Has the Carbon 14 Level Reached Stability?

In my own work, I say it has:

New blog on the kid: Examinons une hypothèse qui se trouve contrefactuelle un peu de près
Wednesday, 28 October 2015 | Posted by Hans Georg Lundahl at 13:26
https://nov9blogg9.blogspot.com/2015/10/examinons-une-hypothese-qui-se-trouve.html

My what-if was, given the carbon 14 level at the Deluge was 3/64 of what it is now (4.6875 pmC, 25 298 extra years, see below calculation A, based on a medium of a ballpark of 20 000 to 50 000 BP*), an evaluation I have changed since, and supposing carbon 14 had risen by always gaining as much as is produced in the corresponding timespans now (4.261 pmC gained each 360 years, while also losing by multiplication with 0.957 each such period, calculations B and C), we would have arrived by 2013 at 45,7 % of the present rate.

But as those 45,7 % would not be taken as 45,7 % of the present rate, given they are the present rate, the 45,7 % would be reinterpreted as 100 %, so 100 pmC.

If we consistently did that, and dated older items accordingly (actual rising C-14, so lower than expected), still using 5730 years as the halflife, we would get into absurdities, like boots from El Alamein dating to the Civil War. But on the other hand, if we corrected for known historic items, we would get halflives, like 2242 to 2832 years.

Against this, a man like Gavin Cox will refer* to a sentence in an article from originally 1979** that says:

Was the ¹⁴C entering and leaving the system at the same rate? In his day, the measurements and calculations, which he knew about, showed that ¹⁴C was entering the system some 12–20% faster than it was leaving.

From 1940 (when ¹⁴C was discovered) to 1979, there were 39 years, let's say 40. This would have given (see calculations E, F, G and H) a very slight increase, not the wildest fluctuation in known calibrations of radiocarbon.

I think my big picture calculation in the article I referred to trumps the small picture calculations that Carl Wieland back then referred to.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
St Thomas Aquinas
6—7.III.2026
(after First Vespers)

In monasterio Fossae Novas, prope Tarracinam, in Campania, sancti Thomae Aquinatis, Confessoris et Ecclesiae Doctoris, ex Ordine Praedicatorum, nobilitate generis, vitae sanctitate et Theologiae scientia illustrissimi; quem Leo Papa Decimus tertius caelestem Scholarum omnium catholicarum Patronum declaravit.

Calculations

A) 5730 * log(0.046875) / log(0.5) = 25 298 extra years.
B) Decay of 360 years = 0.5^(360/5730) = multiply previous amount by 0.9573861063712243
C) Normal production in 360 years = 1 - 0.9573861063712243 = 0.0426138936287757, add 4.621 pmC each such period
D) Decay of 40 years = 0.5^(40/5730) = multiply previous amount by 0.9951729639914483
E) Normal production in 40 years = 1 - 0.9951729639914483 = 0.0048270360085517
F) Observed production lower limit = 1.12 * 0.0048270360085517 = 0.005406280329577904
G) Observed production higher limit = 1.2 * 0.0048270360085517 = 0.00579244321026204
H) Deduced observed rise, higher limit, if there had been no carbon emissions : 1 * 0.9951729639914483 + 0.00579244321026204 = 1.00096540720171034

* Feedback article:

Carbon dating—who is fooling whom?
By Gavin Cox | Published 08 Dec, 2018 | Updated 07 Nov, 2024
https://creation.com/en/articles/carbon-dating-fooling-whom

** Republished, but with caution of it's being outdated:

Carbon-14 dating—explained in everyday terms
By Dr Carl Wieland | [Re-] Published 27 Jan, 2006
https://creation.com/en/articles/carbon-14-dating-explained-in-everyday-terms

Some People Seem Too Willing to See me as Someone Else's Dupe

Example somewhat current in Paris.

Kent Hovind is a Young Earth Creationist. I am a Young Earth Creationist. Ergo, I became a Young Earth Creationist because Kent Hovind had charisma and I had insecurity ...

Kent Hovind also is on record or was on record as stating the Catholic Church had started Islam, because Alberto Rivera heard that in a secret briefing. He also is on record as stating Christ made no fermented wine in Cana and used no fermented wine on the Last Supper. See how I react to those things before you consider me Kent Hovind's dupe ...

Other example.

Graham Hancock believes the Younger Dryas and Göbekli Tepe are intimately connected to the history of mankind and civilisation. And Göbekli Tepe built on a previous and lost culture which was in the main not being expressed in the Palaeolithic culture of the post-Flood Ice Age.

While the hint about Younger Dryas and Göbekli Tepe actually reached me by reading Graham Hancock, and I cite him - wait a second on how we each tease out the details.

First, CMI which never directly responded to my stuff is responding in a very condescending way, not to Graham Hancock (who never reached out to them), but about him:

Ancient Apocalypse ‘hooey’
CMI : Feedback 2023, Gavin Cox responding
https://creation.com/ancient-hancock-hooey

Some of this is actually a useful resource about Graham Hancock.

Importantly, Hancock rejects using Scripture as the only way to interpret historical data. His is a hybrid approach, which discounts the (evolutionary) idea that humans were ‘primitive’ prior to and during the Ice Age and adds the (pseudo-biblical) idea that an advanced culture was destroyed by a cataclysm during a period called the ‘Younger Dryas’ (YD), supposedly around 12,900–11,700 years BP (before present). The YD represented a return to glacial conditions, which reversed the initial warming that happened after the Last Glacial Maximum, supposedly, c. 27,000–20,000 years BP. If you are interested on reading up on the YD see: Ice core oscillations and abrupt climate changes: part 1—Greenland ice cores, and scroll down to the sub-heading “The special Younger Dryas event”.

The reference they give discusses the mechanism.

Now, my view is that Younger Dryas was a few years just prior to the death of Noah. It involved some coastal floodings, and this may have been what gave Nimrod the idea that God wasn't keeping His promise, so men had to get to heaven to avoid the next Flood.

In Göbekli Tepe, Nimrod didn't meet any Ancient Alien Astronauts unlike what Hancock suggested in Chariots of the Gods, but was himself an Ancient Aspiring Astronaut.

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.

Why "the top of which" or "the top whereof may reach to heaven"? If the building was going to stay on the ground and only reach heaven by being very tall, why not "a tower which may reach to heaven"?

On the other hand, if Moses knew Nimrod planned and Kennedy and Khrushchev were going to succeed with three step rockets, one sees why "the top whereof" is used. At takeoff a threestep rocket looks like a tower - but steps one and two fall into the sea or burn when falling down the atmosphere, so only the top actually reaches the moon.

Hebrew English interlinear tells me that the relevant words in Hebrew are "weroshow bashamayim" (and the top [is] in the heavens). I click on wə·rō·šōw and find 7 occurrences, two translated "top" (Genesis 11 and 28, the tower and the ladder) and five translated "head" (Leviticus 13, Joshua 2, Job 20, Ps 7, Ezechiel 33). So, it is not the "height" but the actual material top of it that reaches into heaven.

This explains why there is no very high tower or ruins of such in Göbekli Tepe. If (as I think) my identification is correct. Nimrod having very inadequate access to pre-Flood science and technology was not helping him really achieve the goal. God actually helped the project by then and there stopping it. By letting human research get from Nimrod to Wernher von Braun.

But not just what happened socially I differ from Graham Hancock, not just the connexion to Younger Dryas, but equally obviously how he and I date these things.

As I see Göbekli Tepe as Babel, specifically city of Babel, I go to the Biblical dates for Babel, between 350 and 401 after the Flood, between the death of Noah and the birth of Peleg (yes, I know it doesn't work out that way in Masoretic chronology and I know the Vulgate has Masoretic chronology, but the Catholic Church also has a text read at Christmasses which has another chronology, a version of the LXX as to Genesis 5 and 11). This means that Göbekli Tepe's earliest carbon date, charcoal below the actual buildings, dated to 9600 BC, has to match some year close to 350 after the Flood or 2607 BC, and Göbekli Tepe's latest carbon date, a charcoal layer on top, dated to 8600 BC, has to match some year close to 401 after the Flood, or 2556 BC. This is very much not what Graham Hancock is doing, as he is taking the carbon dates as they stand.

As some may know, I use this equation for my New Tables, as two of the nodes between archaeology and Biblical chronology.

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

The entries here show how I deal with it:

2607 B. Chr.

0.428224 pmC/100, so dated as 9607 B. Chr.

...

2556 B. Chr.

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

Let me fix some deviations from conventions. In a tired moment, I regretted that English BC is less specific than French av. J. Chr. so I used B. Chr. The other one is, I found normal fractions easier to count with than percentages. Here is how it normally should look:

2607 BC

42.8224 pmC, so dated as 9607 BC

...

2556 BC

48.1415 pmC, so dated as 8606 BC

Now the thing is, feed 42.8224 pmC into a carbon 14 calculator, you get ... 7000 years. 2607 + 7000 = 9607 BC. The carbon date is the sum of the real date and the "instant carbon date" or "phantom age" produced by the lower initial pmC in the charcoal sample.

Same for 48.1415 pmC, gives 6050 years, 6050 + 2556 = 8606 BC.

And obviously, my rationale for the carbon levels I searched for was, as with the other nodes, they must be calculated from the amount of extra years. 9600 - 2607 = 6993 or roughly 7000 extra years. 8600 - 2556 = 6044 or roughly 6050 extra years. Put that into a carbon 14 calculator, and you get:

7000 -> 42.879 pmC
6050 -> 48.101 pmC

But why 42.8224 pmC instead of 42.879 pmC? Why 48.1415 pmC instead of 48.101 pmC?

I actually calculated successive C14 levels on paper, without a C14 calculator. I used decimal fractions obtained by multiple square roots of 0.5, multiplied by each other. This is because I did that work during the first confinement, to correct the Genesis 14 node from estimated carbon date c. 3200 BC to the actual test result 3500 BC, obtained from reed mats evacuated with temple treasures from En-Gedi by the Amorrhaeans. Osgood hadn't given a date, I only found it later.

Here are basically the fractions I used:

Creation vs. Evolution : Bases of C14
https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2020/08/bases-of-c14.html

So, with this in mind, how do I date the glacial maximum and the Younger Dryas Cooling event?

12,900–11,700 years BP = 10,900 - 9,700 BC.

In New tables, I find it here:

2666 BC

35.4608 pmC, so dated as 11 216 BC

2644 BC

38.0408 pmC, so dated as 10 644 BC

2621 BC

40.6138 pmC, so dated as 10 071 BC

2599 BC

43.1708 pmC, so dated as 9549 BC

In other words, during the Younger Dryas, carbon 14 levels rose from 35.4 / 38 pmC to 40.6 / 43.1 pmC. It began in some year between 2666 and 2644 BC, and it ended some time between 2621 and 2599 BC. Let's make rough estimates by going to the medium values, from 2655 BC to 2610 BC. Far from lasting 1000 years, the Younger Dryas lasted only something like 45 years. That's why it was survived.

My theory is not proposed previously by other Young Earth Creationists, because they have neglected Göbekli Tepe. Lita Sanders and Robert Carter in 2011 answered on Göbekli Tepe without mentioning Babel.

My theory is also not proposed previously by Graham Hancock. He takes the carbon dates at face value, and believes the samples started out with c. 100 pmC.

Creationists believe I am a New Ager and a dupe of Graham Hancock. Graham Hancock believes I'm a religious fanatic and a dupe of Creation Ministries International or Kent Hovind.

Result - neither of them looks at what I do. Neither of them credits what I do. My study debt so far remains mostly unpaid, at below 400,000 SEK, below 38 819,18 USD, below 31 371,40 GBP, below 35 827,42 €.

Other result - neither of them needs to take my data into account for possibly reinterpreting his own.

But before I end, I'll be helpful about the Glacial Maximum as well ...

Last Glacial Maximum, supposedly, c. 27,000–20,000 years BP

2935 BC

3.9541 pmC, so dated as 29 635 BC

2912 BC

6.6161 pmC, so dated as 25 362 BC

...

2867 BC

11.9246 pmC/100, so dated as 20 467 BC

How do I obtain these levels? I obviously have no Biblical historic artefact corresponding to Glacial Maximum, so how?

Well, this is calculating a growth curve from the level needed to get 2957 BC (the Flood) as "40 000 BP" (Neanderthal démise, now corrected to "39 000 BP") up to the level for getting 2607 BC as 9600 BC.

I then put the levels of the different years into carbon 14 dating calculators, get the extra years, insert the carbon dates that correspond to the real ones.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
St. Fabian of Rome
Pope and Martyr
20.I.2023

Romae natalis sancti Fabiani, Papae et Martyris, qui, Decii tempore, martyrium passus est, atque in coemeterio Callisti sepultus.

PS, I forgot to make the average between the real dates surrounding the carbon date 27000 BP ... oops, not necessary, since 27000 BP = 25000 BC, one of the values, 2912 BC. However, same mistake further down, I need 18 000 BC as carbon date, and when 2845 carbon dates as 18 745 and 2823 as 17 373, the carbon date 18 000 BC or 20 000 BP would be c. 2834 BC./HGL

CMI Again Against Geocentrism ...

"Did the V838 Monocerotis explode faster than light?" - Geocentric Solution Overlooked Again · Mechanism for Light Echo Proposed · Answering Shubinski on Proofs for Orbiting Earth · CMI Again Against Geocentrism ...

It begins to look a little like nagging ... but it's worse they are wrong.

Here is the background:

The Antikythera Mechanism / Testament to ancient human genius
by Gavin Cox | This article is from
Creation 43(4):17–19, October 2021
https://creation.com/antikythera-mechanism

Most learned Greeks at the time of the mechanism’s manufacture believed in a geocentric cosmos (with the earth stationary at the centre). Some did not; some two centuries before the Roman shipwreck off Antikythera, Greek astronomer Aristarchus of Samos argued that the earth rotates and moves around the sun. But without a detailed model nor explanation of why the earth moved, his idea was not widely accepted. So the Antikythera Mechanism reflects the then widely accepted geocentric view of the heavens.

There is a detailed model and an explanation why heavenly bodies move in part in Tychonian orbits, and this means that "detailed model" and "explanation" don't automatically imply adhesion to an idea.

Now, here we come to a new ovation to Galileo, the fact box named "Epicycles, the Bible, and geocentrism".

Here we see a statement like:

The Bible does not teach either a heliocentric or a geocentric solar system. It uses ‘phenomenological’ (descriptive) language to refer to the movement of the sun, moon, and stars.

Examples conspicuously omit Joshua 10.

However, geocentrism was taught by influential Greek philosophers, and became the ‘settled science’ of the day. This later influenced the Roman Catholic Church at the time of Galileo Galilei (AD 1564–1642).

In Tycho's time, the full version of Aristotelic Geocentrism was no longer settled science, and he died in 1601, decades before both Galileo affairs were completed, about 15 years before the first one. One can safely dismiss the idea that Greek philosophy rather than Catholic thought and Bible exegesis was the driving matter in the Galileo affairs, notwithstanding Statham's article to which Gavin refers:

The truth about the Galileo affair
by Dominic Statham Published: 8 November 2018
https://creation.com/galileo-church

and which I already answered over here:

Creation vs. Evolution : Science vs Science, Exegesis vs Exegesis
https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2018/11/science-vs-science-exegesis-vs-exegesis.html

It wasn’t until Isaac Newton (AD 1643–1727) that it was widely accepted that the earth as well as the planets really did orbit the sun.

The point is not just that he offered an explanation, he also overlooked the previously accepted one, angelic movers. And his theses were spread by the Masonic Master Desaguliers:

John Theophilus Desaguliers FRS (12 March 1683 – 29 February 1744) was a British natural philosopher, clergyman, engineer and freemason who was elected to the Royal Society in 1714 as experimental assistant to Isaac Newton. He had studied at Oxford and later popularized Newtonian theories and their practical applications in public lectures. Desaguliers's most important patron was James Brydges, 1st Duke of Chandos. As a Freemason, Desaguliers was instrumental in the success of the first Grand Lodge in London in the early 1720s and served as its third Grand Master.

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

His father was a Huguenot, too. Not a good premonition, anymore than him being a Mason.

Back to Joshua 10, which was mentioned very specifically in the arguments around the first Galileo affair, when a book was condemned (Assayer?). I debated this with a certain Vy (no longer sure at all of his full name, this is how I anonymised him) over at FB:

HGL'S F.B. WRITINGS : A "Biblical" Heliocentric Misciting Holy Scripture
http://hglsfbwritings.blogspot.com/2014/11/a-biblical-heliocentric-misciting-holy.html

And I wrote a whole essay to labour the point : when God ordered Sun and Moon to stand still, as Joshua ordered them, He made Himself a warrant for Sun and Moon being, as adressed by Joshua, the things (or at least among the things) that changed behaviour:

New blog on the kid : Columbus and Joshua (Imagine Christopher Columbus had worked a miracle)
http://nov9blogg9.blogspot.com/2014/11/columbus-and-joshua-imagine-christopher.html

Gavin Cox concludes his essay:

So the question they pose, as a potential objection to their conclusions, is: How could the ancient Greeks have achieved such precise manufacturing?

Given that they were Geocentric, and that Gavin thinks this erronous, he would have to admit that making precise achievements by Heliocentric assumptions (if operational at all) doesn't prove Heliocentrism.

Now, do Retrogrades do so?

The earth is orbiting faster than Mars and outer planets. When the earth overtakes these, the planets appear to move backwards. Think about what happens when you are in a car that overtakes a slower one. When you look out the window, the slower car seems to be moving backwards compared to you.

In the diagram, the numbers mean different times in the orbit of Earth and Mars. The curve on the right means the position of the planets as they appear against the background of the stars.

Fair enough, but with Tychonian orbits of the planets and angels making sure they don't get out of orbit, Earth standing still and Mars performing part of its oval around the Sun along with the general movement around Earth will have exactly the same effect.

So, do angelic movers make sense from the Bible? Yes, they do. CMI could rightly use Psalm 73:13 as a proof for dinos being eliminated (not necesarily all of them, but at least the biggest and most obnoxious ones) during the Flood. The genre poetry doesn't preclude literal truth of statements. Now, Judges 5 has a passage that only makes sense if either stars are alive - which would have the same effect for above argument - or stars (including in the then terminology planets) are moved by angels.

War from heaven was made against them, the stars remaining in their order and courses fought against Sisara.

Not to mention Job 38:7:

When the morning stars praised me together, and all the sons of God made a joyful melody?

Only living beings can be said to fight against Sisara or praise God together or be called "the sons of God". And only for heavenly bodies would one have "stars remaining in their order and courses".

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
St. Giles
1.IX.221

In provincia Narbonensi sancti A[e]gidii, Abbatis et Confessoris, cujus nomine est appellatum oppidum, quod postea crevit in loco, ubi ipse monasterium erexerat et mortalis vitae cursum absolverat.

Gavin Cox, Egypt, C14

How to fit "mythical kings" in Turin King List with pre-Flood patriarchs, I think Gavin Cox may know more than I:

CMI : The search for Adam, Eve, Noah and the Flood—in Ancient Egypt?
Published: 13 February 2021 (GMT+10)
by Gavin Cox, Feedback 2021
https://creation.com/adam-eve-noah-flood-ancient-egypt

Now, what about the pyramids, C14?

CMI : Time fears the pyramids?
by Gavin Cox | This article is from
Creation 42(1):18–20, January 2020
https://creation.com/pyramids-of-egypt-age

First, one more area of agreement:

... secular dating for the oldest of Egypt’s pyramids presents no threat to the accuracy of biblical history. The dates offered for these monuments are themselves questioned by the experts who calculate them—which are in turn based upon their worldview, which rejects any notion of the global Flood as a real event in history. In reality, the oldest of Egypt’s pyramids fit comfortably within biblical history and timescale as post-Flood and post-Babel monuments. They were built by the descendants of Noah, through Ham, Mizraim, and their offspring.

Now, where we differ is in technical detail.

However, it is the Flood which would have had the major effect on the carbon ratio. This becomes increasingly significant the closer the sample’s true age is to the time of the Flood. This is because the Flood buried huge amounts of ¹²C in vegetation, but the amount of ¹⁴C being produced is unaffected by this. This would significantly increase the post-Flood ¹⁴C/¹²C ratio compared to the pre-Flood times,7 thus giving an inflated age to any sample from the pre-Flood world.8

Footnote 7
Because the carbon dating calibration is based on the post-Flood world. See also: Cox, G., How old? When archaeology conflicts with the Bible, 1 Nov 2018; creation.com/archaeology-conflicts.

Footnote 8
Easily found within the list of articles in ref. 5.
See Radiometric Dating Questions and Answers; creation.com/dating .

Yes, the radiometric calibration is based on the post-Flood and indeed very recent such world.

But, we have a problem ... supposing the ¹²C before in atmosphere and in living things before the Flood were twice the present, and nothing else were different between the atmospheres this would imply that the stable ¹⁴C ratio would be half the one we have. However, there is no need to think that it was ever reached. There is no need to think the world was created with one already existing ¹⁴C ratio at pre-Flood version of 100 pmC, rather than created with virtually no ¹⁴C and just one ¹⁴N atom (or some few more) in creation week went ¹⁴C when Sun and stars were created. This means, the main reason pre-Flood things have highly inflated carbon dates is the incompletion of any kind of rise to any kind of 100 pmC or stable ¹⁴C/¹²C ratio. This means, after the Flood, ¹⁴C could rise quicker than before, since it was rising in relation to ¹²C, of which there was less (I think there were some other reasons ¹⁴C rose slower before the Flood too), but it would have still been rising, since still at no stable ¹⁴C/¹²C ratio, where ¹⁴C production and decay match.

But there is one more reason that not just pre-Flood, but also early post-Flood dates are inflated. While after the Flood, ¹⁴C production would affect proportionally the ¹⁴C/¹²C ratio as quickly as now, the ¹⁴C production was quicker than now. And yes, otherwise we would have had a still rising ¹⁴C/¹²C ratio and this would mean calibrating against different dates in the past would give different half lives and each of them would be very much shorter than the real one.

I have actually been challenged on this faster buildup, someone stating that it would have left all vertebrate life dead and only spiders surviving that holocaust of radiation. I then did check exactly how much, on different assumptions, the production would be faster. The fastest one I need right now is, for the c. 350 years from Flood to beginning of Babel and < 51 years from beginning to end of Babel is just about ten times faster production than now. But this also gives a scale of calibration.*

Let's take the Giza pyramids, the things said by Gavin Cox here:

The Giza pyramids were all built in the Fourth Dynasty, the ‘golden age’ of the Old Kingdom of Egypt. Secular archaeologists date their building between 2589–2504 BC, which allows 85 years for their construction. ... The dates were obtained from ¹⁴C found in wood, reed and straw left by the pyramid builders. In 1984, dates were obtained by the David H. Koch Pyramids Radiocarbon Project for the Giza pyramids that made the pyramids 374 years older than they expected.

So, let's add up to get carbon dates ... 2589+374 = 2963 BC. Real date? Well, it would have been after Abraham's visit to the Pharao (Genesis 14 occurring in c. 1935 BC is connected to reed mats of En Gedi evacuation dated to 3500 BC), but before Joseph in Egypt (supposing Djoser as Joseph's Pharao, his coffin being carbon dated to 2800 uncalibrated, which is comparable to c. 1725 BC. Or even a bit later, since Joseph's Pharao didn't die immediately on arrival of Jacob and of Joseph's brethren.

1935 BC

82.73 pmC, so dated as 3485 BC

1778 BC

85.9766 pmC, so dated as 3028 BC

"2963 BC"

1756 BC

86.4346 pmC, so dated as 2956 BC

1711 BC

87.3468 pmC, so dated as 2811 BC

This is then a date between the real dates 1778 and 1756 BC. But how long did it take?

Secular archaeologists date their building between 2589–2504 BC, which allows 85 years for their construction. ... These dates were based on the ¹⁴C dating method, which obtained a wider-than-predicted range of dates for the various materials tested, namely 400 years.

The carbon date range for Göbekli Tepe is 9600 to 8600 BC. If this was Babel, it is probable that the real range of dates is c. 40 years, these taking up the majority of the years between 350 and 401 after the Flood (death of Noah to birth of Peleg). The ¹⁴C/¹²C still rising means, the dates are more inflated for the earlier than for the later real date, which prolongs the span beyond its real measure. It may be mentioned that I use a version of the LXX chronology, that of the Roman Martyrology for Christmas Day.**

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
Ash Wednesday
17.II.2021

* My latest scale of calibration is:
Creation vs. Evolution : New Tables
https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2020/08/new-tables.html
As I take Babel = Göbekli Tepe, I argue this, among other articles, here:
Creation vs. Evolution : Work Ethic in the Neolithic and Genesis 11
https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2021/02/work-ethic-in-neolithic-and-genesis-11.html
** Φιλολoγικά/Philologica : Background to Christmas Martyrology
http://filolohika.blogspot.com/2019/02/background-to-christmas-martyrology.html

Ten Answers

• Part 1:
  
  
  • 1. Can we start by agreeing that the Gospel is more about the Rock of Ages than the ages of rocks?
  • 2. Does the age of the earth – or its shape – matter to a Christian?
  • 3. Does the Bible teach that the earth is spherical?
  • 4. How could people in 1000 BC grasp the idea of geological time?
  • 5. Does the Bible always speak in a direct literal way?
  
  
  CMI : 10 answers from biblical creationists—Part 1
  by Gavin Cox and Lucien Tuinstra
  Published: 21 February 2019 (GMT+10)
  https://creation.com/10-answers-from-creationists-1
  
  I have, up to answering myself, not taken the pleasure yet to read their answers. Then I added some comment on that.
  
  
• Part 2:
  
  
  • 6. Why do you assume that animal death only began to happen after Adam ate the fruit?
  • 7. Is young earth creationism the traditional Christian view?
  • 8. Were early geologists opposed to Christianity and did they use their geology to undermine belief?
  • 9. Did Christians oppose old earth geology in the past?
  • 10. Why do you claim that so many geologists in the last 350 years got their geology wrong?
  
  
  Taken (I'm somewhat impatient) from the man's own article:
  
  Premier Christianity : 10 questions to ask a young earth creationist 13th November 2018
  https://www.premierchristianity.com/Blog/10-questions-to-ask-a-young-earth-creationist

Answers to part 1:

1. Can we start by agreeing that the Gospel is more about the Rock of Ages than the ages of rocks?

I tend to get suspicious when someone starts a conversation or part of it with "Can we start by agreeing that ...?"

It gives the impression, if one refuses the agreement, one is not worth normal, rational talking to.

In a very banal and trivial sense, as in factually comparing the relative importance of two important things, yes.

back to top

2. Does the age of the earth – or its shape – matter to a Christian?

Both do. Especially in the light of end times prophecy, which can matter a lot. How old the Earth was before Christ came determines how much can be left if Christ came in the latter part of history. For instance, if Earth is seven billion years old, we could have another billion years before Doomsday, Christ would still have come in the fulness of time. If Earth is 7000 years old, we may be already in the last millennium, and already close to the end of it.

Shape of Earth determines where "four corners" are, as to Apocalypse 7:1 and as to presence of Magog in these corners.

back to top

3. Does the Bible teach that the earth is spherical?

Indirectly, and with modern knowledge of geography, yes kind of, if you look at four corners, since the "rectangle on a sphere" gives much neater four corners of Continents than "flat overall circle with North Pole in the Middle." I have not seen any modern map with "flat circle with Jerusalem in the middle". However, that would also be an option as far as the Bible itself was concerned.

In itself, it teaches neither, especially to those reading it first or hearing it read first, but upholds a kind of neutrality between "round earth" cosmology of Phoenicians and "flat earth" cosmology of Babylonians. But it thereby allowed some who were eager to jump to conclusions to show they weren't the true faith, the Bible gave them "enough rope to hang themselves with" so to speak (Rabbinic Judaism and Nestorianism seem historically to have been into this, unlike Catholicism or Greek Orthodoxy).

back to top

4. How could people in 1000 BC grasp the idea of geological time?

This phrase has two connotations, but ... the one CMI took on seems to be the less relevant one, as I saw (on the sneak peek, when copying questions), they took on the concept of "millions of years". I have hammered more than one reply to this for some time, whenever I came across this, and they agree with me : understanding millions of years, if that had happened to be true, would not have been a problem.

But, I think this is more important, "geological time" refers to a certain method of "measuring time".

No, they would probably not have understood the concept of measuring time by a geological column which happens not to be a very column shaped column for land vertebrates anywhere. That is, they might have understood it as presented in text books, but as it is measured against "field data" it is very puzzling. It is a bad idea, and should be replaced by geological geography for the times of the Flood, since most places have no more than one layer of very old life forms, fossils or subfossils, and those that do generally are vertical alignments of sea biotopes, which could be arranged by sea actually having accomodated vertical biotopes while the Flood was setting on - sometimes in places now land, like Lienz, and one neighbouring direction from Vienna.

back to top

5. Does the Bible always speak in a direct literal way?

No, but the primary meaning in historical books is usually conveyed in very direct literal language. Imagining such and such a passage was in fact meant metaphorically, but was always taken very literally in the past (always in the primary and for instance historical context), and was only now discovered to be a metaphor when presumed scientific discoveries gave seeming reasons to doubt the literal sense, that is very ... convenient, for the scientists, but also arrogant on part of the exegete, who understands basically everything better than basically everyone in the past.

back to top

Now I'll take a look at the answers of CMI on part 1.

Intro gives context. Nice to know the context. From answer to Q1 we get very important theology:

Michael Roberts’ rock collection is not millions of years old as he implies. It testifies not of long ages of death before sin (as per the evolutionary view), but rather, gives evidence of Noah’s Flood and the truth of our Lord’s testimony regarding it. Nor was Jesus wrong about His genealogy (Luke 3:23–38), directly linking Him to the historical figures of Noah and Adam. Neither was His Father culpable of deception in allowing Jesus to teach error—a blasphemous consequence of such faulty thinking.

Correct, of course. And in question 2 we get the point of positive evidence for earth being young. From answer to Q3:

Neither can Michael Roberts force Galileo to serve his argument, because Galileo offered empirical scientific evidence for Earth’s orbit around the sun (the heliocentric view) contrary to the Catholic Church’s adherence to geocentric Greek philosophy. In other words, Galileo was not advocating anything contrary to Scripture.

Incorrect.

The Catholic Church adhered to Geocentrism bc of the Bible, after already deciding to "hang loose" on the relevant parts of Greek philosophy.

The phrase that says "because Galileo offered empirical scientific evidence for Earth’s orbit around the sun" is as incorrect as any phrase claiming we now have evidence for millions or billions of years. He didn't, nor has anyone done so after him. While concentric perfectly solid spheres are indeed out, since Tycho observed a comet, Tychonic and Copernican views of Cosmos remained valid options, and if anything the observations considered as "parallax" disproved a strictly Copernican view and not the Tychonic one. Especially not with angelic movers.

In answering Q4, it is stressed how alarmist the questioner is in saying “If the dates are wrong then so is all physics”. Presumably, the former geologist was indoctrinated with, ages being directly consequential of two quantities only, measured parent (and daughter) isotopes and (measured or presumed measured) half life, not noting there is a third one, original content of parent (and daughter) isotopes. Presumably that has been systematically presented as non-problematic and trivial.

In Q5, I have said basically what they said.

back to top

Answers to part 2:

6. Why do you assume that animal death only began to happen after Adam ate the fruit?

This presumes, no death before sin were my primary reason, which in my own case it is not.

It also presumes no death before sin would affect only say dinos or ichthyosaurs and only if animal death is specifically included.

No death before sin affects Neanderthals, some of which are found with marks of cannibalism, if they are presumed to have lived that long ago, meaning:

• pretending Neanderthals were not human
• pretending history after Adam's sin is much longer than very clearly suggested by chapters after chapter 3 in Genesis
• or seeing Neanderthals and even Cro-Magnon as men who died, sometimes atrociously, before there was human sin, at least on the general level of original sin - if so, why would Adam be ancestor to all men? Or why would all men inherit his sin?

I prefer the answer, they lived between Adam and the Flood (though CMI has a preference for post-Babel). This way, the cannibalism involved has a context like ...

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, ... And the earth was corrupted before God, and was filled with iniquity. And when God had seen that the earth was corrupted (for all flesh had corrupted its way upon the earth,) Genesis 6:5,11,12

back to top

7. Is young earth creationism the traditional Christian view?

As to each scientific argument as scientific argument, no, and neither is the other view - since arguing over carbon 14 or geological column was unknown to most of them.

As to its exegesis on Genesis 1 to 11, arguably yes.

back to top

8. Were early geologists opposed to Christianity and did they use their geology to undermine belief?

• a) Hutton was opposed to Catholic Christianity, since he was from Edinburgh, ingrown with older Calvinism and newer Enlightenment philosophy, both of which are incompatible with it.
  
  
• b) Cuvier was a Protestant from Holy Roman Empire, and he was about the same generation as Mallet du Pan, a Calvinist from Geneva who thought the Bible was not applicable in astronomy.
  
  

  Personne, ajoute Mallet du Pan, n'ignore que Galilée eut la liberté de se défendre, et qu'il se défendit. Cette apologie, conservée dans une de ses lettres manuscrites... est un véritable galimatias. Ce n'est pas la réalité du mouvement de la terre qu'il démontre aux inquisiteurs, il ergote avec eux sur Job et sur Josué
  
  Nobody, Mallet du Pan adds, is ignorant that Galileo was at liberty to defend himself, and defend himself he did. This apology, preserved in one of his handwritten letters ... is a veritable galimatias. It is not the reality of the movement of the Earth that he demonstrates to the Inquisitors, he disputes with them on Job and Joshua.*

  
  
  Cuvier can have felt about Genesis, as Mallet du Pan about Job and Joshua. Catholics, in their time (at least some) as in the times of Galileo (basically all) Catholics were confident the Bible is inerrant on whatever it touches on.
  
  
• c) Lyell was an Anglican of the Broad Church party, in attack of Biblical inerrancy. As demonstrated by CMI:
  
  CMI : Charles Lyell’s hidden agenda—to free science “from Moses”
  by David Catchpoole and Tas Walker, 19 August 2009
  https://creation.com/charles-lyell-free-science-from-moses
  
  Whatever he may have felt politically about Catholics in England, he was very opposed to Catholicism.**

back to top

9. Did Christians oppose old earth geology in the past?

Check Haydock.*** Lyell published first edition of Principles of Geology in 1829 (H/T David Catchpoole and Tas Walker). While Father George Leo Haydock had written his Bible commentary before that, it was republished (with Douay Rheims text as Haydock Bible) in US as late as 1853:

ca. 1853: a quarto edition by George Henry and Co. of London, and initially distributed in America by George Virtue of New York. In this edition the commentary was abridged by Canon F. C. Husenbeth (1796–1872). This was the probably the most successful of the Haydock editions, remaining in print through the rest of the century. Circa 1880, The National Publishing Company of Philadelphia imported the stereotype plates from England and mass marketed editions over the imprints of wide range of local booksellers and printing companies, and even got the recently established Montgomery Ward national mail order firm to include it in their catalogue. An extraordinarily large number of copies must have been printed, judging by how frequently surviving copies are met with in the second hand book trade. A copy of this edition was used in the Inauguration of President John F. Kennedy (1917–1963) in 1961, coincidentally the 150th anniversary of Haydock's first edition. Another copy was used in the inauguration of Vice President Joe Biden.

and even later:

ca. 1874–1878: a large (Imperial) quarto edition by Virtue and Company Limited, of London. In this edition, two converts from the Oxford Movement, Frs. Frederick Oakeley (1802–1880) and Thomas Law (1836–1904) thoroughly revised the commentary to incorporate advances in Biblical scholarship since Haydock's time. An American edition by P. F. Collier of New York, founder of Collier's Weekly magazine, appeared ca. 1884. British editions remained in print until 1910.

Since the comment on Genesis 3, final paragraph, clearly classifies this as history, by giving details on how it was transmitted, it is clearly Young Earth Creationist, and those using it were clearly opposing Lyell, Cuvier, Hutton.

back to top

10. Why do you claim that so many geologists in the last 350 years got their geology wrong?

Why do you claim that so many theologians in the last 2000 years got their Biblical history wrong?

Less rhetorically (a wee bit at least), perhaps because the last 350 years are the last, and this is starting to be fulfilled:

Apocalypse 20:7 And when the thousand years shall be finished, Satan shall be loosed out of his prison, and shall go forth, and seduce the nations, which are over the four quarters of the earth, Gog, and Magog, and shall gather them together to battle, the number of whom is as the sand of the sea.

I think Communism has a very clear connection both to this prophecy and to ... "millions of years, billions of years", not as if that didn't exist at all before Russian revolution, but since, they have at least very heavily promoted it.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
Holy Martyrs of Tyre
20.II.2019

Tyri, in Phoenicia, commemoratio beatorum Martyrum, quorum numerum solius scientia Dei colligit. Hi omnes, sub Diocletiano Imperatore, a Veturio, militum magistro, multis tormentorum generibus, sibi invicem succedentibus, occisi sunt; nam, primo quidem flagris toto corpore dilaniati, inde diversis bestiarum generibus traditi, sed ab illis divina virtute nil laesi, post, addita feritate ignis ac ferri, martyrium consummarunt. Eorum vero gloriosam multitudinem ad victoriam incitabant Episcopi Tyrannio, Silvanus, Peleus et Nilus, ac Presbyter Zenobius, qui, felici agone, una cum illis, martyrii palmam adepti sunt.

PS. His blogpost gives a fuller background to Q 7 which he considers rhetorical. Now, here he answers:

Many think so, but NO! The early Christians, right up to 1800, were not clear on the age of the earth as that depended on how literal they thought Genesis was and they had no geological evidence to guide them.

In reality, all or nearly believed it literal, and while the 4004 BC date was not common, the Ukrainean wiki on Young Earth Creationism gives a little list.

Підрахунки, засновані на Септуагінті, традиційно датували створення приблизно 5500 роком до н. е., тоді як якщо брати за основу Самаритянську Тору, можна отримати дату 4300 р. до н.е., а якщо брати за основу Масоретський текст, виходить 4000 р. до н. е.[10] Багато з перших християн, які користувалися Септуагінтою, підраховували дату створення, близьку до 5500 р. до н. е., і християни до Середньовіччя продовжували використовувати цю приблизну оцінку: Климент Александрійський (5592 BC), Секст Юлій Африкан (5501 р. до н. е.), Євсевій (5228 р. до н. е.), Ієронім (5199 р. до н. е.) Іполіт Римський (5500 р. до н. е.), Теофіл Антіохійський (5529 р. до н. е.), Сульпіцій Север (5469 р. до н. е.), Ісидор Севільський (5336 р. до н. е.), Панодор Александрійський[en] (5493 р. до н. е.), Максим Сповідник (5493 р. до н. е.), Георгій Синкелл[en] (5492 р. до н. е.) і Григорій Турський (5500 р. до н. е.)[11][12].

Google translate, with corrections by me:

Calculations based on Septuagint traditionally date the creation of approximately 5500 BC is., then if you take as the basis of the Samaritan Torah, you can get the date 4300 BC, and if you take as the basis Masoretic text, comes out 4000 r. BC. is. Many of the first Christians, who used the Septuagint counted the date of creation close to 5500 BC. is., and Christians in the Middle Ages continued to use this approximate estimate: Clement of Alexandria (5592 BC), Sextus Julius Afrikan (5501 BCE), Eusebius (5228 BCE),Jerome (5199 BCE) Hippolyte of Rome (5500 BC), Theophilus of Antioch (5529 BC), Sulpicius North Severus (5469 BC), Isidor of Seville (5336 BCE), Panodorus of Alexandria (5493 BC), Maxim the Confessor (5493 BC), Georgi (Sinkell) Syncellus (5492 BCE) and Gregory (Tursky) of Tours (5500 BC).

William, again:

We argued and got nowhere! Yet when you read a history of geology you soon find many geologists were Christians, from Steno in 1680 up until today.

Steno was a Young Earth Creationist and Flood Geologist. See Tas Walker on him:

CMI : Geological pioneer Nicolaus Steno was a biblical creationist
by Tas Walker | This article is from
Journal of Creation 22(1):93–98, April 2008
https://creation.com/geological-pioneer-nicolaus-steno-was-a-biblical-creationist

He should have mentioned he was also a Catholic convert, dying as a missionary among Catholic diaspora of Denmark and North Germany.

back to top

* Cited via my own post here:

New blog on the kid : Falloux sur Galilée
https://nov9blogg9.blogspot.com/2019/01/falloux-sur-galilee.html

which cites:

Les lieux communs et falsifications de l'Histoire : Galilée le théologien
http://leslieuxcommunsdelhistoire.blogspot.com/2010/03/galilee-le-theologien.html

Les lieux communs et falsifications de l'Histoire : Galilée le théologien II
http://leslieuxcommunsdelhistoire.blogspot.com/2010/03/galilee-le-theologien-ii.html

Michel Duparc unfortunately cites both Falloux (a somewhat later French monarchist and Catholic, who was temporarily under excommunication) and Mallet du Pan, in such a way that I don't know always whom he cites, but the passage I quoted is directly attributed to Mallet du Pan.

The English translation is mine.

back to text

** CMI considers Hutton and Lyell were Deists:

Both Hutton and Lyell were anti-Bible deists (who were influenced by Masonic belief). They did not ‘read the rocks’, but set out to undo the Bible’s historical credibility, which was accepted at the time of Hutton. Their aim was achieved by subterfuge.

From: 10 answers from biblical creationists—Part 2
by Gavin Cox and Lucien Tuinstra | Published: 26 February 2019 (GMT+10)
https://creation.com/10-answers-from-creationists-2

back to text

*** Wikipedia : George Leo Haydock : Haydock's enduring legacy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Leo_Haydock#Haydock%27s_enduring_legacy

back to text

Carbon Dating and Belfast Series

Went to "My" Topic, Ignored My Work · Carbon Dating and Belfast Series

I can basically only endorse what Gavin Cox says about treering dating here*:

That being said, the Belfast data is a well-known example of a lengthy, (claimed) continuous tree ring chronology, from AD 5 – 2006, but this particular example (methodological assumptions aside) is obviously not a problem for the biblical time-scale. I also mention supposed agreement for bristlecone pine (BCP) tree rings in my article, but that depends on matching rings from living and dead trees (“prone wood”) that has been ¹⁴C dated to multiple thousands of years.

His discussion of BCP series is here*:

Significantly for biblical creationists, a timeline for the growth of bristle-cone pines (BCPs) (Pinus longaeva), growing in the White Mountains of eastern California, has been calculated at 8,700 years. One tree dubbed ‘Methuselah’ has been tree-ring counted to 4,600 years, which, assuming the chronology of the Masoretic text for the Old Testament, places it well before the Flood, which is clearly incorrect. CMI has pointed out that BCPs can grow multiple rings per year, due to their dry environment. Extended chronology relies upon correlation of prone dead wood, with similar ring structures, which are then dated using ¹⁴C. Where overlaps with ‘identical’ ring structures are found, the chronology is considered to be extended. This is a highly subjective endeavour, which also implies prone wood lay around on the ground without rotting for thousands of years, which is demonstrably false. The entire method of ¹⁴C dendrochronology correlation is therefore an exercise in circular reasoning.

I'd disagree on Methusalem, since I think the Flood occurred 5000 or 5300 years ago (2957 or 3266 BC, to be somewhat more precise), depending on which version of the LXX chronology (Roman Martyrology of St. Jerome, as I have seen it attribued, or Byzantine of George Syncellus) is the correct one, Masoretic not being so, but being changed in order to accomodate an equation Shem = Melchisedec in polemics against Epistle to the Hebrews.

Now, it is also to be noted that similar ring structures may sound a good bet, if you narrow it down to identical. However, identical is not exactly what you get. OK, if you stay in one place, theoretically you can get that too. There is an early exercise in carbon 14 and ring tree dating with a very close match for a certain Pueblo in, I think Arizona. But this is concerning trees from a very restricted area and only concerns last pre-Columbian centuries - the dates could perhaps even be checked against indigenous narratives taken up by Spanish missionaries, if any. Or confirm narratives taken up centuries later by American folklorists.

But the further back in time you go, the wider you have to search to find wood, just to get a match for each year (if you have even one gap in dendro, you cannot determine if it is 1 year or 3000 years except by using other methods, the only reliable one that for back being narrative). This means, you need to accept imprecise matches. Similar, but not identic ones.

And even more, if you are dealing with small pieces of wood, maybe an identic one for ten or twenty rings is no real proof, since it might not be unique in time and space - you might need more material to get that. Hence, further back dendrochronology goes, the more it is taking a chance.

So, no, dendro is so far as I know not an independent way of calibrating ¹⁴C dates to 6,700 BC.

That said, CMI is being incomplete on the issue. ¹⁴C is used very regularly for very basic datings in the close to present. A statue from Benin, is it from Benin's Golden Age (including Golden Age of slavery, but that is another matter) from 1400 AD? Or is it from 1900 AD, that is a later imitation of the style, or even outright forgery? You ask someone to take a sample from a not too conspicuous part of the statue and you ¹⁴C-test that sample.

This means, there is a section of ¹⁴C-dating which is very parallel to the Belfast series. Now, Gavin Cox has explained very well why Belfast series is reliable (it is connected to trees known in the present and from so recent times that wood can be sampled from a fairly small region in fairly big chunks with fairly many rings), while other series are not (they are disconnected from Belfast series, their connection to time involves ¹⁴C-dates, they are from so far back that samples are smaller and from a wider area than would be really useful).

For ¹⁴C-dating, I'd appreciate a similar approach. Show why ¹⁴C-dating is reliable when dating sth from Gettysburg (if needed) but unreliable (as it definitely is in absolute dates) when it comes to dating Göbekli Tepe.

Hint : ¹⁴C-dates are different from tree ring dates. In a tree ring dating, each date depends on the one before that more recent in time and closer to when ring dates coincided with AD dated Gregorian calendar dated tree growth. So, one disconnect is enough to send a pan of 500 years (which possibly could be correctly dated internally in relative dates) floating on whenever its end is however long before the next series that is connected, whegther one connected to present or one not directly so connected.

This should imply : ¹⁴C-dating depending on another assumption, it has another set of problems. Let's identify them as candidly as Gavin Cox did with dendro! And first, let's identify Gavin Cox' candidness on this matter.

Bill N. of Australia

There are over 100 C14 labs doing a total of 10s of thousands at least of tests annually. If C14 is so unreliable, why haven't researchers who send their specimens for testing noticed it? What does CMI do to disillusion them?

Gavin Cox

But, contrary to your comment, researchers have actually noticed anomalous results for their samples for decades, and CMI has simply reported on their results. There was a major study of ¹⁴C reported by the RATE team (Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth) back in 2005. They listed 90 peer-reviewed papers, going back to 1984, that reported anomalous results for 14C in samples supposedly 100,000 to multi-million-years (in the evolutionary time-scale). Of course, this is an impossible situation, unless these ancient materials are young—which we believe they are.

Gavin Cox has at best misunderstood the actual argument. The vast majority of the thousands of tests annually are NOT concerned with very old dates for which such anomalies (which only are so on Uniformitarian view, not for ¹⁴C per se), but simply with things like this coroner deciding whether such and such a skeleton belongs to the battle of the Marne or the rampages of a later serial killer, whether it should go to war memorial or to coroner for investigation and for families that are kin to victims of the stabber. And the more like near totality do not show this kind of so called anomalies.

What is 90 peer reviewed papers compared to more than 34 000 tests with no such anomaly (we are 34 years after 1984, and there are thousands of tests per year)?

Now, seing that Gavin Cox is not quite helpful, what is?

The assumption which is most likely to be wrong in a dating conflicting with Biblical chronology is not uniform speed of decay, whatever Setterfield and his fan Habermehl may think of that, it is how much the initial carbon was at.

If Göbekli Tepe organic samples had c. 100 pmC when they stopped breathing, Göbekli Tepe is 11 600 to 10 600 years back in time. If on the other hand Göbekli Tepe is Babel, between death of Noah and birth of Peleg, between 350 and 401 after the Flood, perhaps not all of these years, then for one thing the earliest and lowest layers as well as the highest and most recent ones started out with less than 50 pmC when they stopped breathing, and for another, the at most 51 years (I'd go for 40, though) are only spreading out to 1000 years because during this time, ¹⁴C is on the rise.

And this is my option. The things that are a definite anomaly to uniformitarians, ¹⁴C from layers supposed to be over 100,000 years old, and which is noted as an anomaly for Uniformitarians by Baumgartner, well, we as knowing better should be giving an account making it no more anomalous, I do, the "every level in the Phanerozoic portion [life-bearing] of the geological record" is simply usually either buried during Flood or during early post-Flood mudslides, and that means we can start calculating what the ¹⁴C level was at the Flood, 350 years before Göbekli Tepe started and 401 years before Peleg was born (and if you think Peleg was born just 101 years after the Flood, as per Masoretic with Vulgate text, you run into a problem, a too steep rise in ¹⁴C levels).

Perhaps my work has been ignored simply for the fact that as a Catholic, I don't feel bound to promote Jewish tradition over Catholic or Orthodox tradition, and therefore also not bound to take Vulgate over Roman Martyrology or Historia Scholastica. Let alone King James. (Which on top of being Masoretic in OT is also mistranslating the Greek of the NT, as in "repetitions" for Matthew 6:7**). My work is ignored, because it challenges the Protestantism of these usually Protestant researchers, indirectly, but if you scratch the surface, after all rather firmly.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
Immaculate Conception
of the Blessed Virgin Mary
8.XII.2018

PS, in case you argue I am just a blogger, how about checking out this piece of news:

One Man's Discovery Sinks Major Climate Study
Bill Whittle | 15.XI.2018
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wpLVRPJnL4M

* The two articles are:

¹⁴C dating—who is fooling who?
Published: 8 December 2018 (GMT+10)
https://creation.com/carbon-dating-fooling-who

How old? When archaeology conflicts with the Bible
by Gavin Cox, Published: 1 November 2018 (GMT+10)
https://creation.com/how-old-archaeology-conflicts-bible

** Matthew 6:7 in King James. And in Douay Rheims. Link to discussion of meaning of battologein.