Is AronRa Incapable of Distinguishing Carolus Linnæus from Ernst Haeckel?

Tucker Out on Evolution
AronRa | 27 April 2024
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ggQHB8Evm70

Text transscript up to 2:50:

[Tucker on Rogan:]

it's the idea that you know all 2:13 life emerge from a single cell organism 2:16 and over time

[AronRa's comment begins:]

the first evidence of that 2:19 was revealed by a pre- darwinian 2:21 Christian creationist back in 2:23 1735 [Carolus] Linnaeus tried to categorize 2:26 all living things and he discovered that 2:28 they did not fit into the body boxes of 2:30 created kinds like he was taught to 2:32 believe instead all taxonomic ranking 2:35 revealed a familiar lineage a branching 2:37 tree pattern of separated daughter sets 2:39 descending from a series of parent 2:41 categories themselves descending from 2:43 more distant ancestral 2:45 groups it had already been long 2:47 understood that life evolves under 2:49 direct observation and manipulation 2:50 producing new breeds of dogs cattle 2:53 pigeons and so on

One would expect the illustration to be from a work by Linnaeus, right?

Now, take a look at a snapshot from 2:45, shall we? Here:

Odd. Unless it's deliberately dishonest or misleading, it's very odd to illustrate a proposition about Linnaeus by an illustration from a work by Haeckel.

Perhaps Jeremy Sherman is relevant here?

Correspondence of Hans Georg Lundahl : With Jeremy Sherman PhD
Posted by Hans Georg Lundahl at 17:29 Wednesday 24 April 2024
https://correspondentia-ioannis-georgii.blogspot.com/2024/04/with-jeremy-sherman-phd.html

Me, letter X

... That's not on whether you listen, it's on whether you are decent or not to opponents. I usually am.

Sherman, letter XI

... Here's how it seems to work for all of us: If we want someone's trust – if we want to be seen as credible by someone, we have to earn it. No one owes us trust and credibility. ...

Skipping the gobbledegook and my ire, he is ready to turn down an appeal to his decency on the ground of me not earning his trust.

So, he's really saying, if he doesn't trust me, he doesn't owe me decency. He apparently only owes decency to those whom he trusts.

Could this be a theme with AronRa's morals as well?/HGL

I Had a Dream : a Discussion About Human Skeleta

The first part was a view of old "human species" (misnomer I think) that I do not share, and it's refutation.

I cannot totally recall it, as I had fever and was too tired to get up and memorise my dream, but basically, if you take Homo erectus soloensis, Homo heidelbergensis (which is probably = Antecessor and to Denisovan), Homo sapiens neanderthalensis as early post-Flood, it would be a very remarkable variety just after the Ark, and it would involve (on a view not shared by other Creationists, even those who do hold Neanderthals are post-Flood) a very rapid development in a very short time from these or some of them to the Homo sapiens we see today.

Even the other view, the one I didn't dream about, the one saying Neanderthals are early post-Babel would involve a very remarkable speed of mutations accumulating in one population. This is held by Carter (who doesn't believe there were caves for them to live in in the pre-Flood world) and by Anne Habermehl (who holds that Genesis 6:7 involves a complete annihilation, or reduction to unidentifiable powder of anything pre-Flood human we could come across).

Compare this to my view.

In the Flood, 2262 after Creation, those perishing involved:

• the Homo sapiens type we are best familiar with (those on the Ark belonged to it too)
• the Neanderthal and Denisovan types (from which some partial ancestry of some on the Ark is involved)*
• the Homo erectus on Java and in Peking
• a few others, perhaps.

When it comes to divergent gene and mutation drifts 2262 years before the Flood is much more ample opportunity for the non-"sapiens" to diverge from "us" than 101 or 531 years after the Ark.**

The equivalent for these types appearing post-Flood would be them appearing in somewhat before 695 BC or 996 BC in a LXX chronology, or in somewhat before 84 BC in the Masoretic one.

But moreoever, in the Pre-Flood world, there is not just natural divergence, there is also the genetic effect of whatever the Nephelim were about, perhaps also some (other?) genetic engineering done by demons.

So, the existence of these different human tribes is really less mysterious before a Flood in 2958 BC or in 3266 BC, than it would be after the Flood.

When it comes to radiometric dates, the carbon dates concern only Neanderthals and Denisovans, when it comes to Heidelbergians and Antecessors (whom I suspect of being simply Denisovans, but they are other finds and other dates) and to Homo erectus, we are more typically dealing with K-Ar, with Potassium Argon. In a Flood setting, how old would reflect how much argon was trapped by rapid cooling of lava spreading above the mud their bodies were in. For Neanderthals and Denisovans, where we have carbon dates, these end at or perhaps a bit before 40 000 BP. This is why for long I took the carbon date 40 000 BP or 38 000 BC as the carbon date of the Flood year.

If the skeleta are really 5000 years old, they are carbon dated 8 times as old as they really are, and if the carbon 14 proportion to carbon 12 in the atmosphere was 1/64 of what it is today (or would have been without industrialism), this is really not very surprising.

So, my main answer, as to time, is, a) potassium argon dates either mean nothing or more typically point to the Flood, different amounts of water at different temperatures of cold cooling lava at different rapidity and trapping different quantities of argon (considered then as daughter isotope, when it really was always in the sample) b) carbon 14 proportion has risen from 1.628 pmC during the Flood to 100 pmC at the Fall of Troy, 1777 years later.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
St. George
23.IV.2024

Natalis sancti Georgii Martyris, cujus illustre martyrium inter Martyrum coronas Ecclesia Dei veneratur.

* The Neanderthal genes we have now do not involve Neanderthal Y-chromosomes, nor Neanderthal mitochondriae. If a daughter in law of Noah had a father who was Neanderthal, she would not have Neanderthal mitochondriae. Being female, she would not have Neanderthal or any other Y-chromosomes. The Ark is the perfect bottleneck for allowing this degree of Neanderthal ancestry to survive and at the same time eliminate any woman who had Neanderthal mothers or any man who had a Neanderthal father.

** Citing the times from Flood to Peleg's birth in Masoretic and full LXX chronology.

"Vakro" = Växjö, Damien ?

Il y a des raisons pour lesquelles je n'aurais pas du tout deviné. Sauf par mon esprit d'escalier.

• 1) Växjö est au sud de Stockholm, pas au nord de Stockholm. Voir le plan audessus.
• 2) La prononciation.
  
  
  • a) ä en Växjö est è, ö en Växjö est eu—comme partout dans la langue suédoise
  • b) xj = k+sj. Or, je n'aurais pas approximé SJ avec un R français. Plutôt avec un CH.

Ceci mérite une petite discussion. En Finlande, SJ se prononce CH. Un fenno-suédois prononcerait donc Vecquecheu.

Par contre, en toute la Suède, SJ a une autre prononciation, et en parties de Suède, CH est la prononciation de RS. Et, cette autre prononciation est assez difficile pour les étrangers.

Prends un WH en Écosse (haud yer WHeesht!), ajoute un petit soupçon de CH, mais davantage quand même d'un C'H en Bretagne. J'ai entendu d'immigrés prononcer SJ comme Ach-Laut / C'H breton.

C'est ici que je me suis dit ... et si le R était l'approximation d'un C'H, lui-même une approximation d'un SJ ?

Si c'est le cas, Damien, prends quelques rendez-vous avec des bretonnants pour apprendre une bonne prononciation de C'H. C'est quand même une de vos fiertés, à Brest, d'avoir une langue régionale qui en plus est celtique !

Par contre, Växjö est effectivement une ville étudiante, il y a une université.

Linnéuniversitetet
https://lnu.se/

Entretemps, enjoy my blog !

Si tu préfères de lire la thématique en français, il y a de ça sur mon blog principal :

New blog on the kid : libellé : de refutatione evolutionnismi
https://nov9blogg9.blogspot.com/search/label/de%20refutatione%20evolutionnismi

Quand j'écris en français là-dessus, c'est normalement là que je l'écris, c'est en anglais plutôt que j'ai le lectorat pour un blog spécialisé sur ce thème.

Merci pour la bière, hier !

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
St. Soter, Pape et Martyr
22.IV.2024

Romae, via Appia, natalis sancti Soteris, Papae et Martyris.

PS, pour le propos "l'édition peut être compliquée" que je pense qu'on fait tourner, voir:

PPS, ici une vidéo sur le son SJ : Why [ɧ] is NOT REAL

Avec bonne volonté, mon projet n'est pas irréalisable

Wessex culture, Únětice culture, Ottomány culture : Recalibrating Timespan

Creation vs. Evolution: Solutrean and Clovis, According to "Other Revision of I-II?" · Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere: Can Biblical Recalibration Save the Solutrean Hypothesis? · back to: Creation vs. Evolution: Wessex culture, Únětice culture, Ottomány culture : Recalibrating Timespan

Wessex culture

"2000 — 1650 BC"

Únětice culture

"2300 — 1600 BC"

Ottomány culture

"2100 — 1400 BC"

"2300 BC" or beginning of Únětice culture

(1655 + 1633) / 2 = 1644 BC
(91.4498 + 93.3283) / 2 = 92.38905 pmC => 650
1644 + 650 = "2294 BC"

"2100 BC" or beginning of Ottomány culture

(1633 + 1633 + 1610 + 1633 + 1610 + 1610 + 1610) / 7 = 1620 BC
(93.3283 + 93.3283 + 95.2011 + 93.3283 + 95.2011 + 95.2011 + 95.2011) / 7 = 94.39847 pmC => 480
1620 + 480 = "2100 BC"

"2000 BC" or beginning of Wessex culture

(1610 + 1610 + 1610 + 1610 + 1610 + 1610 + 1610 + 1610 + 1610 + 1588) / 10 = 1608 BC
(95.2011 + 95.2011 + 95.2011 + 95.2011 + 95.2011 + 95.2011 + 95.2011 + 95.2011 + 95.2011 + 97.0681) / 10 = 95.3878 pmC => 390
1608 + 390 = "1998 BC"

"1650 BC" or end of Wessex culture

(1521 + 1498) / 2 = 1510 BC
(98.184 + 98.555) / 2 = 98.3695 pmC => 140
1510 + 140 = "1650 BC"

Caveat. This involves the carbon date of the Exodus as being 1650 BC. If God used the eruption of Santorini as partial means for the plagues of Egypt, the carbon date for the Exodus should instead be 1609.

This would involve a revision of table VI — VII.

This would also involve the Wessex culture ended before 1510 BC. Such a revision would also affect the following item, but not the last one, which is in table VII — VIII:

"1600 BC" or end of Únětice culture

(1498 + 1476) / 2 = 1487 BC
(98.555 + 98.924) / 2 = 98.7395 pmC => 110
1487 + 110 = "1597 BC"

"1400 BC" or end of Ottomány culture

(1364 + 1341) / 2 = 1353 BC
(99.3421 + 99.425) / 2 = 99.38355 pmC => 50
1353 + 50 = "1403 BC"

This accompanies a video by Dan Davies (from my part), here:

Magnificent Ancient Kings: The Únětice Culture
Dan Davis History | 14 April 2024
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5fcEHA2ABeo

Solutrean and Clovis, According to "Other Revision of I-II?"

Creation vs. Evolution: Solutrean and Clovis, According to "Other Revision of I-II?" · Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere: Can Biblical Recalibration Save the Solutrean Hypothesis? · back to: Creation vs. Evolution: Wessex culture, Únětice culture, Ottomány culture : Recalibrating Timespan

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

Period

Upper Paleolithic

Dates

c. 22,000 – c. 17,000 BP

"20 000 BC" = 2733 BC

12.3736 pmC, so dated 19 983 BC

"15 000 BC" = 2693 BC

22.4405 pmC, so dated 15 043 BC

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

Period

Lithic

Dates

c. 11,500 – 10,800 BCE[1][2]

"11 500 BC" = 2644 BC

34.211 pmC, so dated 11 494 BC

"10 800 BC" = 2631

37.351 pmC, so dated 10 781 BC

Creation vs. Evolution: Other Revision of I-II?
https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2024/03/other-revision-of-i-ii.html

Given the Amount of Posts I Spend on Contradicting CMI

For instance, previous, where I contradict Gary Bates on Egyptian chronology ... one could assume I were very opposed to them.

In fact not the case.

Most of their articles, like either I totally agree, or the differences are not much worth making a fuss about. But on the other hand, most of thei articles I assume my readers can get anyway.

Tomorrow's article is however a gem. I'd be sinning against my readers if I withheld direct recommendation of:

Racemization of amino acids under natural conditions: part 4—racemization always exceeds the rate of peptide elongation in aqueous solution
by Royal Truman and Boris Schmidtgall | This article is from
Journal of Creation 36(3):72–80, December 2022
https://creation.com/racemization-of-amino-acids-4

Carbon 14 and Egyptian Chronology, a Reply to Gary Bates

Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere: Gary Bates' Egyptian Matches Bungle the Carbon Rise · Creation vs. Evolution: Egyptian Chronology Calibrated · Augustine and Origen each give us "two birds with one stone" · Carbon 14 and Egyptian Chronology, a Reply to Gary Bates

Egyptian chronology and the Bible—framing the issues
by Gary Bates
https://creation.com/egypt-chronology

I am basically going to concentrate on two things:

what he says on carbon 14 (¹⁴C for short)

what he says of the New Kingdom

To assist with dating artifacts from Egypt, carbon-14 dating is now extensively used but widely disputed due to the massive revisions in time it can lead to. We have written much about the alleged absolute reliability of ¹⁴C dating.

I do in fact not hold to the absolute reliability of ¹⁴C dating. However, I have much more confidence as to its relative reiability than CMI generally have. There are factors in the problem they persist in ignoring. Robert Carter offered me this "explanation" (it was obviously clear to him that I was not promoting taking "40 000 BP" as really 40 000 years ago) of why they do not even attempt such a thing:

This period covers some of the most important periods of biblical history, yet carbon dating fails to properly date any of it. If we have rapidly rising ¹⁴C levels, we cannot even assume the atmosphere would be fully mixed during the transition period. Throw in an Ice Age, shifting atmospheric circulation patterns, vast amounts of old carbon being dumped into the biosphere via vulcanism and via the erosion of calcium-containing rocks, a collapsing magnetic field, and who knows what bombarding us from outer space, and I fully suspect that the oldest measurements will be far from precise.

The problem is, the more ¹⁴C levels punctually sink because of release of old carbon, and note the release of old carbon from 1750 to 1950 has contributed to such a decline in ¹⁴C levels that 1750 having dated to 1950 (raw, uncalibrated date), 1950 dated to 1750 (dito). As said, the more the level punctually sinks, the more drastic increases have to be taken in as to cosmogenic ¹⁴C which implies radioactivity.

If the levels rose from just above 1 pmC in the Flood 2957 BC to 82.73 pmC in 1935 BC when Genesis 14 happened (Abraham around 80 years, or between 76 and 85), the medium factor of how much more ¹⁴C was produced each year can be calculated as this:

2957 - 1935 = 1022 years (it will be radically less in the Masoretic timeline), implies a decay from 100 to 88.37 percent of original level, and therefore also a normal replacement of 100 - 88.37 = 11.63 pmC.

1.628 * 88.37 / 100 = 1.439 remaining pmC*
82.73 actual pmC
82.73 - 1.439 = 81.291 pmC replacement.

81.291 / 11.63 = 6.99 times faster.

Let's follow this up as to what this implies midway or rather 401 after the Flood, when Peleg was born.

401 years, decay 100 to 95.265, normal replacement 4.735 pmC

1.628 * 95.265 / 100 = 1.551 pmC
6.99 * 4.735 pmC = 33.097 pmC
33.097 + 1.551 = 34.648 pmC

2556 BC + 8750 extra years = dates as 11306 BC (in my view, 2556 BC actually dates as 8000 BC, and the level is 51 pmC and some).

Now, to account for the supposition of Carter, let's suppose old carbon to a quantity comparable to the one dumped between 1750 and 1950 is dumped by some volcanic activity.

In order to do this, I need to speak of pmC levels above 100 meaning dates "into the future", because that's what things start out with in 1750. I'm going back to my usual carbon 14 dating calculator, so we are now using numbers from two different apps. In 1750, the level was 102.449 pmC. We'll suppose this sinks to 1950 to 100 pmC, meanwhile the level in 1950 is actually 97.61 pmC.

What exact addition of old carbon to the overall CO₂ has this effect?

X = 100 pCO₂ => 100 pmC
X = 200 pCO₂ => 50 pmC
X = 150 pCO₂ => 75 pmC
X = 112.5 pCO₂ => 87.5 pmC
X = 106.25 pCO₂ => 93.75 pmC
X = 103.125 pCO₂ => 96.875 pmC

So, adding 3.125 pCO₂ (or percent atmospheric carbon, I improvised the term) is a thing. While it took 200 years, we'll suppose it happened in one go, 401 after the Flood. Actual post-Babel dates would then date prior to the date 11 306 BC.

X = 100 pCO₂ => 34.648 pmC
X = 103.125 pCO₂ => 33.565 pmC

So, next year, 2555 BC, you add instead the extra years 9000, giving 11 555 BC. I don't find it very convincing that a sudden addition of old carbon could have happened more than 200 times faster than it did in the industrial era, but have at it.

In 2555, the pmC has instead halved. That would imply that reaching 34.648 pmC actually only took 3.495 times faster production, since the time from flood to 2556 BC would have had only half of our atmospheric carbon. But, 2555 BC, we have present levels of atmospheric carbon, half of which was back then old carbon, it is terribly badly mixed, but the medium level would be down to 17.324 pmC.

2555 would range from 37 000 BC to 11 306 BC, but tend to date around 17 055 BC.

However, 2555 BC, carbon-14 level is on medium 17.324 pmC.

1022 - 402 = 620 years. Decay 100 to 92.774, normal replacement 7.226 pmC.

17.324 * 92.774 / 100 = 16.072 remaining pmC
82.73 - 16.072 = 66.658 actual replacement pmC
66.658 / 7.226 = 9.225 times faster replacement.

The extra years and therefore ¹⁴C levels would differ in Masoretic chronology, but not too much. I'll be inaccurate enough to insert the values from here to those other years. For Ussher years, I'll access Haydock.

Year of the World 2092, Year before Christ 1912 = Genesis 14
Year of the World about 1800, and Year before Christ 2204 = (end of) Babel

2204 - 1912 = 292 years. 620 / 292 = 2.123 faster overall process.
2.123 * 9.225 = 19.587 times faster ¹⁴C replacement/production

And that's just if you want to put Magdalenian in post-Babel instead of pre-Babel, it gets worse if you want to put Neanderthals and Denisovans in the post-Babel instead of the pre-Flood.

But between Genesis 14 and ... let's say fall of Troy, 1180 BC ... the rise is either way slower.

1935 - 1180 = 755 years, decay from 100 to 91.272, normal replacement = 8.728 pmC.
Or, if you prefer, 1912 to 1180, not much difference.

82.73 * 91.272 / 100 = 75.509 remaining pmC
100 - 75.509 = 24.491 actual replacement pmC
24.491 / 8.728 = 2.806 times faster

Note, from Genesis 14 to Fall of Troy, a period that spans the Exodus, this slower rise will likely be less irregular, since better mixed, since the ¹⁴C production more closely resembles the present one. This is the context in which one should take my comment under a video by Gary Bates:

1446 + 430 = 1876 (at the promise, 430 years prior to Exodus).
1550 - 1406 = 144 extra years at the taking of Jericho.

[etc]

Jacob going to Egypt would be in 215 after the promise, i e in 1661.

What would the C14 level be then?

215 years is 97.433 % and 2.567 pmC replacement.

82.164 * 97.433 / 100 = 80.055 pmC
80.055 + (2.567 * 3.736) = 89.646 pmC

89.646 pmC => 900 extra years.

1661 + 900 = 2561 BC. That carbon date is well before the Hyksos. It's actually not too far from Djoser.

Obviously, at Gary Bates' Exodus dating, we get to 100 pmC even before Fall of Troy, namely in the Exodus. The result is that the rise from Genesis 14 on would be even steeper. Not too steep to be fairly even, but still steep enough. Even clearer disproof of a Hyksos pharao, when Joseph arrived. But suppose instead we actually allowed a Hyksos pharao for Joseph.

Year of the World 2298, Year before Christ 1706. = Genesis 43 (Ussher chronology)
The Second Intermediate Period c. 1700–1550 BC

So, 100 pmC, not just for Exodus, but even Joseph's receiving the brethren.

1912 - 1706 = 206 years. Decay 100 to 97.539. Normal replacement 2.461 pmC.

82.73 * 97.539 / 100 = 80.694 remaining pmC
100 - 80.694 = 19.306 actual replacement pmC.
19.306 / 2.461 = 7.845 times faster replacement.

So, the scenario given by Gary Bates involves on the one hand, the ¹⁴C production continued to be much faster than today, nearly 8 times faster, up to Joseph in Egypt, and then came to rest flatly on the modern production level, so that Kenyon's inflated dating for Jericho must be due to mismanagement on her part, rather than ¹⁴C level that was still somewhat lower than what would equate carbon date to real date. How exactly does Gary Bates defend this?

Famous Egyptologist Zahi Hawass, who at the time of the 2010 report was secretary-general of the Egyptian Supreme Council for Antiquities, said:

“This technique shouldn’t be used at all in making changes to the chronology of the [sic] ancient Egypt, not even as a helpful addition … carbon dating is useless. This science will never develop. In archaeology, we consider carbon dating results imaginary.”32

Well, but what is his rationale? If we look at conventional carbon dates, calibrated according to a presumed ¹⁴C level close enough to 100 pmC, this more or less adds up to the totals, but it will make a trainwreck of the details in Egyptian "documented" chronology and succession of pharaos. Zahi Hawass may be very famous, but he is not a Young Earth Creationist and is therefore not prepared for a wholesale adaption of Egyptian chronology to the Biblical one, starting with Abraham meeting Narmer or one of his predecessors in Lower Egypt, before the unification. Or even maybe one of the guys in Upper Egypt whom Narmer defeated later on. However, I am, and Gary Bates should be, prepared for such reevaluation. Therefore, Zahi's premiss being flawed, his conclusion is flawed too.

Again, it shows how much disparity there is in trying to reconcile timelines for ancient Egypt as no one source seems to be consistent with any other and many preconceived ideologies and agendas rule. The further back in ancient Egypt one tries to use ¹⁴C dates the more disparate the figures are also likely to become. Also, because there are fewer artifacts from the more ancient dynasties the more likely it is that researchers will rely upon ¹⁴C alone as a single line of evidence. Hence, why an Old Kingdom revision can occur in the blink of an eye by c. 400 years. This is less likely with New Kingdom dates where we have a wealth of more recent evidence to confirm or reject a ¹⁴C date.

While the New Kingdom is better documented, it is not all that well documented that a revision of 100 years along the start is impossible. I would say, the New Kingdom starts at the carbon date 1550 BC, same as for Kenyon's date for Jericho. This means, the real date 1470 BC, 40 years after the Exodus, when Joshua conquers Jericho. Or in other words: the Hyksos were Canaaneans, when Joshua weakens these, or God does so through Joshua, he helps to liberate Egyptians from them as well.

In this context, I recall another video, with Gary Bates, where he gave specific arguments for a specific New Kingdom pharao. I made responses, and posted them on my blog, and now I cannot find the blog post. Not on either of the blogs where I would expect to find it, neither this one, nor the one called Assorted Retorts. Maybe he put that video down to replace it with the one from 27 March this year. If he did, let's hope he didn't arrange to have my post deleted for supposed "copy-right" issues, refuting is not plagiarising, in US law, but perhaps he could find a dishonest and accomodating internet admin. Or, for that matter, let's hope he didn't do so without deleting the previous video either. Whoever did it can be considered as committing inimical acts against me, and exercising a kind of illegal censorship. And especially an immoral one.

The take-away I hoped to provide through the citation of my previous criticism is, anyway, that the kind of astronomic event associated with that particular pharao that Gary used to clinch the date, also occurred some 20 or 50 years later, whichever it was, it would have been compatible with my dates for the Exodus and revision of the New Kingdom.

Meanwhile, an Exodus in 1510 BC (carbon dated to perhaps 1609 BC, if God used the Santorini eruption as partial cause for the plagues of Egypt) would from Gary Bates' perspective have the disadvantage of putting more time between the Exodus and the Temple than 480 years. On this issue I refer back to my conclusion that "480 years" is intended to mean "at least 480 years":

Creation vs. Evolution: 480 Years From Exodus to Temple?
https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2023/01/480-years-from-exodus-to-temple.html

It is possible that the material on what pharao Gary Bates had in mind is still there in another video, not taken down, and that even my comments would be accessible to me. It is possible that it is only on the new video. I'm sorry, but due to internet sabotage, I will have to return to that later.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
St. Mary Cleophas
9.IV.2024

In Judaea sanctae Mariae Cleophae, quam beatus Joannes Evangelista sororem sanctissimae Dei Genitricis Mariae nuncupat, et cum hac simul juxta crucem Jesu stetisse narrat.

* The calculation results often have more than three decimals in the following, but are rounded to three decimals.

Test if You Can Post a Link From Here on Facebook!

Creation vs. Evolution: Test if You Can Post a Link From Here on Facebook! · HGL'S F.B. WRITINGS: Abusive Censorship Again

It seems that Muslims who disapprove on FB France have banned this blog.

Creation vs. Evolution
https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/

What I tried to share was previous post:

Creation vs. Evolution: LXX / Vetus Latina as per Julius Africanus : Pre-Flood Period 2262 Years
https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2024/04/lxx-vetus-latina-as-per-julius.html

LXX / Vetus Latina as per Julius Africanus : Pre-Flood Period 2262 Years

In other words, there is no problem of where Methuselah was when the Flood came — he was already dead.

The following table also takes into account the overlapping of the generations, after each it is marked who were living in their lifespans (in some cases, the overlap is only for a few years of the younger one's life, but that's rare).

Adam	1 — 930	Seth Enos Cainan Maleleel
Seth	230 — 1142	Adam Enos Cainan Maleleel Jared Enoch
Enos	435 — 1340	Adam Seth Cainan Maleleel Jared Enoch Mathusala
Cainan	625 — 1535	Adam Seth Enos Maleleel Jared Enoch Mathusala Lamech
Maleleel	795 — 1690	Adam Seth Enos Cainan Jared Enoch Mathusala Lamech Noe
Jared	960 — 1922	Seth Enos Cainan Maleleel Enoch Mathusala Lamech Noe
Enoch	1122 — 1487	Seth Enos Cainan Maleleel Jared Mathusala Lamech
Mathusala	1287 — 2256	Enos Cainan Maleleel Jared Enoch Lamech Noe Sem
__________________________________________
Lamech	1454 — 2207	Cainan Maleleel Jared Enoch Mathusala Noe Sem
Noe	1642 — 2592	Maleleel Jared Mathusala Lamech Sem
Sem, Ham, Japheth	2142	Mathusala Lamech Noe
Flood,	2242	Mathusala!
__________________________________________
Lamech	1474 — 2227	Cainan Maleleel Jared Enoch Mathusala Noe Sem
Noe	1662 — 2612	Maleleel Jared Mathusala Lamech Sem Arphaxad [(II) Cainan] Sala | Heber
Sem, Ham, Japheth	2162	Mathusala Lamech Noe Arphaxad [(II) Cainan] Sala | Phaleg
Flood,	2262

Is there a specific reason to believe the reading of Julius Africanus is correct? Check out this one:

Dating Methuselah's Death: Pre or Post Flood? with Henry B. Smith Jr.
Associates for Biblical Research | 8 April 2023
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6HwPmoxrK04

Flood,	2262
Noah	pre-Flood — 350	1662 — 2612	Maleleel Jared Mathusala Lamech Sem Arphaxad [(II) Cainan] Sala | Heber
Sem	pre-Flood — 502	2164 — 2764	Mathusala Lamech Noe Arphaxad [(II) Cainan] Sala Heber | Phaleg
Arphaxad	2 — 537	2264 — 2799	Noe Sem [(II) Cainan] Sala Heber Phaleg | Ragau
__________________________________________
(II) Cainan	137 — 597	2399 — 2859	Noe Sem Arphaxad Sala Heber Phaleg Ragau
Sala	267 — 727	2529 — 2989	Noe Sem Arphaxad (II) Cainan Heber Phaleg Ragau
Heber	397 — 801	2659 — 3063	Sem Arphaxad (II) Cainan Sala Phaleg Ragau Seruch
Phaleg	531 — 870	2793 — 3132	Arphaxad (II) Cainan Sala Heber Ragau Seruch
Ragau	661 — 1000	2923 — 3262	Sala Heber Phaleg Seruch Nachor
Seruch	793 — 1123	3055 — 3385	Heber Phaleg Ragau Nachor Thara
Nachor	923 — 1227	3185 — 3489	Ragau Seruch Nachor Thara
Thara	1102 — 1307 / 1377 + ?	3364 — 3569 / 3639 + ?	Seruch Nachor Thara
Abram, Nachor and Arrhan	1172	3434	Nachor Thara
__________________________________________
Sala	137 — 597	2399 — 2859	Noe Sem Arphaxad Sala Heber Phaleg Ragau
Heber	267 — 671	2529 — 2933	Noe Sem Arphaxad Sala Phaleg Ragau Seruch
Phaleg	401 — 740	2663 — 3002	Sem Arphaxad Sala Heber Ragau Seruch
Ragau	531 — 870	2793 — 3132	Arphaxad Sala Heber Phaleg Seruch Nachor
Seruch	663 — 993	2925 — 3255	Heber Phaleg Ragau Nachor Thara
Nachor	793 — 997 ? / 1097 ?	3055 — 3259 ? / 3359 ?	Ragau Seruch Thara
Thara	872 — 1075 / 1145 + ?	3134 — 3337 / 3407 + ?	Seruch Nachor
Abram, Nachor and Arrhan	942	3204	Seruch Nachor Thara

There are two discrepancies between the standard version of the LXX and the one involved in the Roman Martyrology. That one has no Second (II) Cainan and Nachor begets at 79 rather than 179. I think both are textually attested in manuscripts we have, but even if this were not the case, patristic witness to this version would be sufficient, and we have that insofar that Julius Africanus, whose work is the basis of the Roman Martyrology as to distance between Creation, Flood and Birth of Abraham (except St. Jerome "corrected" the first distance from 2262 to 2242) gives as the latter distance, not 1172 or 1072, as per with a (II) Cainan, and also not 1042, as per without him, but with Nachor begetting Thara at 179, but 942, as per no (II) Cainan and as per Nachor begetting Thara at 79.

These details can be found here, under the pen of Dr. Jonathan Sarfati:

Biblical chronogenealogies
by Jonathan Sarfati | This article is from
Journal of Creation 17(3):14–18, December 2003
https://creation.com/biblical-chronogenealogies

Obviously, this allows Abraham to have spoken to Seruch, who, in Josue 24:2, unlike possibly his son Nachor, certainly his grandson Thara, is not mentioned as an idolater. Abraham had access to pure doctrine and to the historical traditions as preserved within pure doctrine, including in the LXX chronology.

I think someone may have prayed over my getting confronted with this problem of Methuselah's "remaining years after the Flood" in the LXX, and perhaps also reconfronted with the quip, very popular among "Catholic" clergy in Paris, that Abraham was born into a family of idolaters, so that, whatever he received as traditions from the family would have to be "pagan mythology" by definition.

Even if that had been true, it would not have automatically made the traditions historically incorrect. St. Augustine respects the tradition on how Rome was founded and only in theology (about the origin of Romulus) markedly differs from the worshippers of Mars and of Romulus. We also tend to accept as historical the life of Siddharta Gautama, and differ from Buddhists only in theology (including but not limited to this man's supposed pre-existences in previous reincarnations). But, as said, it is not even true. However, some clergy over here would probably be in their 90's and struck by Alzheimer be incapable of taking my replies into account, nevertheless, they are for some reason allowed to guide younger people with healthier minds about what to say about my Young Earth Creationist position. I heard this objection 10 years ago, or more. I answered it pretty quickly too.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
Dominica in Albis
7.IV.2024

Disagreeing with Sarfati on Two Items

First, the* quote:

At the peak, the Flood covered the highest mountains to 15 cubits deep (about 7 metres or 22.5 feet). The Ark was safe because it sank only about ten cubits into the water—a third of its height.

Two statements here are not in my model of Flood and Ark.

1) He thinks the waterline was 10 cubits up, I think it was 15 cubits up. Or maybe 14 or 14 and a half.
2) He thinks "15 cubits above the very high mountains / the highest mountains" was the peak of the Flood, I think this was what Noah could know of, but not necessarily the peak.

Let's give my reasons.

1) I think a waterline halfway up the ship or in this case non-navigating vessel makes for better stability. (More mundanely, I used that waterline in my calculation of the rolling period.)
2) I think Noah either by prophecy of by calculation of weights could know the waterline was 15 cubits up or 14 and a half, and so he knew this was how much the water was higher than the flat mountain top where he had built the Ark. It does not state that at this moment the water had reached its peak, and need not imply that if "The water was fifteen cubits higher than the mountains which it covered" means "at least 15 cubits" rather than "at most 15 cubits" ...

Genesis 7:20 describes the moment when they cease waiting in an immobile Ark and they feel that the ark starts moving. Or it starts even previous verse. 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.

If the waterline was 14 and a half cubits up, Noah calculated one half cubit of water below the bottom of the Ark (there was no keel) was what the Ark needed to float free from the mountain top. Once they were off, they were in deep water, which would not make very turbulent, though certainly big, waves. A thing I and** Sarfati agree on, see his fact box with the kitten in an umbrella holding a paddle. As we do*** on non-existance of Mount Everest before the Flood, see his three sentences after the one I quoted.

The reason I take Genesis 7:19—20 to describe the actual take-off of the Ark is, if the Ark had been floating earlier, it would have risked colliding with the mountains. Now, there is an item where he and I both agree and disagree. Why God sent the Flood. Genesis 6:11 And the earth was corrupted before God, and was filled with iniquity. Now, he, following KJV saying "violence" thinks this refers to a chaos of perpetual warfare, as would inhibit technology by leaving no one able to figure things out. I think the iniquity was closer to Communist China's social credit score./HGL

* The Genesis Flood for kids: The flood peaks
by Jonathan Sarfati | Published in Creation 46(2):32–35, 2024
https://creation.com/the-flood-peaks-cfk

** See also: HGL'S F.B. WRITINGS: He did some answering, though, to others ... · Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere: Oceanic Deep Water Waves in Whole Gale : Whitecaps on a Lake, But Bigger

*** See also: Himalayas ... how fast did they rise? · Himalayas, bis ... and Pyrenees · ter · quater · quinquies ... double-checked

Where I Agree with Uniformitarian Dating Experts

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

Since the late revisions are revisions of a work that in its vast bulk remains, namely, New Tables, I'll take an item (Genesis 14) from New Tables. As written, and then as I usually write it, but didn't that once:

1935 B. Chr.

0.8273 pmC/100, so dated as 3485 B. Chr.

1935 BC

82.73 pmC, so dated as 3485 B. Chr.

82.73 gives 1550 extra years, +/- 10. I'd ideally want 1565 extra years. That's 82.753 pmC. But that also gives 1550 extra years. The carbon 14 calculator rounds.*

Now, the people who carbon dated the reed mats from the evacution of En-Geddi to 3500 BC, not 1935 BC, 1565 years later. They would agree that in 1935 BC, the reed mats had a carbon 14 content of 82.753 or 82.73 pmC.

We just disagree about why.

If you ask me, that's because, in the overall atmosphere, the carbon 14 content back then was 82.753 pmC. It had been rising and was going to continue to rise.

If you ask them, the reed mats are from 3500 BC, they started out with c. 100 pmC, both of which propositions I deny. But in 1935, they were 1565 years old, and their carbon 14 content had sunk to 82.753 pmC. I deny that having sunk, but I obviously agree that the level "by" = or rather in 1935 BC was 82.753 pmC.

If we go a bit further back, to Babel, I consider Göbekli Tepe as Nimrod's Babel, and I consider Babel as correctly datable by Biblical chronology, so, with Flood in 2957 BC** and Peleg born 401 after the Flood, Babel ends in 2556 BC.

Now, the carbon date I go by is, as latest limit for Göbekli Tepe, 8000 BC, but used to be 8600 BC. I read another article after doing New Tables. Here I give both values, New Tables and Revision:

2556 B. Chr.

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

2556 BC

51.761 pmC, so dated 8006 BC

I'll suppose the late limit for Göbekli Tepe changed because of some other find, which added some younger associated organic material.

Now, we disagree on when the organic material is from.

But we agree that something which is carbon dated to 8600 BC would have had 48.1415 pmC in 2556 BC — and something carbon dated to 8000 BC would have had 51.761 pmC in 2556 BC.

We also agree that they have lots less carbon 14 now.

8600 + 2024 = 10 624 years old => 27.66 pmC now.
8000 + 2024 = 10 024 years old => 29.743 pmC now.
3500 + 2024 = 5524 years old => 51.262 pmC now.

The reason I am giving the pmC for back when the samples came to be and not the pmC for now is, my controversy is:

• accounting for inflated carbon dates by carbon 14 levels back then
• and for this being in a realistic rise of carbon 14 levels
• and, incidentally, provide "translations" for the inflated carbon dates just after Babel to in Genesis 14 over the presumable carbon 14 levels between the points in time
• both of previous two points hanging together in my assumption that carbon 14 levels in the atmosphere won't go from 1.628 pmC to 51 pmC overnight.

The last point is also sth which I agree with Uniformitarians on. If cosmic rays overnight produced carbon 14 for 1.628 to 51, that would be a rise of 49.372 pmC points. Normal replacement in 100 years can be deduced from remaining carbon 14 levels after 100 years. 98.798 % of original content => normal replacement of 1.202 pmC points. This means, adding 1.202 pmC points overnight by cosmic radiation would be higher addition by a ratio of 36525 times normal, 49.372 / 1.202 gives a ratio of 41, roughly, multiply that by 36525, you get a ratio of 1 500 260 times normal replacement.

My check on the carbon rise is such that the worst multiplication I get in the very last revision is 20.702 times normal. Not one and a half million times normal, but 21 times normal.

Now, let's check that the values I give and the time I give match to the expectations I have just given.

2556 + 2024 = 4580 years old => 57.463 % of original content***
1935 + 2024 = 3959 years old => 61.946 % of original content

48.1415 * 57.463 / 100 = 27.664 pmC (match, discrepancy of less than 0.004 pmC)
51.761 * 57.463 / 100 = 29.743 pmC (match, discrepancies after 3rd decimal)
82.753 * 61.946 / 100 = 51.262 pmC (match, discrepancies after 3rd decimal)

This means, my theory is indeed, as I claim, equivalently accounting for current observations of carbon content in samples. The difference cannot be determined exclusively from such current observations, but is only about whether Biblical dates mean anything and whether if so they are more reliable than the dates chosen for calibrating the carbon 14 dates. I affirm this. The Uniformitarians deny this.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
Easter Monday
1.IV.2024

PS, it is also about whether my archaeological matches for Biblical events are correctly chosen, I think so, but that is another debate./HGL

* 0.827525739035656 is 0.5 to the power of 1565/5730. So, the correct value should be 82.753 or 82.7525739 pmC
** Should be 2958, since Jesus is born in 2957 after the Flood, which is in 1 BC.
*** Would have been 57.463 pmC if original content had been 100 pmC. Same for next line.