from
Journal of Creation 15(1):53–57, April 2001
https://creation.com/searching-for-moses

Habermehl differs from David Down, by making, not Moses, but the pharao of Exodus Amenamhet IV, placing thereby Exodus already in the 12th and making 13th a post-Exodus and probable Hyksos dynasty.

It so happens, I put the equation "child killer" (and therefore 1590 BC) = Sesostris III at one of the nodes of my tables, and here is how Down argued it:

One of the last kings of the 12th dynasty was Sesostris III. His statues depict him as a cruel tyrant quite capable of inflicting harsh slavery on his subjects. His son was Amenemhet III, who seems to have been an equally disagreeable character. He probably ruled for 46 years, and Moses would have been born near the beginning of his reign.

Amenemhet III may have had one son, known as Amenemhet IV, who was an enigmatic character who may have followed his father or may have been a co-regent with him. If the latter, Amenemhet IV could well have been Moses. Amenemhet IV mysteriously disappeared off the scene before the death of Amenemhet III.

Amenemhet III had a daughter whose name was Sobekneferu. It is known that she had no children.6 If she was the daughter of Pharaoh who came down to the river to bathe, it is easy to understand why she was there. It was not because she had no bathroom in her palace. She would have been down there taking a ceremonial ablution and praying to the river god Hapi, who was also the god of fertility. Having no children she would have needed such a god, and when she found the beautiful baby Moses there she would have considered it an answer to her prayers (Exodus 2:5–6).

But of course, Cox and Bates have other qualities, notably Bates admits reality of UFO sightings, as sightings, attributing them to demons. Which would be fairly correct at least for some of them./HGL

PS:

However, as shown in the aforementioned recommended article and also in our article Evidence of Hebrews in Egypt, it demonstrates that if we take the biblical date for the Exodus c. 1,446 BC it puts the Exodus within the realm of New Kingdom dates.

First, with Temple in 1032 BC, Biblical date for Exodus (as per III Kings) is 1510 BC. Second, even 1446 BC would arguably be inflated in Egyptian chronology and in carbon dates.

Third, the inflation would be small and fit nicely with 80 years inflation in Kenyon's 1550 BC carbon date for abandoned Jericho./HGL

If Joel Tay found the link in the comments too long

Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : Carbon Dates, Millions of Years - Not Same Thing · Creation vs. Evolution : If Joel Tay found the link in the comments too long

From a Flood in 2957 BC to present, there are 4977 years. In 4977 years, the decay is to 0.548236 of 1. This means that the production rate which now makes the level stable would replace 0.451764 of present carbon 14 ratio, that being 45.1764 pmC.

In my case, I presumed in my early days around the problem that the atmospheric level at Flood was 4 pmC, leaving after this time 2.1929 pmC.

Add 0.451764 and 0.021929, you get 0.483693 or 48.3693 pmC.

Suppose the atmospheric level at Flood was 16.2438 pmC - the exact level to get 15 023 extra years so as to get by now 20 000 years before present (youngest level of carbon dated objects like fossil fuels or dino bones that can be even possibly tied to the Flood). This would by now reduce to 8.9054 pmC, adding up, with the production, to 54.0818 pmC.

Joel Tay's "lower rate of carbon production" may be valid for up to Flood, if it was at 4 pmC (I now prefer 1.4 pmC), but not even, if it started out at zero and was at Flood 16.2438 pmC (which would leave his Triceratops horridus story as a pre-Flood démise, or the animals would be very old indeed and exchanging the carbon in their bodies very slowly).

If at the Flood and after it was even as low as at present, we would not now have the present level. We would have only half of it. We cannot even say it reached present level just recently, since carbon dates for last 2000 - 2500 - 3000 years fairly well match the archaeological predictions of history. Nebuchadnezzar's sacking of Jerusalem is carbon dated to 590's or 580's BC, whichever it was, and this means the level was already the modern one - unless you prefer saying the finds are really from Antiochus Epiphanes' sacking of Jerusalem, centuries later. That would mean too low a carbon level to get carbon date close to real date. This would be the position of Damien Mackey, or just general skepsis.

But in fact, whether you count Babel as Göbekli Tepe, carbon dated to 9600 at lowest excavated level and 8600 at highest one, BC of course, or as lowest level of Eridu, dated 5400 BC, you need to get nearly half the job done between Flood and Babel. With 350 years between Flood and beginning of Babel, or 401 between Flood and end of Babel, and Göbekli Tepe, you get a production nine to ten times faster than at present from Flood to Babel. But with 101 years from Flood to end of Babel, and Eridu lowest level as Genesis 11, you get a production that's 87.401 faster than at present, if Babel started 40 years before its end (61 years from Flood to that "Babel"), or 55.619 times faster than at present, if Babel started 5 years before its end (96 years from Flood). And this can be checked by mathematics.

Any assumption you make gives some test implication, one of the limits on them is, stable level has to have been reached already. This in turn can be checked by the use of carbon 14. Imagine a Rembrandt hitherto unknown or having disappeared is found. Style - Rembrandt. Signature - Rembrandt van Rijn. Brush strokes too close to those of the master to detect a difference. But all this could be made by a forger.

Now, Rembrandt died 1669. 351 years ago. This means if the painting is carbon tested for 95.843 pmC or less, it is genuine. But if it is carbon tested for 100 pmC, it's a modern forgery. Carbon dates associated with materials from the time of Tiberius seem to match the historically predictable age of these. And the sack of Jerusalem, if that by Nebuchadnezzar too.

You simply cannot get this by posing present rate of carbon production as the historically highest one, it must be radically lower than an earlier, post-Flood, one, to get this.

As this is post (including drafts) 666, pray for me, all readers, not to be the Beast, nor to take his mark.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
Nativity of the Blessed Virgin
Mother of God Mary
8.IX.2020