Carbon Dating Debate

Creation vs. Evolution : CMI has a Long Ice Age in a Shortish Ussher Chronology · For my Part, I have a Shorter Ice Age in a Longer St Jerome Chronology · HGL's F.B. writings :Carbon Dating Debate

I linked to

CMI has a Long Ice Age in a Shortish Ussher Chronology

I also

called the attention of, for one, Roger Pearlman

Roger M Pearlman

Hi Hans-Georg Lundahl please define CMI?

per RCCF (RCCF The Recent Complex Creation Framework six principles for understanding science.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

CMI = Creation Ministries International.

I linked and quoted their article.

Here is their article:

Why no mention of the Ice Age in the Bible?
Published: 16 June 2018 (GMT+10)
https://creation.com/why-no-mention-of-the-ice-age-in-the-bible

Here is their front page:

Creation.com | Creation Ministries International
https://creation.com/

I

Roger M Pearlman

The ice ages consensus dated 25M to 10k YA set in cause and effect by the tail end of the 1656 anno mundi Mabul impacts year globl flood.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

We cannot put a date "25 M YA" as per very different methods in the same chronology as "10 K YA" as per among other things carbon dates.

Roger M Pearlman

they can not , but they do it anyway, as that is the current popular consensus start of the ice ages. the reality being if RCCF 5778-1656 = 4122 YA

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Roger M Pearlman My point is, anything which seems carbon dated, like 40 K to 10 K YA, is a timeline, which is too long, but relatively correct in its order.

Anything which seems clearly NOT carbon dated like anything having x MYA, can be considered as undated and its relation to the corrected carbon timeline can be considered as often unknown or known by other factors.

II

Roger M Pearlman

Per RCCF Gobek-Tepi was founded not far from where we landed in the ark as an animal conservation project as we still cared for the animals to get a fair start post Mabul

Hans-Georg Lundahl

If you consider that a clearly Nimrodian activity, namely collecting skulls separated from bodies and with holes to make them line up like strawberries in ropes, I think it is MUCH likelier Göbekli Tepe was Babel than anything just after the Flood.

Roger M Pearlman

I suspect we founded Gobeki Tepe just out of the ark but it fell under the Akadian enmpire 350 years later just after the passing on father Noach in 2006 anno mundi if RCCF

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Akkadian empire is later than Babel.

Skulls in GT seem to be there from all of the timeline, if I got it right.

It is a good candidate for Babel (perhaps the tower could be Harran a few km or 100 km SSE in Syria), geographically as well as temporally. Since it is east of Euphrates, it is technically in Mesopotamia, i e in Shinar, and it is in/near the NW corner of a plain, or at least it looks so on the map. Harran is on that plain. I have not checked yet if its carbon dates are available and fit GT.

Roger M Pearlman

Yes I think my comments above were that the Akadian Empire started 10 years after the dispersion from Bavel, Yet the Early kings of Akkad were alive and active prior to the start of their empire, ir=e Sargon I (see ID ibn Bible Chronology- untying a knot), Hamurabi (Nimrod)..

Hans-Georg Lundahl

See below on dating problem this involves.

Roger M Pearlman

I had not noticed u have Peleg birth 401 after the Mabul flood whereas I have him passing on 340 years after the Mabul in 1996 the same year as the start of the dispersion from Bavel, 10 years prior to the passing of Noach.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Indeed, this changes the overall chronology.

III

Roger M Pearlman

IN RCCF (like some other YeC narratives) bY Peleg's 1996 passing the land masses separated, this implies the approx. end of the ice ages due to rising ocean levels the land bridges were submerged,.

Per RCCF it was still the original single continent by the start of the Mabul, so the ice ages lasted 340 years not 25M.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I definitely agree the ice ages didn't last 25 M years, and my latest table has Babel (just after Ice Age) between Noah and Peleg, Noah's death in 350 after Flood and Peleg's birth in 401 after Flood.

The start of Babel being c. 5 or 6 years after death of Noah would mean Younger Dryas ended in 355 / 356 after Flood.

Younger Dryas seems to involve lots of disasters consistent with Josephus' saying God at first punished people, before He gave them leeway for Babel. This makes much more sense than Younger Dryas lasting 1000 years, which probably would have wiped out higher life on earth, not just "nearly did" as conventional science says.

Roger M Pearlman

In RCCF we have the dispersion from Bavel starting 1996 anno mundi 340 after the Mabul flood but Nimrod and the Akkadian empire waiting till Noach passes on 10 years later in 2006 before subjugating others such as the town of Sodom..

Hans-Georg Lundahl

2006 AM = Genesis 14?
1996 AM = Genesis 11?
[AM = Anno Mundi]

I take it dispersion of Babel is about last layer of Göbekli Tepe.

It is carbon dated to 8600 BC.

5777
2018
3759
1996
1763 BC

8600 BC
1763 BC
6837 extra years = 43.733 pmc

[Credits to:
Carbon 14 Dating Calculator
https://www.math.upenn.edu/~deturck/m170/c14/carbdate.html]

2006 =
1753 BC

3000 BC
1753 BC
1247 extra years = 85.998 pmc

So, carbon levels in atmosphere rising from 44 to 86 pmc in ten years sounds like a nuke disaster.

I take it you have a later id for Babel than GT? Which one?

Roger M Pearlman

In Torah Discovery Chronology : UR founded about 100 years rounded prior to the start of the dispersion 1996 the year Peleg passes on. (the approx. end of the ice age) 10 years later after Noach passes on the start of the subjugation by the 4 Kings of Akkad.

In 2018 when Abraham -1948 = 70 the 5 kings of Sodom stopped paying tribute, and 14 years later Abraham defeats the 4 kings to rescue Lot..

So GT final layer not long after dispersion from Bavel sounds good.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Your problem is, at final layer of GT, you have an atmospheric carbon level of 43.733 percent modern carbon, and at Genesis 14 you have an atmospheric carbon level of 85.998 percent modern carbon BUT you have only provided ten years for this rise to happen.

Roger M Pearlman

GT founded about 1657 anno mundi.2000 -2100 anno mundi so about 400 years after the founding. By then Harran in what is now Turkey founded by dad of Abraham

Hans-Georg Lundahl

No, you don't understand. Whether you are giving GT 400 or 40 years, the top layer has less than 44 percent modern carbon.

AND you want an event when atmosphere had 86 percent modern carbon to have occurred 10 years later?

Roger M Pearlman

OK so you have what % at the approx. end of the ice age, and how do you define end of the ice age? as the end of the ice age was not one year here the next year gone but a gradual ebb and flow over decades.

Did you see that ICR article on carbon dating w/ the Viking's?

it shows even more recent established dates are not that accurate, for whatever reason.

So we can say starting over 3300 YA once the radiation build that started by the Mabul global flood year impacts/global flood year can give us a general sequence of events but not a totally reliable one, and relative dates, (that we, you and RCCF, calibrate for the stronger YeC science), but not very reliable ones.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I define end of ice age as Younger Dryas.

It ends at beginning of Göbekli Tepe carbon dated 9600 BC meaning back then in perhaps 2602 BC, meaning a level of 42.89 percent modern carbon accounts for the extra years.

This means, Late Palaeolithic is not pre-Flood, but post-Flood.

Lascaux and Altamira could easily be by Noah or by his wife or by a son or daughter in law.

Now, Genesis 14 on my view was in 1940 / 1935 BC, carbon dated to 3100 BC, or 3200 BC so a level of 85.811 percent modern carbon.

The point is, the rise in atmosphere from 42.89 to 85.811 pmc took ... 667 years. Not 10.

2602 [BC]
1935 [BC]
0667 [extra years]

Roger M Pearlman

OK I have the start of GT 340 years before the end of the ice age, so near the start of the 340 years of The ice ages. right off the boat

Hans-Georg Lundahl

GT starts at end of ice age.

My table's 42.89 and not marked for your chronology's is where GT begins and ice age is ended. Your chronology's 43.733 is where GT ends. You have ten years later 86 sth percent.

So you have TEN YEARS to go from 44 to 86.

After ten years, 99.879 % remain of previous.

99.879 * 43.733 / 100 = 43.68 pmc

During ten years, atmosphere does not fall from 100 to 99.879 pmc, because 0.121 are replaced in ten years, i e 0.121 percent modern carbon is the now normal carbon 14 production for ten years.

Your carbon 14 production for that would be:

85.998 - 43.68 = 42.318 pmc.

Now 42.318 / 0.121 = 350 times the now normal carbon 14 production.

After 667 years, 92.248 % remain of previous.

42.89 * 92.248 / 100 = 39.565

Normal replacement is 7.752 pmc units.

Carbon production in this time is :

85.811 - 39.565 = 46.246

Now, how much faster do I have carbon produced than now normal?

46.246 / 7.752 = 5.966

So, if distance between end of GT/Babel and Genesis 14 is ten years, carbon was produced 350 times as fast as now, if distance is 667 years, it was produced only 5.966 times as fast.

Your 340 years are irrelevant, since the problem is concerned with end of GT, not its duration. They are also impossible, since it is too problematic to get a beginning carbon dated GT of "9 600 BC" contemporary with a Lascaux or Altamira. They have carbon dates of "15 000 BC" and "13 500 BC" (for earliest paintings) / "16 500 BC" (for earliest artifacts).

Roger M Pearlman

I think u are overly reliant on the attributions and results. for example just because they say from the end of GT what they tested, how do you know? It could have been from earlier or later.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

No, in archaeology, there are layers.

Beginning of GT, carbon dated 9600 BC, end of GT, carbon dated 8600 BC.

So, from end of GT, carbon date 8600 BC, to Genesis 14, carbon date probable 3200 BC or therearound, you have sth like a carbon production of 350 times as fast as now, bc you make it take ten years, I have a carbon production 6 times as fast as now, making it last 667 years.

"Did you see that ICR article on carbon dating w/ the Viking's?"

Sorry for missing this, no, I haven't, do you have a link?

Wait, is it this one?

Viking Bones Contradict Carbon-14 Assumptions
BY JAMES J. S. JOHNSON, J.D., TH.D. * | MONDAY, APRIL 30, 2018
http://www.icr.org/article/viking-bones-contradict-c14-assumptions

"Why would radiocarbon calculations indicate the buried warriors died during the 600s or 700s, a century or more before Derbyshire was overwhelmed by hordes of Vikings? Likewise, if radiocarbon determinations are so reliable, why is no Viking army reported as occupying Derbyshire during the 600s or 700s? This loud silence is what forensic experts call the “evidence of nothing” problem."

It is later answered by:

"However, a diet incorporating lots of finfish (cod, salmon, trout, herring, etc.) and/or shellfish (shrimp or crab) would nix that vital assumption.1,5 The Vikings were known for a seafood diet—specifically fish. And fish contain much less carbon-14 than land-based foods like grains, vegetables, fruits, dairy products, or livestock meats."

Yes, this is known as reservoir effect.

But you cannot have consistent reservoir effect for all of the wood and animals as well as human remains from Pre-Pottery Neolithic (GT age) and that means this solution is out here, as far as I can see.

To be

continued ...

IV

[William P Lazarus]

Some of you should read the scientific, documented literature on the age of the Earth before attempting to make such wild, absurd guesses. The Earth has to be billions of years old, just from the obvious evidence of erosion. That takes time -- lots of it. Using the Bible as a calendar is like relying on a comic book to work out space travel.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I saw two arguments and made each the start of a potential new subthread.

IV a

Hans-Georg Lundahl

" The Earth has to be billions of years old, just from the obvious evidence of erosion. That takes time -- lots of it."

Erosion can happen slowly with drip-dropping water or quickly with higher water pressure.

We tend to think the water pressure at times was very high during the Flood.

IV b

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"before attempting to make such wild, absurd guesses."

No wild guesses involved. I take Biblical history as history and as good grounds for calibrating and I calibrate accordingly.

The article I linked to and commented on had a scenario for ice age which would imply a bad calibration.

Linked to and commented on IN the article I wrote and here linked to. Sorry for unclarity!

[William P Lazarus]

Religion is the last refuge of the ignorant. Just a brief note: the sun and moon are "created" on the fourth day, one day after vegetation. If that doesn't end any discussion about biblical accuracy, nothing can.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Indeed, it can't.

Btw, MADE which opens the door for sun and other hydrogen rich bodies being made from a hydrogen named "waters above firmament" for day two.

LIGHT is what vegetation needs, not necessarily sunlight.

In Amsterdam, some are or were illegally growing marijuana hemp with halogen light lamps 24/24 to get higher THC. The hemp didn't die from that.

Surely a light specially created as basically a sign of God Himself can do what even halogen lamps can do?

Roger M Pearlman

[William P Lazarus] Deep-time dependent doctrine dogma is the ultimate dogmatic blind faith that fail big time when evaluating the pure science. unfortunately for them deep-time adherents never study and fairly consider the stronger ID and YeD models due to bias like yours.

V

I linked to

For my Part, I have a Shorter Ice Age in a Longer St Jerome Chronology

And to this one

calling attention of [William P Lazarus] and Roger Pearlman.

[William P Lazarus]

I'm done wasting time trying to help the ignorant. Believe whatever you want; that won;t change a single fact.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I'd say the same for you, and you chose a graceful way to bail out ...

Is Bergoglio a Heretic?

JG

Catholics who accuse the pope of being a false prophet, a liar, a fake, a fraud, an antichrist, a false pope, a charlatan, or unholy are really treading a narrow line. They need to think of their own sinfulness before accusing somebody else, especially the pope, of such a serious thing.

Omitting

some comments. They were by people known to JG, but not to me.

HGL

"They need to think of their own sinfulness before accusing somebody else, especially the pope, of such a serious thing."

Why? Would a lecher not have a right to distance himself from a heresiarch?

Would a murderer not have such a right?

At what point of personal sin excluding heresy do you lose th right to distance yourself from heresy?

JG

Except, the pope is none of those things mentioned.

The ranting and raving is all because the pope says some things on non-dogmatic issues they don't like.

It's one thing to disagree with the Pope, but quite another to vilify him for a little thing you disagree with him on.

Too many Catholics look for the tiniest flaw of the pope, but wouldn't do the same with themselves. That is the point of what I said, Hans.

HGL

"Except the Pope is none of these things"

Have you checked Bergoglio's pronouncements about Creation in 2014?

JG

There is no dogmatic teaching on how long or short the Earth was created.

HGL

JG Trent said sth about going with Church Fathers on ALL exegetic decisions.

Also, denial of God doing things directly rather than by processes (in creation for instance of certain items Genesis 1), also denies God doing them by processes of a finite number of steps, bc the first step would anyway be God doing sth directly.

JG

Again, the Church never defined dogmatically the Earth's age. Unless a pope or the Magisterium defined something as dogma, it is not dogma.

Besides some Church Fathers taught things we do not believe, some of which are wrong: e.g. Origen believed in reincarnation and Tertullian believed in Montanism.

Ever heard of theistic evolution? It does not deny God directly created all things. It says God gradually created things, just as He gradually revealed Himself and His will to us.

HGL

"Again, the Church never defined dogmatically the Earth's age. Unless a pope or the Magisterium defined something as dogma, it is not dogma."

Unless it is dogma indirectly.

"Besides some Church Fathers taught things we do not believe, some of which are wrong: e.g. Origen believed in reincarnation and Tertullian believed in Montanism."

If all Church Fathers had believed Reincarnation or all had been Montanists (not the case and the two you mentioned are not even honoured as saints), we would as per Trent be obliged to the one having Patristic consensus.

"Ever heard of theistic evolution? It does not deny God directly created all things. It says God gradually created things, just as He gradually revealed Himself and His will to us."

If by gradually you mean over millions or billions of years, it is a heresy:

• goes against all Church Fathers
• goes against Mark 10:6
• goes against obvious sense of words in Genesis 1 (if a day has evening and morning, it is not metonymically for a longer period)
• is often coupled with the idea that hagiographers (not even accepting Moses as one author) wrote in "accepting ideas of their time" which undermines the divine inspiration of the Bible if extended to erroneous ones.

I think the fact that in defending Bergoglio against heresy, you show yourself heretical yourself speaks volumes about his pastoral and the pastoral of those accepting him as Pope.

Other status, JG, sharing a video:

JG

[omitting link to video]

There is no such thing as a good reason for leaving the Church. Saint Paul didn't leave because of Saint Peter's hypocrisy. Saints Catherine and Brigitte did not for for the same reason. We, the branches, cannot fall off from the vine which is the Church the mystical body of Christ. A branch that falls off withers and dies. We need the sacraments, namely the Holy Eucharist.

HGL

"Saint Paul didn't leave because of Saint Peter's hypocrisy."

We do not know that the Cephas in question was even St Peter.

It could have been another one of the name (and it seems Caiaphas and Cephas could be same name - Cephas (St Peter this time) perhaps even identified as illiterate because he pronounced it Cephas and not Caiaphas).

So, Cephas could well have been someone else's name.

"Saints Catherine and Brigitte did not for for the same reason."

They however did tell Popes what to do.

However, another saint, namely Saint Vincent Ferrer told to take care which of the Popes you accepted.

JG

There are no other Cephas known. Even so, the point still stands.

I'm aware Catherine and Brigitte rebuked the popes of their time. That's why I brought it up. But That's not the point. The point is even saints who rebuuked the popes of their time did not break communion.

HGL

"There are no other Cephas known."

Caiaphas seems to have had same name in Hebrew.

Also St Clement considered it was another (and Leo XIII considered him a Church Father) - one Church Father is sufficient unless the point is heretical (and you have no CF for Deep Time, btw).

"The point is even saints who rebuuked the popes of their time did not break communion."

The ones rebuking John XXII threatened to do so if he did not mend, that is what "withdraw obedience" reasonably means, no longer recognising him as Pope - it never came to that.

St Vincent Ferrer obviously broke communion with Avignon Popes.

Because he considered them fake Popes.

I think I read somewhere he had even been wrong on that before.

Breaking with a fake Pope is not breaking with the Church.

Was the Question Too Inflammatory for the Forum?