Creation vs. Evolution

samedi 22 août 2020

And what are the lineups between archaeology and Bible, in my tables?

Fossil wood from a quarry near the town of Banbury, England, some 80 miles north-west of London, was dated using the carbon-14 method.1 The ages calculated ranged from 20.7 to 28.8 thousand years old. However, the limestone in which the wood was found was of Jurassic age, of 183 million years. Clearly the dating methods are in conflict.

https://creation.com/radioactive-dating-anomalies

That C14 for the wood and limestone by Jurassic type fauna, for the limestone, are two methods in conflict is not the least surprising. Each has its own reasons to deviate from the true and Biblical chronology, and the reasons do not line up.

However, the problem is, if the Jurassic limestone has the shell Sharpirhynchia sharpi, this means it got lots of shells during the Flood.

In my recconning, 20 700 to 28 800 BP (18 700 to 26 800 BC) would be early post Flood:

2935 B. Chr.: 0.039541 pmC/100, so dated as 29 635 B. Chr.

...
2867 B. Chr.: 0.119246 pmC/100, so dated as 20 467 B. Chr.

Flood in 2957 BC, the wood from between 2935 and 2867 BC. But a landslide after the Flood could have buried the wood, while containing shells exposed above sea since the Flood. Or the wood could have suffered radioactive radiation before the Flood (it increases the number of C14 isotopes). Or, this is my problem, the wood could have a normal carbon level like that and be buried in the Flood, for my part, I have preferred the carbon levels corresponding to 40 000 BC, last known Neanderthals and Denisovans, or body parts, as those of the Flood. And against this being normal carbon levels in the Flood is, "18 700 BC" (as carbon dated) is recent enough to correspond to what I take to be post-Flood peopling of the continents.

Other quote, here I'd consider the carbon level pre-Flood, but within a more acceptable fluctuation of levels for Flood year:

Diamonds analyzed from mines in South Africa and Botswana, and from alluvial deposits in Guinea, West Africa, found measurable carbon-14—over ten times the detection limit of the laboratory equipment.2 The average ‘age’ calculated for the samples was 55,700 years. Yet the rocks that contained the diamonds ranged from 1,000 to 3,000 million years old. Dating methods are in conflict again.

There is very little difference in original carbon level for 40 000 and 55 000 BP, if from Flood year, both are below 2 %, so fluctuation would be more explainable. For 19 000 BC, we would be more like 14 %, so it should be later, original content of samples in relation to modern atmosphere.

Want to know more why I think Flood is carbon dated to c. 40 000 BP? Neanderthal Pre-or Post-Flood?, Neanderthal - speculations and certainty, Pääbo and Habermehl, Answering Robert Carter's Four Reasons, Anne Habermehl Still Wants Göbekli Tepe After Babel and Neanderthals Post-Flood - some of these have in the top of post body, under the header, a list of related posts, read them too, if interested. The last of these is obviously also relevant for next topic:

II and III, beginning and end of Babel

I have wagered on Göbekli Tepe, and have used earliest and latest carbon dates from lowest and highest level of GT as beginning and end of Babel. The problem is Tell Qaramel having levels dated earlier, but on the other hand, Tell Qaramel is West of Euphrates, so outside Shinar, while GT is just East of Euphrates and so in Shinar. Other problem is, how to explain "bricks for stone and bitumen for mortar" as the words are usually translated. I wonder whether we will:

find a lower level of GT or smaller habitations around GT with literally what we would call bricks and bitumen?
find that the stamped earth in GT contains burned chalk skeleta, so one should translate "bricks burned in fire" or literally "whites burned in burning" as the chalk skeleta with the burning process, and "bitumen for mortar" literally "thickness for thickness" as the stamped earth?
or that the words as they stand are a reference to monumentality, or to instability, taken from a later Babylonian situation and wording?

Want to know more on why Göbekli Tepe? Graham Hancock had sth to Say on Göbekli Tepe, Is Graham Hancock Right on Göbekli Tepe?, Why would Nimrod Want a Rocket?, Bricks at Göbekli Tepe or Close? with Ten Keys to my Idea of Göbekli Tepe as Babel and its Tower as a Rocket, Changing the Text, NIV?, For those sceptical about Göbekli Tepe as Babel, Lining up Cities. As with previous, some have links to other posts in same series.

IV, Genesis 14 and Calcholithic of En-Geddi

No doubts about identification in so far as En-Geddi is Asason Tamar, and the identification was (with some leeway to Neolithic of En Geddi, which I reject) made by Dr A.J.M. Osgood in The Times of Abraham on the site of CMI, but he dismissed carbon dating overall, so gave no indication of what the digs by Pessah Bar-Adon had been carbon dated to. Only recently did I find 3500 BC, after guessing between 3400 and 3100 based on indications for chalcolithic in general, and taken 3200, which is too recent, based on Narmer's times.

Only these new tables incorporate, finally, this find. As well as go further into the dissolution in Biblical times to periods of 22 to 23 years apart (22.3828125 is a binary division of 5730, corresponding to the square rooting I entertained myself with during the lockdown, where 0.9973 is a square root of square root type power of 0.5).

This one is probably my strongest one. After Chalcolithic of En-Geddi, as Osgood says, you have habitation periods in Kingdom of Israel times and in Roman times, neither of which are relevent for Genesis 14.

V, Joseph in Egypt, VI birth of Moses

My timeline is this : Joseph is known to Egyptians as Imhotep, or rather, the pagan figure of Imhotep is based on him, and as Imhotep's pharao is Djoser, Joseph's pharao is Djoser. Moses is born a little before Sesostris III dies, was coregent as Amenemhat IV, after fleeing Egypt had a cenotaph, and is succeeded by his adoptive sister, then comes back for the Exodus during next dynasty.

Alternative readings would include :

Joseph's pharao was Sesostris III, dealt with here : Sobekemhat instead of Imhotep? Sesostris III instead of Djoser?, where I also link to my source for Sesostris III as the childkilling pharao, and Amenemhet IV as an alias for Young Moses : Searching for Moses by David Down.
Amenemhat IV was the pharao of Exodus (also compatible with the cenotaph), discussed with Anne Habermehl here : With Habermehl 2017, II

VII, taking of Jericho

There is a level of habitation in Jericho, which was followed by complete abandonment. Kenyon dated it to 1550 BC. Problem is, there is a dating of the walls of Jericho to 2200 BC.

Jericho was discussed on both parts of the Habermehl correspondence, and also with Damien Mackey here : Jericho and Carbon Dates

I propose the solution, that the 2200 date, if carbon, depends on:

either walls being made of material older than "1550 BC", including organic materials
or walls falling so deep, they fall below the "1550 BC" level down to the "2200 BC" level.

Or 2200 is not itself carbon dated at Jericho. I don't know.

VIII, Troy

Carbon date corresponds to Greek historical date. Like IV, a fairly good case, needs very little discussion, as far as I know. As to its place in Biblical chronology, both Syncellus and (perhaps depending on him) Historia Scholastica consider Troy fell when Eli was High Priest. Eli, Samuel, Saul, King David.

IX, 1032 - Anointing of King David or Temple of Solomon?

In the entry for 25th of December, the Roman Martyrology has since 1490's said that Christ was born 1032 years after the anointing of King David.

Syncellus, on the other hand, has 1032 for the Temple (completed) and 1082 for the anointing of King David. Roman martyrology lacks both temple and 1082 date, so, perhaps, the 1032 date was mixed with the 1082 event.

For anointing of King David being in 1082 rather than 1032 speak:

the 1510 BC date for Exodus from Egypt - 487 years (III Kings 6:1,38) = 1023 (and not 1032)
the 1082 BC date for anointing of King David fits better than the 1032 with the fall of Troy when Eli was High Priest.

This would be what speaks for an early date of the Temple, the most common date now accepted being later.

Roman Martyrology for December 25 with its roots via Historia scholastica in St. Jerome and in Julius Africanus are discussed here:

Φιλολoγικά/Philologica : Background to Christmas Martyrology
https://filolohika.blogspot.com/2019/02/background-to-christmas-martyrology.html

While adjustments could probably be made here and there, I think I have taken, if not all, at least most factors into account.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
Octave of Assumption
Feast of the Immaculate Heart of the Blessed Virgin Mary
22.VIII.2020

samedi 15 août 2020

Why Should one Use my Tables?

the Bible has the true account of the history of mankind
the scientific community hasn't so
the correct Biblical chronology is fairly adequately reflected in Roman Martyrology for December 25
nevertheless, carbon dates rely on real, accurate measures of remaining C14 in the samples and on a halflife that can be verified in the history of the last 2000 years

then my tables are a fair option.

You might be an atheist believing that the Bible has no value - you don't need to use them, unless you are into polemising with us Creationists, in which case you might want to check the coherence of our case.

You might be a Neo-Catholic who sacralises the science community - dito.

You may believe another Biblical chronology is more correct - then make similar tables for your chronology.

Or you may rely on such a carbon dater bungling the apparatus, or on halflife having changed with speed of light, while I think bunglers are a minority in the scientists opposing the Creationist view, and both C14, Ka-Ar and Distant Starlight Problem have more coherent approaches than Setterfield, and the tables are mine for C14, this makes you and me disagree too.

Why would I be correct when so many are wrong, who are better qualified?

Their being scientists is of course a better qualification, and I believe them as far as I think that qualification gets them : i. e. into their measures of present remaining C14. If they say sth has been dated to 6830 BC, I'll believe them that it has 34.31 pmC right now.

But if they say Japanese lake bottoms prove the atmosphere had 100 pmC for the latest 50 000 years, or whatever it was, I'll believe the Bible over the reading of layers in a Japanese lake bottom. And I'll say, no, it probably had 58.4214 pmC back in 2377 BC.

Why me, when so many Creation scientists, better qualified and believing the Bible over Japanese lake bottoms too, haven't come up with this?

They have been busy doing other stuff, they have perhaps had trouble fitting the needed rise in C14 into the time frame, they are perhaps unaware C14 is successfully used in items for last 2000 years to 3000 years, and, best of all, they didn't have to stand up alone to a challenge of atheist to vaguely neo-Catholic students of psychology one evening around a beer in the lush gardens of Nanterre Univesity, when I had left the University Library for the day.

They told me, the rise in C14 needed for my chronology to be true would be the effect of so much solar activity all life except invertebrates would perish on earth, and I decided to check: and part of the checking was also checking how fast C14 had risen, and therefore what the successive levels were, which instantly I seized as a way of making the kind of tables I now present. My first try is here : Datation de Carbone 14, comment ça carre avec la Chronologie Biblique, before a month had passed, I was as good as this : Avec un peu d'aide de Fibonacci ... j'ai une table, presque correcte, I had refuted the idea of a rise within created time from near zero (or sufficiently low) to the present level, a rise from near zero at Flood would have landed as to 45 pmC, note well, IF the production of C14 had always been same pace as now, in this post : Examinons une hypothèse qui se trouve contrefactuelle un peu de près.

Since my "Fibonacci table", I have mainly taken more and more matches between archaeology and Biblical timeline into account, Göbekli Tepe as Babel (as I write this, I am aware Tell Qaramel is dated to, for beginnings, a few millennia older than Göbekli Tepe, meaning, at least a few decades older than Babel, if Göbekli Tepe still is. This part may be fluctuating on my future work, but for now I am wondering whether Tell Qaramel could be Babel instead, while it is West of Euphrates, therefore technically not in Mesopotamia, Shinar, unlike Göbekli Tepe.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
Our Lady's Assumption
15.VIII.2020

jeudi 13 août 2020

New Tables

I - II Deluge to death of Noah, beginning of Babel: Format:
"Real year: "carbon 14 content, therefore / so dated as carbon year."

[I omitted what follows immediately from carbon content, namely the number of phantom years...]
2957 B. Chr.: 0.012788 pmC/100, so dated as 38 957 B. Chr.
2935 B. Chr.: 0.039541 pmC/100, so dated as 29 635 B. Chr.
2912 B. Chr.: 0.066161 pmC/100, so dated as 25 362 B. Chr.
2890 B. Chr.: 0.09274 pmC/100, so dated as 22 540 B. Chr.
2867 B. Chr.: 0.119246 pmC/100, so dated as 20 467 B. Chr.
2845 B. Chr.: 0.145681 pmC/100, so dated as 18 745 B. Chr.
2823 B. Chr.: 0.172045 pmC/100, so dated as 17 373 B. Chr.
2800 B. Chr.: 0.198337 pmC/100, so dated as 16 150 B. Chr.
2778 B. Chr.: 0.224559 pmC/100, so dated as 15 128 B. Chr.
2756 B. Chr.: 0.250709 pmC/100, so dated as 14 206 B. Chr.
2733 B. Chr.: 0.27679 pmC/100, so dated as 13 333 B. Chr.
2711 B. Chr.: 0.302799 pmC/100, so dated as 12 611 B. Chr.
2688 B. Chr.: 0.328739 pmC/100, so dated as 11 888 B. Chr.
2666 B. Chr.: 0.354608 pmC/100, so dated as 11 216 B. Chr.
2644 B. Chr.: 0.380408 pmC/100, so dated as 10 644 B. Chr.
2621 B. Chr.: 0.406138 pmC/100, so dated as 10 071 B. Chr.
2599 B. Chr.: 0.431708 pmC/100, so dated as 9549 B. Chr.
II - III, Babel
2607 B. Chr.: 0.428224 pmC/100, so dated as 9607 B. Chr.
2585 B. Chr.: 0.45483 pmC/100, so dated as 9085 B. Chr.
2562 B. Chr.: 0.48134 pmC/100, so dated as 8612 B. Chr.
III - IV, Babel to Genesis 14
2556 B. Chr.: 0.481415 pmC/100, so dated as 8606 B. Chr.
2534 B. Chr.: 0.494539 pmC/100, so dated as 8334 B. Chr.
2511 B. Chr.: 0.507242 pmC/100, so dated as 8111 B. Chr.
2489 B. Chr.: 0.519918 pmC/100, so dated as 7889 B. Chr.
2466 B. Chr.: 0.532551 pmC/100, so dated as 7666 B. Chr.
2444 B. Chr.: 0.545151 pmC/100, so dated as 7444 B. Chr.
2422 B. Chr.: 0.557737 pmC/100, so dated as 7272 B. Chr.
2399 B. Chr.: 0.570291 pmC/100, so dated as 7049 B. Chr.
2377 B. Chr.: 0.584214 pmC/100, so dated as 6827 B. Chr.
2355 B. Chr.: 0.596678 pmC/100, so dated as 6605 B. Chr.
2332 B. Chr.: 0.609109 pmC/100, so dated as 6432 B. Chr.
2309 B. Chr.: 0.621506 pmC/100, so dated as 6259 B. Chr.
2287 B. Chr.: 0.63387 pmC/100, so dated as 6037 B. Chr.
2265 B. Chr.: 0.646199 pmC/100, so dated as 5865 B. Chr.
2243 B. Chr.: 0.657496 pmC/100, so dated as 5693 B. Chr.
2220 B. Chr.: 0.680023 pmC/100, so dated as 5420 B. Chr.
2198 B. Chr.: 0.692256 pmC/100, so dated as 5248 B. Chr.
2175 B. Chr.: 0.694483 pmC/100, so dated as 5175 B. Chr.
2153 B. Chr.: 0.706677 pmC/100, so dated as 5003 B. Chr.
2131 B. Chr.: 0.718838 pmC/100, so dated as 4881 B. Chr.
2108 B. Chr.: 0.730966 pmC/100, so dated as 4708 B. Chr.
2086 B. Chr.: 0.743062 pmC/100, so dated as 4536 B. Chr.
2064 B. Chr.: 0.754934 pmC/100, so dated as 4364 B. Chr.
2041 B. Chr.: 0.766964 pmC/100, so dated as 4241 B. Chr.
2019 B. Chr.: 0.778962 pmC/100, so dated as 4069 B. Chr.
1996 B. Chr.: 0.790927 pmC/100, so dated as 3946 B. Chr.
1974 B. Chr.: 0.802859 pmC/100, so dated as 3774 B. Chr.
1952 B. Chr.: 0.81476 pmC/100, so dated as 3652 B. Chr.
1929 B. Chr.: 0.826619 pmC/100, so dated as 3479 B. Chr.
IV - V, Genesis 14 to Joseph in Egypt
1935 B. Chr.: 0.8273 pmC/100, so dated as 3485 B. Chr.
1913 B. Chr.: 0.831967 pmC/100, so dated as 3413 B. Chr.
1890 B. Chr.: 0.836622 pmC/100, so dated as 3390 B. Chr.
1868 B. Chr.: 0.841262 pmC/100, so dated as 3318 B. Chr.
1845 B. Chr.: 0.845892 pmC/100, so dated as 3245 B. Chr.
1823 B. Chr.: 0.850509 pmC/100, so dated as 3173 B. Chr.
1801 B. Chr.: 0.855174 pmC/100, so dated as 3101 B. Chr.
1778 B. Chr.: 0.859766 pmC/100, so dated as 3028 B. Chr.
1756 B. Chr.: 0.864346 pmC/100, so dated as 2956 B. Chr.
1734 B. Chr.: 0.868913 pmC/100, so dated as 2884 B. Chr.
1711 B. Chr.: 0.873468 pmC/100, so dated as 2811 B. Chr.
V - VI, Joseph to birth of Moses
1700 B. Chr.: 0.87575 pmC/100, so dated as 2800 B. Chr.
1678 B. Chr.: 0.894653 pmC/100, so dated as 2598 B. Chr.
1655 B. Chr.: 0.914498 pmC/100, so dated as 2395 B. Chr.
1633 B. Chr.: 0.933283 pmC/100, so dated as 2203 B. Chr.
1610 B. Chr.: 0.952011 pmC/100, so dated as 2020 B. Chr.
1588 B. Chr.: 0.970681 pmC/100, so dated as 1838 B. Chr.

VI, 1588 dated 1839, 0.970681 (Sesostris III dies a bit after birth of Moses);
VII, 1470 dated 1550. 0.98924 (taking of Jericho);
VIII, 1179 dated 1179, 1,000 (taking of Troy);
IX, 1132 dated 940. 1,010887 (temple of Salomon).

VI - VII
1588 B. Chr.: 0.97068 pmC/100, so dated as 1838 B. Chr.
1566 B. Chr.: 0.97441 pmC/100, so dated as 1776 B. Chr.
1543 B. Chr.: 0.97813 pmC/100, so dated as 1723 B. Chr.
1521 B. Chr.: 0.98184 pmC/100, so dated as 1671 B. Chr.
1498 B. Chr.: 0.98555 pmC/100, so dated as 1618 B. Chr.
1476 B. Chr.: 0.98924 pmC/100, so dated as 1566 B. Chr.
VII - VIII
1476 B. Chr.: 0.98924 pmC/100, so dated as 1566 B. Chr.
1454 B. Chr.: 0.990081 pmC/100, so dated as 1534 B. Chr.
1431 B. Chr.: 0.990919 pmC/100, so dated as 1511 B. Chr.
1408 B. Chr.: 0.991755 pmC/100, so dated as 1478 B. Chr.
1386 B. Chr.: 0.992589 pmC/100, so dated as 1446 B. Chr.
1364 B. Chr.: 0.993421 pmC/100, so dated as 1424 B. Chr.
1341 B. Chr.: 0.99425 pmC/100, so dated as 1391 B. Chr.
1319 B. Chr.: 0.995078 pmC/100, so dated as 1359 B. Chr.
1297 B. Chr.: 0.995902 pmC/100, so dated as 1327 B. Chr.
1275 B. Chr.: 0.996725 pmC/100, so dated as 1305 B. Chr.
1252 B. Chr.: 0.997546 pmC/100, so dated as 1272 B. Chr.
1230 B. Chr.: 0.998364 pmC/100, so dated as 1240 B. Chr.
1207 B. Chr.: 0.99918 pmC/100, so dated as 1217 B. Chr.
1185 B. Chr.: 1 pmC/100, so dated as 1185 B. Chr.
VIII - IX
1185 B. Chr.: 1 pmC/100, so dated as 1185 B. Chr.
1163 B. Chr.: 1.0013183 pmC/100, so dated as 1153 B. Chr.
1140 B. Chr.: 1.002632 pmC/100, so dated as 1120 B. Chr.
1118 B. Chr.: 1.00394126 pmC/100, so dated as 1088 B. Chr.
1095 B. Chr.: 1.00524594 pmC/100, so dated as 1055 B. Chr.
1073 B. Chr.: 1.00654611 pmC/100, so dated as 1023 B. Chr.
1051 B. Chr.: 1.00782177 pmC/100, so dated as 991 B. Chr.
1028 B. Chr.: 1.010887 pmC/100, so dated as 938 B. Chr.

lundi 10 août 2020

Have you Really Taken ALL the Factors into Account?

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

I spent some time prime factoring year numbers ranging 1900 to the present year 2020. A column with year numbers was sided by columns headed 2, 3, 5, 7, 11, 13, 17 and 19.

I could say with full confidence : "1927 is 41 * 47, 2017 is a prime number, 1989 is not a prime number, but 3 to the second or 9 times 13 times 17."

Now, suppose I had to confront a doubter. He would check 41 * 47 and agree.

Then he would go for 2017.

"Have you really taken all the factors into account? Are you sure 2017 is a prime?"

The sieve for prime numbers 2 to 19 left no check, so it is a prime candidate. Checks for 23, 29, 31, 37, 41, 43 and 47 also gave numbers (five to two year numbers on each prime number) clearly not involving 2017. Going to 53 or beyond is superfluous. Why? 53 * 53 = 2809. Way beyond 2017. Even 47 * 47 is so, 2209. This means, none of these can be the smallest prime factor in any year number up to and including 2017 (or any other number, for that matter). I got 3 year numbers involving prime factor 53 and each also had smaller, not (just?) bigger factors.

"Well, maybe 2017 might be a prime number then, though I wouldn't be too dogmatic on that one!"

Thanks for the confidence, but I actually gave sufficient mathematic proof that 2017 must be a prime number. That one can indeed be very dogmatic on that one.

"But how about 1989? Sure it isn't a prime number too? I mean it's a very big number, and it ain't even, and that's how most prime numbers look! Have you taken all the factors into account?"

Well, that's a good question before considering a large number as a prime, at least for all the factors up to the one prime number closest below (or above if you like) the square root, or the one prime factor whose square is closest above the number.

It's not a very intelligent question when one is presenting factors. You check. Do 3 * 3 * 13 * 17 really produce 1989?

3 * 3 = 9
9 * 13 = 117 (130 - 13, like 9 is 10 - 1).
117 * 17 = 1170 + 770 ( = 1870 + 70 = 1940) + 49 = 1989.

Yes, it does.

"Well, sure no other factors also can so add up?"

It's multiply, not add up, and when you multiply prime factors, no other set of prime factors can multiply into the same number as the one it has as prime factors.

"Have you checked with prime factors 7?"

Why, yes, I actually got a grid where 1989 was not checked in the 7 column.

And, as said, 3 * 3 * 13 * 17 certainly does the job.

"Ah, but what about 19? Or 89? Did you forget these obvious ones?"

They are obviously not factors of 1989. When one part of the digits has or is any factor, for the number as a whole to be that factor, the other part also has to have or be that factor.

19 is certainly a factor in 1900 ...

"Ah, see?"

... which means that any number which has 19 as a factor in the last two digits has 19 as a factor in itself.

"Like?"

1919, 1938, 1957, 1976, 1995, 2014 ...

"Sure you can't get 1989 on this list?"

Very sure indeed, they are all 19 apart, and there is just one 19, not two of them, from 1976 to 1995.

"Well, what about squeasing in 1989 before 1976 or after 1995?"

Well, it's after 1976, and before 1995.

"Well, what about between them, then?"

Let's say, I give the man a very angry glare.

"Oh, yes, you had already looked between them ... I guess 19 isn't a prime factor then, but are you sure about 89?"

Yes, I say very slowly, I had already looked between, there was no room for them.

Now, 89 is not a factor of 19 ...

"OK"

... and 19 is not a factor of 89 either.

"I'd not be quite sure of that ..."

Look, if 1989 has no room between 1976 and 1995, 89 has no room between 76 and 95 either.

Let's say he gives me a very sceptical look and says "ah, you're a very dogmatic person!"

I patiently go on and say : 890 is 10 times 89, right?

"No problem ..."

So 890 plus 890 is also of the prime factor 89, more precisely 20 times, and it is 1780.

"Let me check ... yeah, 1780 makes sense!"

1780 + 89, you get 1869.

"Guess you are right, but where are you coming to?"

And 1869 + 89 are 1958. You add 80 to 1869 and you get 1949, you add 9 to that and get 1958. And 1989 is clearly too close to 1958 to also have 89 as a factor ...

"But are you sure it isn't a prime, have you really taken all the factors into account?"

As I just mentioned ... wait, forget it. Maths aren't all that important.

I get this kind of feeling on other subjects, since some of them are less well taught than mathematics.

There is a difference between prime factoring and explaining phenomena. 1989 can't have any other prime factors than the one set 3 * 3 * 13 * 17. No other set can do the job. But in explaining phenomena, the same set of phenomena can in fact be explained in different ways.

For instance, let's agree that artefacts with carbon from trees or linen from the beginning of the War of Independence do have 97 percent modern Carbon, and artefacts from the time when St. Joan was being tried have 93.112 pmC (as we will abbreviate "percent modern Carbon" henceforth). We can agree that this means both times there was 100 pmC in the atmosphere, and after both artefacts were made, an appropriate number of years, like 250 or 590, passed, and left the amounts by the halflife 5730 years.

Some artefacts or other display amounts as low as 25 pmC. You can go two ways on that. Unlike War of Independence and Process of St. Joan, Göbekli Tepe was not part of a civilisation still around in its then shape or overseeable changes*, so one thing that will do the job is, the atmosphere had 100 pmC, and two half lives have passed. Since two half lives add up to more than Biblical chronology, this is not my option. My guess, whether intelligent or not, is, Göbekli Tepe was Babel of Genesis 11, it was around from death of Noah 350 after Flood to birth of Peleg 401 after the Flood, and the carbon content was lower. Less than one halflife ago, the atmosphere had less than 50 pmC. Or, the Babel event was indeed (as CMI prefer) prior to human things dated more normally to 20 000 BP, even 40 000 BP, but it shows a lots higher initial carbon 14 content due to ending in an atomic explosion, and therefore Göbekli Tepe dates younger than it should compared to the general rise of carbon content in the atmosphere.

Unlike prime factoring, the fact that one scenario can do the job doesn't mean no other one can.

Or when I discuss geocentrism as both preferrable for Biblical chronology (doing away with distant starlight problem) and possible in a Theistic view, in which God exists and in which He has created angels too.

Or the truth of the Gospel or of the Catholic Church being the one Church of Christ.

I come across people who are as illequipped for the debate as the fictitious math sceptic in my little dialogue.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
St. Lawrence of Rome
10.VIII.2020

Romae, via Tiburtina, natalis beati Laurentii Archidiaconi, qui, in persecutione Valeriani, post plurima tormenta carceris, verberum diversorum, fustium, ac plumbatarum et laminarum ardentium, ad ultimum, in craticula ferrea assatus, martyrium complevit; ejusque corpus a beato Hippolyto et Justino Presbytero sepultum fuit in coemeterio Cyriacae, in agro Verano.

* And as the civilisation is not around in recognisable form and having used AD Gregorian dates back then, we do not have a very clear immediate record of how old it is from known history.

vendredi 7 août 2020

What About the Fulcran Vigouroux Solution?

Several Catholics too traddy to be fully evolutionists are at least "in the know" about "proofs" for long ages.

This means, they appeal to Reverend Fulcran Vigouroux, a Sulpician from Paris.

Now, his full solution (back then to geological arguments mainly) is:

LXX rather than Masoretic / Vulgate
Day Age
Limited Flood (to the continent where mankind was)
Possibly Elastic Genealogies for Genesis 5 and 11.

Now, LXX timeline is unproblematic. It is still within the Biblical Inerrancy.

Day Age got a "green light" canonically when he was himself judge in the Pontifical Biblical Commission in Rome, 1909.

He did not in that time in 1909 get an opportunity to greenlight also Limited Flood or Elastic Genealogies. He did greenlight use of unproper or uncommon senses of words, and he did greenlight day age, and I already quoted and personally translated the decision in this blog post:

I have been Asked if Kent Hovind didn't have Talmudic Positions?
https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2017/07/i-have-been-asked-if-kent-hovind-didnt.html

Note well, the one asking me whether Kent Hovind had Talmudic positions was a Paris Catholic traddy enough to be a Church Goer in St. Nicolas du Chardonnet. And the one position he was sure to know was, he is Young Earth Creationist, so he was erroneously classifying Young Earth Creationism as a Talmudic error.

But, the one single position clearly greenlighted apart from the traditional (actually traditional, not "Traditional" movement) ones, is : day age.

This means that we can't have some human populations being around independently of Noah since before the Flood, since Limited Flood was not greenlighted (note, his own version of Limited Flood would not have helped such an idea, since he considered the Flood as limited to all of mankind, while Koalas and Kangaroos, Grizzly Bears and Pumas would have made it without the Ark - he was a species fixist and not a Baraminologist and miscounted what all land living animals alive today being from the Ark would imply), and one can neither extend the Flood to Abraham time of Genesis 11 beyond LXX, nor the Adam to Flood time, since Elastic Genealogies weren't greenlighted either.

For instance, if we admit some small elasticity to the Genesis 11 genealogy so that it gets a second or a third "second Cainan" omitted, on top of the one who is in standard version of LXX but not in Masoretic, this is not all that problematic theologically, since it still allows for the events in chapters 2 to first part of 11 to have been historically faithfully transmitted, so that it does not attack the historicity of Genesis 3.

Note very well that his Latin answer to the idea of not full historicity of first three chapters was "negative ad utramque partem" ("nope" to both parts of the question, even if there were actually three parts to it). As Catholics we must hold Genesis 1, 2 and 3 are fully historical. We may hold they coincide with myths, we may not say that rather than factual accounts they are taken over from (non-factual) myths.

And this means, we need a full blown transmission of the historic accounts, and while there would be a case for allowing to admit one or two generations more in the transmission, admitting several more to add over thousand years more clearly breaks the limits of a reliably conducted transmission, especially as it means incorrectness in the transmission of the genealogy, so it would itself be showing a lack of full human historical reliability.

But wouldn't the omitted second Cainan, if real, also do so? No, we would be dealing with a "ritual" omission, a condemnatio memoriae, with second Cainan not being mentioned in the Hebrew genealogy, since he was a cursed generation - and obviously adding too many of those will not help in admitting God took full care of mankind through guarding truth in the patriarchal line up to Abraham. Which we need to admit. The other possibility is, there was no omission, both Luke 3 and the exclusively Christian manuscripts of LXX, all manuscripts that have the second Cainan, depend on a scribal error (probably in Luke 3, transferring from the part of the Luke 3 genealogy that came from Genesis 5).

Now, what does this mean for trads?

They can't accept men lived 40 000 years ago. And carbon dated human bones suggest clearly they either should do that or ditch old age, by admitting carbon dates reduce to shorter ages, due to - for instance - initially lower and then quickly rising carbon levels in the atmosphere, samples beginning with lots less than 100 pmC.

So, if they accept the 40 000 years date as a true one, what are their options? Three:

Apparently human bones from 40 000 years ago were actually from non-human humanoids, including those from Cro-Magnon men : impossible; God has given the rational and irrational versions of "animal" distinctive biological kinds, so that an anatomic human needs to be a theological human, an image of God. Also clearly some of their activities show they had language, and it is impossible for mere irrational animals to have real human language.
Adam was created c. 6000 - 7500 years ago, pre-Adam humans were fully human, but all humans now alive descend from Adam : improbable in the case of a limited Flood and Indians and Aborigines all descending from populations separated from the Old World 20 000 years ago or more, and the ban on believing in non-Adamite humans was specifically put in place to guarantee full humanity and redeemability of Negroes, Indians, Australian Negroes.
Adam lived more than 40 000 years ago, and this brings us to genealogies being treated as so "elastic" that they break down the chain of historic transmission, at least credible such, completely.

In other words, each option has a specific damning flaw, and on top of that, the elastic genealogies part of Fulcran Vigouroux' solution, back from before his days in Rome, back in 19th C. Paris, was not greenlighted.

Some might here opt for the worst option : claiming human bones are non-human. Sacraments depend on man being set aside physically (remember, when C. S. Lewis imagined another world in which some rational creatures shared the physical appearance of brutes, that world had no sacraments), for instance in the case of a miscarriage, whether one can baptise what comes out or should consider it a non-human monster, even with very non-human appearance, if it is still alive, it should count as at least possibly human and be baptised, at least conditionally "si homo es, ego te baptizo in nomine Patris et Filii et Spiritus Sancti". So, counting Cro-Magnons or even Neanderthals and Denisovans as non-human is a no no for Catholics.

While we are speaking of this barbarous solution, it was accepted by some Seminary teachers in the days of Pius XII, and the argument back then seems to have been "if a creature spends 10 000 years or more without inventing agriculture, it can't be human". The problems with this are several :

while being an agriculturer is a clearly human act, it must be an optional one, since city dwellers, hunters, nomads are also human - one should never pinpoint any one human act as the compulsory sine qua non for being human;
some evolutionists have pinpointed the reason for agriculture to develop as less moisture, meaning, the 10 000's or 20 000's or 30 000's of years without agriculture would have been due to a climate making life agreeable enough without it;
while we know they hunted and fished, we do not know they and all like them (some of which we have not found) had no agriculture;
and above all, if we reduce the carbon dates duly, like 40 000 years BP reduced to year of the Flood or somewhat before, we do not have all that many post-Flood centuries without agriculture, in my latest tables, I have Göbekli Tepe starting when Noah dies in 350 after the Flood (Peleg born 401 after Flood in Roman Martyrology), meaning the lack of agriculture is very transitory.

In other words, the wise guys who think they are more sophisticated in accepting Fulcran Vigouroux rather than Young Earth Creationism really are missing several points, and very probably depend on treating the issue more rhetorically and politically (I recall having heard an approachment between Young Earth Creationism and Zionism, even!) than as a matter where truth and falsehood and therefore reasons and arguments, apply.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
St. Cajetan
7.VIII.2020

dimanche 2 août 2020

If the Fix Stars are One Light Day Up ...

... and especially if they were so at Creation, what day did God make them and what day did they appear?

Did God make them on day 4 and they appeared to birds on day 5? Or did God make them on day 3 and they appeared on day 4?

I'll give a little hint, from Jonathan Sarfati:

Some assert that what really happened on this fourth ‘day’ was that the sun and other heavenly bodies ‘appeared’ when a dense cloud layer dissipated after millions of years. This is not only fanciful science but bad exegesis. The Hebrew word ‘asah means ‘make’ throughout Genesis 1, and is sometimes used interchangeably with ‘create’ (bara’)—e.g. in Genesis 1:26–27. It is pure desperation to apply a different meaning to the same word in the same grammatical construction in the same passage, just to fit in with atheistic evolutionary ideas like the big bang. If God had meant ‘appeared’, then He presumably would have used the Hebrew word for appear (ra’ah), as He did when He said that the dry land ‘appeared’ as the waters gathered in one place on Day 3 (Genesis 1:9).

Evolution/long ages contradicts Genesis order of Creation
by Jonathan Sarfati | This article is from
Creation 37(3):52–54, July 2015
https://creation.com/evolution-v-genesis-order

So, I take it, if it is mentioned under day 4 and no starlight was created in transit, the celestial bodies like Aldebaran and Sirius and α Centauri were, if one light day up, created on day 4 and appeared on earth on day 5.

However, this is not what CMI has been saying on the Distant Starlight Problem. Here is perhaps their oldest attempt at "time convention" theory:

Observed time requires less information than calculated time. Anyone can look at a clock when an astronomical event occurs and record the time. However, to obtain the calculated time, one must already know the observed time, as well as the distance to the object and the speed of light. The distance to an object is often unknown, or not known very accurately. This is why astronomers record events according to the observed time convention. Yet, astrophysical calculations are almost always done in calculated time. Each convention is useful for certain purposes. We now ask a critical question: Which definition of time does God use in Genesis 1:14-19 when He creates the stars? Are the stars created on the fourth day—observed time, or the fourth day—calculated time?

Observed time is always useful, but for calculated time to be meaningful we must know the distance to the object and the speed of light. Did the ancient Hebrews know the speed of light accurately? They probably did not. Did they know the distance to the stars? Again, they probably did not. In fact, only in modern times has calculated time become meaningful; we have only recently known the speed of light and the distance to the stars with any accuracy. So the question now takes on a different form: Would God have used a definition of time that would only become meaningful thousands of years later? If God’ definition of time on Day 4 of Genesis is calculated time, then it would have been useless for ages. It would have been incomprehensible to all humanity for thousands of years until technology had developed to the level where we could measure the speed of light and the distance to the stars.

Distant starlight and Genesis: conventions of time measurement
by Robert Newton | This article is from
Journal of Creation 15(1):80–85, April 2001
https://creation.com/distant-starlight-and-genesis-conventions-of-time-measurement

It seems that the number for this post begins with 404, so "error page missing" - between observed and calculated time, what about real time?

Einstein claimed that if two events happen at A and B, they are contemporaneous between A and B at some point, and A happens before B at A, B happens before A at B.

In fact, if the point where A and B are observed as contemporaneous is exactly in the middle of A and B, the real contemporaneity is A and B being contemporary. If you must get closer to A to see A and B at same time or even A first, arguably B happened first. If you must get closer to B, arguably A happened first. And the time difference in real time may be such that A happens first from both A and B or B happens first from both A and B.

There is a real order of events behind both observation and observation plus calculation. Since God is omniscient, He knows it.

The solution of Robert Newton involves that in the real order of events, God would have created Large Magellanic Cloud 200 000 years before He created earth, except it still "counts" as Him creating them on day 4, because due to starlight travel the stars could only be observed - only appeared - on day 4. In that case God would have created the universe inwards from periphery, and only bodies as close as Sun and Moon (Sun is light minutes away) would have been created actually on day 4.

I think Sarfati answered that one very clearly. A real nay that shall be a nay.

God used words that carried some meaning to Hebrews or Greeks, even if they carry a somewhat fuller one to us having "modern knowledge". St. John probably knew the ASCII code on Patmos, but he wrote so that the Greek gematria of Apollo (all five cases added together) or the Hebrew of Neron Kaisar, would make sense. Moses may well have known about Hydrogen molecules, but "water above the firmament" makes some sense.

For starlight to have been created in transit, which was a solution I took over from Edgar Andrews when I was a teen, though I glanced at Geocentrism even then, we would need to have no novas, no dying stars, any further away than 6000 to 7000 light years away. The implication of starlight created in transit would be, if Large Magellanic Cloud was created 6000 to 7000 years ago, one item in it sent off the light of a star exploding before it even existed - or God created light in transit with no source to link it to. Which would seem an act of dishonesty, unless God wanted to say sth else with this (in the Eucharist, we are warned it is not actually bread by God's explicits words, so those accepting starlight created in transit 7000 years ago up to 1987 for a star disappearing from a place 200 000 light years away would need to accept accidents sometimes exist without the normal substance that goes with them).

But there is a very much simpler solution, if Large Magellanic Cloud is 1 light day up.

What does it take for Large Magellanic Cloud to be 1 light day up? The distance 200 000 light years needs to be wrong.

What does it take for 200 000 light years to be wrong? The calculations on which the distance is based must be wrong.

What are these calculations? I do not know in detail. I do know however that someone in the early 19th C. matched apparent sizes with distances "known" from parallax trigonometry. And that stars of the "main series" were concluded to be roughly similar in size to the Sun. The main series are also close in spectrography to Sun light. From this and then from even smaller apparent sizes, one goes on to conclude distances too far off for parallax trigonometry. And from this, one concludes density of certain star clusters and from a typical density maybe this gives a hint on the number of stars in Large Magellanic Cloud - this maybe is the exact point where I am losing my way over the exact and detailed history of ideas behind 200 000 light years to Large Magellanic Cloud. But there is no maybe about the fact that without trigonometry based on parallax, there would have been no "main series" of sun-sized (more or less so) stars in the first place.

So, what does it take for parallax based trigonometry to be wrong? One simple thing : earth is unmoved and both "aberration" and "parallax" of any star are as proper movements as the "proper movement" (rightly so called, unrightly so singled out) of Barnard's star.

And this in turn is perfectly feasible, if the stars, both fix and planets and comets, but especially the fix stars, are moved by other factors than physical masses acting by processes of inertia of each body acting on itself and gravitation of other bodies by their masses also acting on it, namely if stars have angelic movers.

It is a fun fact, I became a geocentric the night to 24th August 2001, after 23rd going past a book shop, where I bought an 80's book on astronomy, after in the library debating with a man claiming "starlight created in transit" doesn't work for the supernova of 1987 in Large Magellanic Cloud, which he may have picked up from either the article by Robert Newton a few months earlier, or from the debate in which Robert Newton spoke up.

I was already familiar with angelic movers, since St. Thomas Aquinas had been staple reading for a few years, between 1996 and early 1998. And as for the answer I got from a physics teacher - a Christian, a son of a missionary - back in the teens, I think I detected a circular proof in it.

The mechanics of the Solar System are supposedly known and this supposedly entails the Earth being one planet moving around a barycentre mostly inside and never very far outside the Sun, because the calculations from masses and speeds and directions matches up with observations. For one thing, the match is somewhat imperfect, but for another, the masses of Moon or Jupiter or even Earth itself are supposedly known because they have to fit this celestial mechanics and the observations. Which is known because of the masses and the observations, which is known because of the mechanics and the observations, and the observations themselves never actually directly include the mass of any body in the Solar System.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
IXth Sunday after Pentecost
2.VIII.2020

PS, what I looked up in the astronomy book was obviously angular sizes of "parallax", "aberration" and "proper movement"./HGL

samedi 1 août 2020

Dear "Unknown"!

I found this comment under several posts, sometimes more than once:

Hey! I am getting bored, please fchat with me ;) ;) ;) ...

First, a blog is not a chat.

Sometimes blog posts do lead to conversations, but if so, usually with some relevance to the topic of the blog post.

Second, my internet time is a bit too limited for me to chat with you, and I am not sure I want to know if "fchat" means something particular.

Third, while I am deleting your comments, they will have allowed me to make this link collection : Time for Spammers' choice, again

Fourth, I might like to get laid in a more Christian manner than by "internet sex partners", if you are the same unknown.

Fifth, my readers - the intended readers - might like to see a blog free from the kind of comments you made./HGL