Carbon 14, Yes, I Believe in a Constant Halflife, Probably 5730 Years

Matthew Hunt

12.XII.2024

Can I get the creationists to concede that the constant half-life isn't as assumption of radioactivity but a prediction? It's not decay rate either, as the decay rate dN/dt is proportional to the amount of parent elements left.

I

Roger M Pearlman

Admin

Best contributor

better to break that q down by specific type.

From my perspective it could (likely?) be true with carbon dating but is likely NOT true with some (all?) types of rock dating.

Matthew Hunt

Roger, it's true regardless of the type.

A

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Best contributor

Matthew Hunt How do you even measure the halflife of U-Pb or of K-Ar?

For C14, it is easy. Take a historic artefact of organic material (chess piece in ivory, wooden chest or so) that's 1400 years old. Then test 0.5(1400/x) until you find a result that matches the remaining carbon.

Do the same for other ages, like 400 years ago, test those for 0.5(400/x), starting with the value obtained from the first test and so on.

I think, a very good case can be made that we have had a stable c. 100 pmC for the last millennia, and a halflife (all time, not just the last millennia) of 5730 years.

B

Roger M Pearlman

Matthew Hunt a steady rate of decay across all types of radio-metric dating is definitely not proven.

It is open to dispute.

if either or, it is going to be (if not already) falsified prior to it being proven science.

start study at Yaacov Hanokah PhD Chemistry (Bor HaTorah journals 2,13, 15 and 17) on this disputed science issue.

Matthew Hunt

Roger, the rate of decay isn't steady, it's exponentially decrease.

II

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Best contributor

For radiocarbon, I actually use the constant halflife in my YEC calibration.

With Alan Clifford on the Video and On My Disappearing Comments

Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere: Rome is Right (Even if Exiled), Alan Clifford is Wrong · HGL'S F.B. WRITINGS: With Alan Clifford on the Video and On My Disappearing Comments

Alan Clifford

Dec. 3 [2024] at 3:14 PM

WHY ROME IS WRONG or NO PLACE LIKE ROME?
https://youtu.be/tBGuK9xVya4

With thanksgiving to Almighty God for the glorious Protestant Reformation of the Sixteenth Century, Dr Clifford makes his case that:
1. The Pope’s religion is not the Christianity of Jesus Christ.
2. The Pope’s church is not the true Church of Jesus Christ.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Sir, I made four comments in refutation of the video.

They are gone, invisible.

If they came to the spam filter, I'd appreciate if you had the courage to make them visible and engage with them.

If they aren't even there, I'll be happy to repost them, if you say so.

A post with your video, my responses, possibly interactions about the latter, is upcoming. Consequently, so are more comments, I'm only at 4 minutes and some into the video.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

It seems the fourth comment was slightly garbled, some thoughts left unwritten by distraction.

It has been completed and reposted under your video, and so has a fifth comment.

I'll continue, but I'd appreciate if the comments were made visible.

Alan Clifford

Thank you. God bless you. I'm puzzled by disappearing comments.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Alan Clifford Even more, I tried reposting the three first ones, and they disappeared again.

You may find them if you look in a spam folder for comments. Ask some younger youtuber what that exactly entails.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Alan Clifford Some that have disappeared were at least saved on my blog:

Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere: Rome is Right (Even if Exiled), Alan Clifford is Wrong
https://assortedretorts.blogspot.com/2024/12/rome-is-right-even-if-exiled-alan.html

Levi J. Pingleton Also Saw the Video by Trent Horn

Levi J. Pingleton

5.XII.2024

Nearly FORTY PERCENT of people believe in a Young Earth Creation. Those Catholic Apologists refusing to engage, discuss, and debate this topic aren't going to be able to keep ducking, dodging, and misrepresenting this beautiful Cosmology and Cosmogeny with straw man arguments and misleading false assertions much longer...

I

Philip Eykamp

I would suspect that a large chunk of YEC Christians are outside the bounds of apostolic Christianity and thus are not really worth taking seriously in terms of having sound Christian theology.

As a separate point, YEC could be true *despite* that, and I'm certainly not using this as an argument against YEC, but ~40% of professing Christians probably believe all kinds of things that are provably erroneous, too.

Levi J. Pingleton

Sure, we're a small percentage, but we are GROWING RAPIDLY as our message is nothing but Tradition and Scripture, and is the view of the nearly all the Church Fathers, Doctors, and Medieval Theologians. 1600 years it was uncontested and rigorously defended by the Magisterium. The Literal interpretation of Scripture, including Genesis 1-11, IS the Tradition of the Church.

a)

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Philip Eykamp The old age paradigm comes from two non-Apostolic semi-Christians, so to speak.

James Hutton was already a Deist, but had ancestry, perhaps upbringing, in Calvinism. Charles Lyell was Anglican, of the Broad Church party (you know, more like Alec Vidler than like C. S. Lewis) in a "Church" with no valid Apostolic Succession.

Meanwhile, up to 1896, according to the first Catholic Frameworker, the Catholic publications with ecclesiastic approval that treated the subject fell into three categories.
1) YEC (the position of Johann Emmanuel Veith, a Catholic priest, convert from Judaism, physician and friend of St. Clement Maria Hofbauer, whom St. Pius X canonised in 1909)
2) Day Age (the position of Father Fulcran Vigouroux, Sulpician, and one he was allowed to "legalise" in 1909, as judging in the Pontifical Biblical Commission)
3) Gap Theory.

b)

Philip Eykamp

Levi J. Pingleton Oh, I wasn't arguing that the percentage is small. That's a large enough percentage to be taken seriously. The point is that for every serious student of patristic, apostolic Christianity like you, there is (I would guess) at least one evangelical who may or may not even take seriously the historical Church.

All of that said, someone like Jimmy Akin debating Gideon Lazar on this issue is what needs to happen rather than ignoring this issue, as some people seem almost to believe that the Church has rejected YEC while from what I can tell it is still a seriously regarded theological opinion and one with serious patristic backing.

Levi J. Pingleton

Philip Eykamp that already has happened. Jimmy and Gideon have debated on Evolution and YEC.

Philip Eykamp

Levi J. Pingleton Yeah I know; I meant that more such debates would give an additional hearing to this issue, and Gideon Lazar did a good job in my estimation.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

At least a very decent job, I did some supplementary comments:

Extract of Lazar - Akin : Where is the Authority? · Gideon and Jimmy came to exchange on carbon dating

II

David Gabler

Just wonder where this figure came from?

Levi J. Pingleton

I heard it on Trent Horn's new, horribly defficient video on what he will and won't debate, at about 7: 43 minutes in he mentions Young Earth Creation, and uses this statistic...

What I Will (and Won't) Debate
https://youtu.be/hs6z7asjta4?si=rxOxITxLFOLlqv2R

David Gabler Also, had to fix the OP, thats 40 PERCENT OF ALL PEOPLE...

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Levi J. Pingleton I've started to comment on it:

Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere: 1st 1/3 of a Trent Horn Policies Video
https://assortedretorts.blogspot.com/2024/12/1st-13-of-trent-horn-policies-video.html

Censorship on FB, Again

Memory, 10 years ago, I shared two links:

Can I share the whole memory? See:

The two links I tried to share were:

Creation vs. Evolution: Natural Selection - Observations on an Issue among Creationists, and on Duty of Disclaimers in Diverse Issues
vendredi 28 novembre 2014 | Publié par Hans Georg Lundahl à 05:17
http://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2014/11/natural-selection-observations-on-issue.html

Φιλολoγικά/Philologica: Kurukshetra War and Joshua's Long Day
Sunday, November 30, 2014 | Posted by Hans Georg Lundahl at 11:50 AM
https://filolohika.blogspot.com/2014/11/kurukshetra-war-and-joshuas-long-day.html

Ken Wolgemuth part IV

In Response to Ken Wolgemuth on Carbon · Ken Wolgemuth, Part III · Ken Wolgemuth part IV

Creation vs. Evolution: Why is Carbon Dating More Important than Potassium Argon? · Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere: Argon, Carbon, Magnetic Field · HGL'S F.B. WRITINGS: Ken Wolgemuth Understood the Argument · If Ken Wolgemuth Avoids Answering Me Directly, What Does That Say of Him? Update : he did some answering · He did some answering, though, to others ... · Ken Wolgemuth part IV

Ken Wolgemuth

18 Nov. 2024

If you are following my series on Radiocarbon Dating, this post gives examples of applying the method to Biblical archaeology with the Dead Sea Scrolls, and to a mastodon that lived in North America about 13,500 years ago near the present location of Glen Ellyn, Illinois.

Creation’s Story – Geology – by Dr. Ken Wolgemuth
Radiocarbon Dating for Biblical Archaeology: C-14–Part 4

I have explained how C-14 from the atmosphere eventually gets into tree rings, charcoal, and bones of animals. I also demonstrated how we test for the criteria necessary to obtain a credible radiocarbon age in calendar years. Now I will show examples of how the process is done in the laboratory to determine calendar years of samples of unknown age for Biblical archaeology, and for a mastodon that lived and died in the area of Glen Ellyn, Illinois.

The Great Isaiah Scroll describes Christ’s crucifixion in chapter 53 in such detail that critics of the Bible claimed that Isaiah MUST have been written after an eyewitness saw the event. The scroll material is parchment, a specially prepared animal skin that has carbon-14. Let’s see the result of radiocarbon dating.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Oh, I am following it.

The Dead Sea scrolls fall this side of "equilibrium point" (or reaching c. 100 pmC, corrected for pre-industrial values). The mastodon doesn't.

13,500 BP = 11,500 BC.

2685 BC

34.269 pmC, so dated 11 535 BC

34.269 pmC = atmospheric value back then. 4709 years ago. If 4709 years ago we'd had had 100 pmC, the remainder would be 56.573 pmC. As it is, 56.573 % of original value.

34.269 * 56.573 / 100 = 19.387 pmC

Since we find 19.387 pmC now, we date it to ... 13,550 years ago. As you mentioned.

Other issues with him than Carbon 14:

K-Ar Dates:

Affez Tlemsanix

Best Contributor

19.XI.2024

Remove the foundation from the circular reasoning of old-age earth dating, and it all crumbles like a house of cards..

Ken Wolgemuth

Best Contributor

Right here is the examples of deceit. All of these are misapplications of the methods.

I

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Best Contributor

Ken Wolgemuth Sure. The eruption of Mt. St. Helens is too recent.

So was the eruption of a New Zealand volcano.

So was the eruption of a Hawaii volcano.

How can we be sure the eruptions you DO date by K-Ar aren't too recent too?

II

Charlie Wolcott

Ken Wolgemuth then surely you would know how to do them correctly and if you do, put it on display and show us how these methods will accurately date these rocks. And for the record, a robust system would know how to handle ALL types of input and know how to throw flags when something is actually wrong. But we have no reason to trust any of your calculations when your calculator doesn't know how to handle division by zero and things of the like. Stop lying that you actually have a sound system...let alone that you even know how it works.

Allen J Dunckley

Star Contributor

Charlie Wolcott Yeah, the implication of KW's response is that only OEC deep-timers know how to radio-date a specimen; and Ph.D YEC geologists that are just as trained and with field experienced don't. What a joke!

If I were a millionaire, I would set up and send a team of Bible-believing geologists to Sertsey Island and take igneous rock samples from all areas of the island, and send them to the labs to be blind tested for their radio dates. I would bet that all would come back well over millions of years. Yet we know and have a historical record of when that island was formed.

So, maybe the Hawwian Islands are not as old as claimed simply because no records were made when they were formed, like Sertsey. If we did not know and have the record of Sertsey's formation, we would think, from radio-dating like Hawaii, that it would be millions of years old.

The scientific principle is basic:

Igneous rock closure starts the Radio-Clock with zero daughter element, and 100% parent.

Then over time, daughter amount builds up at a set rate, the parent amount deminishes.

Daughter build up measured determins "AGE / TIME" since closure.

SO, over a short period of time, like 50 to 100 years there should not be any or bearly trace amounts of the daughter element, and near 100 of parent.

But instead what has been shown is that this is not the cases when it should be.

SO, this shows the weakness that the process is blind to.

Ken Wolgemuth

Allen J Dunckley, This demonstrates clearly that you do not understand how to apply the potassium-argon dating method. Then you continue here in a Radiometric Dating group that is not even able ot apply the method correctly. What a stumbling block, and embarrassment to a Christianity.

Just look how nicely it works for the Hawaiian Islands.

Allen J Dunckley, And for the continuation of the Hawaiian Islands and Emperor Seamounts, back to 80 million years. This data is backed up with the satellite measured data that the Big Island is moving now at a rate of 3.1 inches/year. Scientific evidence for an ancient earth does get any better than this. But your theology causes your eyes and mind to be so blind to God's creation, you cannot see the obvious. There is a saying that fits you and YECs. "There are none so blind as those who will not see."

I guess something like this fits the situation.

Charlie Wolcott

Ken Wolgemuth how many times did you date that stuff until you found a match for your fantasy story?

Charlie Wolcott

Allen J Dunckley You are spot on. And take notice that Ken NEVER actually answers the questions we are asking and instead seeks to prove one false dating method with ANOTHER false dating method. He has NO IDEA that he is actually doing the same thing that was done before radiometric dating: dating fossils with rocks and rocks with fossils. It's the same thing. He's validating radiometric dating with extrapolated plate tectonic movement that no one ever observed...and validating his extrapolations with radiometric dating.

And take notice how these adamant defenders of these methods STILL refuse to address very right concerns when their clocks are NEVER SET...thus making the ENTIRE METHOD INVALID.

The problem with Ken's education and career on this topic is that he actually never learned how these methods actually operate. He's simply told to use them and he accepts them with complete blind faith to the point where they are a Baal he bows before. Because he never lets them be questioned...scientifically...which is what scientists too. And he can't explain them scientifically, nor defend them scientifically.

If he REALLY wanted to shut up the Creationists for good...here is how he can go about it: gather his scientists together, go to Mt St Helens, get the rocks with the "correct conditions without alterations or anything", NOT TELL THE LABS THE SOURCE of the rocks, and date them and show us through the dating process that the K-Ar method...which is very robustly tested and examined...will produce an age of "zero" or throw a "too young to date" flag. We know they will never do that because we know what the results will actually be...the same as that which Steve Austin got. They complain about his process till they are blue in the face, but they won't show us how it is supposed to be done. Why is that? Any scientist sure of his methodology is ready to showcase his work. Why not Deep Timers? Answer: because they are not scientists but priests of a false religion of Deep Time...and do not practice science.

Allen J Dunckley

Charlie Wolcottat. Let us get a team of their guys with our guys and go to Surtsey Island and by whatever method they want with our guys double checking their work and it would be verified that Surtsey Island would date in the millions of years — guaranteed.

Charlie Wolcott

Allen J Dunckley And then we'd get all the stories in the world about how the very specific rocks that they just HAPPENED to chose would be the very ones that never actually completely melted and perfectly retained all their isotopes for the specific dating methods they need...without bothering the others, but it only LOOKS like its a new rock.

I guess that's too "complicated" to explain to laymen.

Allen J Dunckley

Charlie Wolcott so the question is: If no one knew the actual dates of the latest igneous rocks from Hawaii and Surtsey

Charlie Wolcott

Allen J Dunckley That's why I always emphasize they need to PROVE their methods to be sound and robust by testing when they DO NOT know the answer BEFORE "dating". That's a key problem with every dating method. Those running the program know what the dates are SUPPOSED to be BEFORE dating and in any court of law, if someone influences the witness like this, that testimony is discarded. So ANY dating result in which the "estimated age" is given PRIOR to dating...is by the laws of evidence...invalid.

And frankly...that's the ENTIRE system...except for what YEC has presented.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Ken Wolgemuth Impressive K-Ar dates.

Definitely not random chance.

However, I have an alternative theory.

The older it is dated, the more Argon was trapped. The more Argon was trapped because it was in cooler Flood water.

That first Island off-coast from Hawaii is about the same age as a very recent lava flow one or two km offshore.

So, presumably, when that island was formed, the Flood was as shallow as the shelf 2 km outside the coast of Hawaii.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Charlie Wolcott I think there is one aspect of the theory you did leave out.

In fresh lava, Argon either from the air or from Argon already decayed is supposed to be still present on the moment of eruption.

However, it peters out if the lava cools at a normal rate, but if cool water (rain or offshore seawater) speeds up the cooling of the lava, argon can get trapped, and if so it would look older, if it's too fresh.

Now, one part I'm not sure of is this. Are they saying that such cooling would not be expected most of the time, or are they saying even of cooled the lava would still let the Argon escape in some 10 000 years? The latter seems incompatible with the nature of the method, so, I'll go with the former.

They are probably also saying that the cooling we observe in the present only adds perhaps 1 or 2 million years, so it doesn't matter for very old materials. Now, the thing is, Ken Wolgemuth has a reason not to say it here.
1) All volcanic eruptions would have had lava cooled during the Flood.
2) SOME of the lava would have cooled under much deeper and cooler water than we observe now, so would be trapping lots more Argon than we observe in the present.

Charlie Wolcott

Hans-Georg Lundahl This could be a possibility, but it's not one these deep timers ever bring up. Most likely because such cooling really would not make a notable difference. The fundamental principle behind the dating methods that everyone who has ever been to school knows is that for K-Ar to work, the "clock" has to be set when all argon is either gone or beyond measurable amounts. As these Deep Timers KNOW that "excess argon" has been known for decades...it sure is amazing how NONE of them has proposed how the clocks are actually calibrated to incorporate this fact...and STILL use the method as though nothing is wrong with it.

This is hardly the practice of any quality science.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I think the cooling, if rapid enough is the actual key to inflated ages.

In other words, the earlier in the Flood (from when waters were very high) the more rapid the cooling and the more excess argon.

That would explain why, for instance, in Laetoli the volcanic layers come "in the right order" according to the deep time ages.

Ethics:

Pete F. Fiske

Best Contributor

22 Nov 2024

COUNTLESS People Have Been Deceived by This LIE From Evolutionists...

This DANGEROUS Lie From Atheists Is Fooling More and More People
Answers in Genesis Canada | 22 Nov. 2024
https://youtu.be/A1WkIyZgKYQ?si=4nTMf79cukbshkUm

Ken Wolgemuth

Best Contributor

This dangerous lie that the earth is 6,000 years old has been spread by the YEC religious cult, and has deceived over 100 million people in half a century. It is the stumbling block to the Gospel of Jesus Christ of the 21st century.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Best Contributor

"dangerous" — Why dangerous?
"lie" — Why not mistake?
"has been spread by the YEC religious cult" — YEC is not one denomination or sect, it is a position.
"has deceived over 100 million people in half a century." — Apart from "deceived" thank you for the statistics
"the stumbling block to the Gospel of Jesus Christ" — why "stumbling block"?

Ken Wolgemuth

Hello Hans-Georg,
That is a polite way to ask, and it is partly from quoting Answers in Genesis Canada, from "This DANGEROUS Lie From Atheists is Fooling More and More People". There is a level of danger to young people who grow up in a rigid YEC church and may face a risk to their faith when they learn what they taught in church was a lie. Just two lies are that the earth was created 6,000 years ago, and that the behavior of the earth's magnetic field is evidence that it is less than 10,000 years. I admit that "dangerous" may not be the right word, but they certainly face that "high risk". I know because of emails I have seen and personal stories from parents.

Your next question is using "lie" rather than a "mistake." When a person has earned a PhD in one of the quantitative sciences, they have the capacity to search the literature and learn the reality of the earth's magnetic field. But they don't, they just make up lies to mislead and deceive non-scientists in our churches.

You certainly have a good point that YECism is not a denomination or a sect. But there is a similar behavior of blindly accepting false propaganda from a very small group of "leaders" or "high priests". They have a massive body of literature and an endless stream of meetings to build the body of propaganda outside the faith and science community within the body of Christ. The whole modern movement was initiated by one engineer who did just that, left the body of Christ. It seems so parallel to Joseph Smith's Mormonism.

Pete F. Fiske posted: "COUNTLESS People Have Been Deceived by This LIE From Evolutionists..." In the US, polls estimate that 30–40% of the population believes the earth is 6,000 years old. There is no body of scientific evidence for this claim. 30% is about 100 million people.

For your last question of why there is a "stumbling block", I draw straight from Scripture in 2 Corinthians 6:3, "We put no stumbling block in anyone's path, so that our ministry will not be discredited." Every YEC ministry and individual is indeed a stumbling block to the Gospel of Jesus Christ, if they choose to pass off the junk science as evidence for a young earth. It is analogous to walking around with a sandwich board promoting the view that the earth is flat. Hans-Georg, please note that anyone can have a persuasion of a religious view that the earth is 6,000 years old from their view of God's Word. But they should not participate in spreading the lies of counterfeit science concocted by the YEC ministries. When they witness the fabulous, overwhelming Good News of salvation by accepting Jesus Christ, do so. Do not talk about YECism.

P.S. Do you go by Hans, or Hans-Georg? We have a close Christian brother who was here in Tulsa and is from Germany. So we called him "Gay-org" for the German pronunciation.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

You can pronounce Georg as Gay-orc or as Yay-ory (German or Swedish pronunciation).

You can also say "Hans" or "Hans-Georg" whichever suits you, in my family it varied.

"Just two lies are that the earth was created 6,000 years ago, and that the behavior of the earth's magnetic field is evidence that it is less than 10,000 years."

The former would be somewhat inexact, it was created 7200 years ago. I'd agree on the magnetic field, since my YEC calibration for C-14 presupposes that the pmC was added to way faster from Flood to Fall of Troy than it is these days. In other words, if the magnetic field was involved, it is stronger now.

" When a person has earned a PhD in one of the quantitative sciences, they have the capacity to search the literature and learn the reality of the earth's magnetic field."

Ouch ... you pretend that dismissing an ideology is lack of searching the literature?

"The whole modern movement was initiated by one engineer who did just that, left the body of Christ."

W a i t ... you have two problems.
1) You claim that Henry Morris WAS in the body of Christ while he was a Protestant;
2) You claim that he LEFT the body of Christ by becoming with John Whitcomb founder of the modern YEC movement.

In other words, you claim that Luther doesn't split you from Christ, but Moses and the Church Fathers do.

"In the US, polls estimate that 30–40% of the population believes the earth is 6,000 years old."

Good for them, approximatively. A LXX reading for 7200 or 7500 years (without or with II Cainan, and some other different choices of reading) would be better.

"There is no body of scientific evidence for this claim."

No, but there is historic evidence for it. Genesis 5 and Genesis 11. There is also theological evidence for Adam being created not long after Heaven and Earth overall (so shortly that it's insignificant), in Mark 10:6.

"30% is about 100 million people."

Yes, and then you have the 70 % who don't believe that, where increasing numbers are going Nones. And then you have Europe where far fewer than 30 % are YEC, and where YEC is marginalised.

"For your last question of why there is a "stumbling block", I draw straight from Scripture in 2 Corinthians 6:3, "We put no stumbling block in anyone's path, so that our ministry will not be discredited." "

Here is the DRB text:
Giving no offence to any man, that our ministry be not blamed
[2 Corinthians 6:3]

It's about behaviour, not about tenets.

"Every YEC ministry and individual is indeed a stumbling block to the Gospel of Jesus Christ, if they choose to pass off the junk science as evidence for a young earth. It is analogous to walking around with a sandwich board promoting the view that the earth is flat."

Not the least. Earth can in the here and now be proven to be a globe. Not by science, but simply by travel.

For Deep Time, or for Heliocentrism and Deep Space, you need very roundabout "science" to get to the conclusions, they are absolutely not testable in the here and now.

"Hans-Georg, please note that anyone can have a persuasion of a religious view that the earth is 6,000 years old from their view of God's Word. But they should not participate in spreading the lies of counterfeit science concocted by the YEC ministries."

Precisely as with the moniker "sect" or "cult", this seems suspiciously like what Russian and formerly Soviet propaganda would tell.

Guy Berthault doesn't seem like a counterfeit scientist to me, he has proven rapid lamination is a real possibility when rapidly flowing mud-water is over-saturated, a condition reminiscent of any YEC present day view of the Flood.

When it comes to K-Ar dating, the one who comes off as counterfeit scientist is you, since you shout "inapplicable" to present day test cases, but can't prove (either scientifically or let alone historically) the "applicable" for 300 00 years old (supposedly) lava over the Tautavel man.

"When they witness the fabulous, overwhelming Good News of salvation by accepting Jesus Christ, do so. Do not talk about YECism."

Oh, the only valid Evangelisation is emotionally overwhelming such? Facing fridge logic about "wait, what about Adam ?" and answering in cool logic "yes, he existed, we know it historically and no science proves the contrary" is somehow not pure enough?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Ken Wolgemuth Just a brief thing more, the video does not feature any errors about the magnetic field.

However, there seems to be a different video which involves a decaying magnetic field actually observed:

3 Signs the Solar System is Young
Creation Ministries International | 4 Dec. 2024
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UrCpTBsgxhk

I was unaware of these facts ...

Protestantism Is Wrong

Rob Bennett

Star contributor

17.XII.2024

Awesome point made by John MacArthur. OCE's proclaim the "wisdom" of men, while Biblical creationists proclaim the wisdom of God.

But its worse that that because OEC's give men the glory, while Biblical creationists give God all the glory.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Best contributor

Well, why is he preaching Protestatism, then?

Rob Bennett

Hans-Georg Lundahl because it is the word of God.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

No. It's most certainly not.

It contradicts Matthew 28:16—20.

If you consider the "Reformation" as a purification, that means sth was impure prior to that in the Church being "reformed" ...

There are two distinctions to make:

• was it an essential or was it inconsequential?
• was it locally (or otherwise partially) or universally?

1) If it was inconsequential, why bother?
2) If it was essential but local, what one should do was to adapt to places where the impurity hadn't crept in, where essential purity was preserved, why didn't they do that?
3) If it was both essential, and universal, how is that not equal to Jesus not keeping the promise?

Rob Bennett

Hans-Georg Lundahl the reformation is a response to the Satanic Roman Catholic church.

There is no contradiction.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Suppose the Roman Catholic Church WERE Satanic.

Where, before the Reformation was the pure Christian Church?

Why didn't the Reformers adapt to that one?

Rob Bennett

Hans-Georg Lundahl was that before or after the RCC held orgies in the Vatican and sold indulgences?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

That's totally beside the point.

I was for arguments sake granting as a theoretic possibility that the Roman Catholic Church could prior to the Reformation, as you like to call it (I prefer spelling it with a D) have been Satanic. The question was WHERE in the pre-Reformation days was there a Church that was still pure?

Can you answer that simple question without bringing in a local aberration in Rome and a lie about indulgences?

WHERE?

Was it the Eastern Orthodox Church? Was it the Coptic Church? Was it the Armenian Apostolic Church? Was it the Assyrian Katholikos of Ecbatana?

And, once you have answered that, WHY did the Reformers not adapt to that?

Rob Bennett

Hans-Georg Lundahl so now you are defending orgies in the Vatican and the selling of indulgences?

Stop trolling my post.

Hans-Georg Lundahl just an FYI - the reformation brought the church back to Biblical authority after hundreds of years of abuses by the demonic RCC, who held orgies in the Vatican, sold indulgences, and murdered thousands of Christians.

And - this has NOTHING to do with my post.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"after hundreds of years of abuses by the demonic RCC"

Where was the actual Christian Church?

One hundred years are 36 thousand 525 days (back when we only had Julian calendar).

Jesus promised He would not be absent from His Church even ONE day.

If you pretend that the victims of the Inquisition were Christians, the Albigensians and Waldensians were both unknown in AD 1000. The Bogumils and Paulicians who weren't, precisely like the Albigensians, were not Christians, and also did not go back to 500 even if you pretended yourself in denial about this fact. The Bogumils and Paulicians were also mainly persecuted by the Byzantine Empire, not by the Roman Catholic Church.

A man who holds orgies in the Vatican, which happened in two time periods, "pornocracy" ending in the early 11th C. and Renaissance Pope Alexander VI, is risking to himself go to hell. He is not incurring damnation for anyone who holds to him being Pope or who obeys him as Pope. You see, neither Sergius III nor Alexander VI ordered anyone outside his close surroundings, neither of them ordered the Church, to participate in his orgies.

As to "selling indulgences" that's not how it worked. As to killing thousands of Christians, for one, those "Christians" don't seem to belong to one Church, especially not one reaching back to the Apostles, and for another, many of them were clearly rather Gnostic than Christian (all I mentioned except Waldensians), and sometimes behaved in very diabolic ways, telling the "imperfect" (normal people) they could have orgies, but telling the "perfect" that they maybe shouldn't even eat, they should starve rather than risk for instance eating meat. That's a description specifically of Cathars in Southern France, usually known as Albigensians. When the Crusaders came, they met children who had been totally neglected because the progenitors had been told by the sect it was evil to pursue marriage and property in order to uphold it.

Rob Bennett I'm certainly defending INDULGENCES, I already said it was not about "selling" ...

The connection to your post is, you have taken John McArthur, a well known Protestant and a hater of the Catholic Church as a prime example of sticking to God's word.

He's not sticking and you are not sticking to Matthew 28:16—20.

Ken Wolgemuth, Part III

In Response to Ken Wolgemuth on Carbon · Ken Wolgemuth, Part III · Ken Wolgemuth part IV

The item In Response to Ken Wolgemuth on Carbon comprises his parts I and II, this is a post comprising his part III, and his part IV is already out, I have already responded, I'm leaving room for debate before publishing up to 29.XI.

Ken Wolgemuth

"Contributeur en vogue"

11.XI.2024

If you are following my series on Radiocarbon Dating, this post explains how we verify that criteria or assumptions are tested. Please remember that the graph with the red line of C-14 pMC means that German Oak trees were growing in Europe 13,000 to 14,000 years

Creation’s Story – Geology – by Dr. Ken Wolgemuth
Radiocarbon Dating: Testing Assumptions: C-14–Part 3
There are several criteria or assumptions that must be evaluated to compile the calibration curve that will be as scientifically sound as possible. It is well known that some species of trees grow more than one ring per year. The conventional model assumes (1) carbon-14 decay rate has been constant, (2) sampled trees grew one ring per year, (3) cross-dating of the tree rings was done correctly, (4) terrestrial tree rings are free of “pre-aged” carbon, and (5) variations in the atmospheric production of carbon-14 over the 50,000 years was limited within a discernable range.
If you can find it, please review Part 2 for understanding Cross-Dating. The sequence is on my FB professional page with my picture.

Images

https://www.facebook.com/photo?fbid=1136095435192441&set=pcb.1136098301858821

https://www.facebook.com/photo?fbid=1136095471859104&set=pcb.1136098301858821

I

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Meilleur contributeur

Geochemists have data from radioactive beryllium-10 that is also produced by Cosmic Rays and has a half-life of 1.4 million years.
...
From that data, there was a slightly lower production in the recent past, about 95 %, and a significantly higher production back in time, reaching a rate of 185 % of today's production.

If you pretend that for 1000 years beryllium production was 95 % and the time span was really 200 years, that would have made the beryllium production actually 475 % instead of 95 %.

If trees grew many rings per year, real data would fall above the blue lines.

Obtained by vitiated view on how the carbon 14 level was checked?

Also, my views on tree rings involve circularity due to smaller and rarer fragments being less and less easy to check independently of C-14.

If the half-life of C-14 were faster in the past ...

Not my position. Not every YEC view on C-14 is Setterfieldian.

Or there was less C-14 produced, real data would fall below the blue lines.

Also not my position.

For carbon dates 50 000 to c. 23 000 BP, I'd say pmC had slower additions than now. But from 23 000 BP to 1180 BC, pmC had higher additions than now, and that's how carbon 14 levels were RISING quicker than in 30 000 years to 100 pmC (with vaccillation).

Suppose there was an error in matching the tree rings of two diffent trees, so that the overlap did not match the same years of growth?

Indeed.

Then the quantity of C-14 in those rings would be different, as in the left diagram.

Ah, this presupposes a) a roughly speaking stable level of C-14 (what if a tree ring sample from 450 BC-ish were matched with one from 750 BC-ish, with carbon 14 pointing to 550 BC? Check Hallstadt Plateau), b) that all the relevant matches have been cross-checked by carbon dating, c) that the carbon 14 level has never sufficiently been for instance elevated due to contamination.

And, given where Germany is today, Hohenheim being in Germany, that all the checks have been made with no frauds.

II

Hans-Georg Lundahl

To clarify, my position explaining inflated carbon dates is not identic to that of for instance Mark Harwood.

Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere: It Seems My Rivals on CMI Like to Censor Me
https://assortedretorts.blogspot.com/2024/11/it-seems-my-rivals-on-cmi-like-to.html

Old Top Posts

Hans-Georg Lundahl

17 novembre 2010

Partagé avec Public

LINKS IN COMMENTS: Posting my top of the blogs (readers on mine), for each blog: last 24 h, last 7 days, last 30 days, all time (since may when blogger got its statistcs system). Four stats per blog when available and different. Two blogs also have pages as well as messages (except the other blogs page which is on every one of my blogs and does not count). THIS IS MY READERS' PRIORITIES.

Al essorcista Dom Gabriele Amorth (IT) · Conversations in a Scottish Krak · Beaubourg, près d'un collège, 2050, si le monde durera? (FR) · Citemus votum +Antonii de Castro-Mayer, Episcopi Camposini (LAT)

Is St Patrick's Breastplate Druidic in its inspiration? · Nouvelles questionnettes de philologie (FR) · Accusative and Dative for English speakers ...

Non-replies · Comme si leurs prières étaient "fais que nous soyons de plus en plus le levain dans la pâte" ... (FR) · De retour + conditions d'utilisations ultérieures + régistre français (FR)

Ordo Missae of Paul VI per se valid, probably (or may have been) · M. Onfray et St. Thomas d' Aquin

Added today to someone who claimed the Pope as "vicar of Christ" is an admitted "substitute for Christ" · Debate with mainly a Christian who is a scientist, but not a Christian Scientist · Someone posted a link to Fr. Corapi today

St Luke concludes five more days of debate with same person · Our Lady of the Rosary to today, debate between a geocentric thomist and some heliocentrics

[links to Creation vs Evolution, demoted to comments]

Tertiae declinationis neutra substantiva (LAT) · verba praeteriti imperfecti indicativus, futuri indicativus (LAT)

Div. Hukomster fra débatter på Blackmarket.dk med nyhedninger (DA)

Kristen medeltid vs. afkristnad nutid (SV) · Språken, the languages, die Sprachen, les langues (polyglotta) · Chantage pédagogique/psychiatrique (FR)

Relectures ... lou, journal infime (FR) · Impressionisme à la japonaise (FR)

Sonata Nemetodurica (musica)

Hair art · impressa in octavo (diagramma)

...on Tower of Babel or language evolution · Voice of Principle comments on my dialogue with olblucat · ...on Physics from Netscape Boards · What kind of editing I did ... and what kind of copy-pasting

Pas "peté les plombs"! (FR, 13+) · Bien assis par terre (FR, 13+)

MAJORITETSBESLUTETS PROBLEM & LÖSNING (SV) · När ska' psyket släppa morsan? (SV)

Justice sans religion - est-ce possible? (FR) - peut-être le texte le plus lu: 544 fois depuis mai!

Northernness · Theology, Pro-life, Christ King, Saints et c

Trento: III. THE DECALOGUE

Aus Chromosome/Wiki/de (DE)

Prolog: Litavens kulturhistoria, uppsats - intro & innehåll (SV/ENG) · Litavens kulturhistoria, problem 2 (SV/ENG) · Litavisk kulturhistoria, problem 1 (SV/ENG)

It Could Be Over (I Hope)

Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere: Documenting Censorship · HGL's F.B. writings: Censorship Again · It Could Be Over (I Hope)

The links were clickable. If everything's OK, Robert Sungenis got my joke and did his stuff, and I have got rid of a very burdensome censorship.

If this is the case, thanks! Or to someone else if someone else did it!
/Hans Georg Lundahl

PS: Here are the links, by the way:

somewhere else: Did the Gospellers plagiarise Mexican Myth, Acharya?
https://notontimsblogroundhere.blogspot.com/2012/10/did-gospellers-plagiarise-mexican-myth.html

somewhere else: So, Dionysus was a Copy of Moses, may One Presume?
https://notontimsblogroundhere.blogspot.com/2012/11/so-dionysus-was-copy-of-moses-may-one.html

Censorship Again

Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere: Documenting Censorship · HGL's F.B. writings: Censorship Again · It Could Be Over (I Hope)

The link I tried to share was:

Creation vs. Evolution: What About Providentissimus Deus?
https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2024/11/what-about-providentissimus-deus.html

So, has Robert Sungenis bribed French administrators of FB in order to keep me out of competition?

I was right now even prevented from simply commenting under a thing he had no problem sharing (or Levi J. Pingleton for him)./HGL

PS, it seems, according to my memory from reading Rivarol a few months ago, the French administrators of FB aren't so much French as Qataris./HGL

My Writings are NOT Outflows from My Innermost Devotion and are NOT Meant to be Seen and Read by God Alone

New blog on the kid: Some Guys on CMI Might be Overdoing Work Ethic · HGL's F.B. writings: My Writings are NOT Outflows from My Innermost Devotion and are NOT Meant to be Seen and Read by God Alone

I am writing as a writer, not as a man trying to converse with God.

My words are directed to readers whom I presume decently intelligent, but perhaps ignorant in some detail, not to God who reads my heart and kidneys. SOME evil peoople in the Catholic Church don't seem to get it. Here is an example on FB, with my comment below:

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Not true of bread baking.

You didn't get paid to bake Pågens that no one could find and you distributed only among the poor, you got paid becaue in Sweden Pågens is a well publicised bakery.

If it wasn't Pågens, sorry.

Similarily G.K. Chesterton (who got decorated by Pope Pius XI) didn't earn his money for the house on Beaconsfield by distributing GKC's Weekly ONLY among very few clergy.

There is a huge difference between professional production and individual acts of charity as they flow from grace. Did I get my point through this time, Sir?

UPDATE:

Phil Friedl

Status

How can you hear the whispers of the Holy Ghost if you do not love silence?

Pope Michael II

Silence is golden.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I do not love noise.

I do very much like writing.

Do NOT try to get me out of my trade just to give me spirituality.

As for silence from noise, I have more of it when writing at night.

However, my hope is to marry ... not to be the kind of person who cultivates silence at all times.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Is this video I came across in answer to your prayers, and was the point just to show me, my proposal is impossible or I have to change plans?

If You're Thinking of Writing a Book, Watch This
Lauren Erickson | 9 Nov. 2024
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Js2_H5dIBe4

Because, I know the late Pope Michael I was fairly dismissive of my writing as a source of income, after he had tried to sell a reprinted tract about 9 condemnations of Heliocentrism via Amazon.

If he had asked me for advice, I'd have councelled him to create a pontifical printing press. Perhaps I even mentioned it. AND to get someone to do marketting even outside big companies like Amazon. I think the advice she gives from experience is more of a condemnation of his tactics than of mine.

In Response to Ken Wolgemuth on Carbon

In Response to Ken Wolgemuth on Carbon · Ken Wolgemuth, Part III · Ken Wolgemuth part IV

A

Ken Wolgemuth

16.X.2024

Creation’s Story by Geology – by Ken Wolgemuth
Radiocarbon Dating for Biblical Archaeology: C-14–Part 1

Many people, including Christians, have heard of “Radiocarbon Dating” as one tool in science to determine the passage of time in years. This is correct, but very few understand how it is done. It is of particular interest to Christians, because it is applied in Biblical archaeology. So many archaeological findings provide evidence that the Old and New Testaments of the Bible are authentic descriptions of Bible times. One example I will come to is the radiocarbon dating of the Dead Sea Scrolls. I will gradually demonstrate the evidence of C-14 decay back to 40,000 years ago, which is evidence that the earth is older than that.

C-14 is produced in the stratosphere continuously by cosmic radiation causing neutrons to hit nitrogen-14 atoms, which knocks out a proton forming a C-14 atom. These combine with oxygen to form CO2 that is taken into tree leaves and plants by photosynthesis. The C-14 gets into the tree ring wood from this process. With the food chain, C-14 gets into the bones of animals. Once a tree ring grows in the tree trunk, and animals die, no more fresh C-14 gets in the bones. Then the C-14 decays back to N-14 with a half-life of 5,730 years. I will explain half-life with diagrams later.

[omitting for now but not objecting to the diagrams, but not the following ones]

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Best Contributor

Most I agree with.

"I will explain half-life with diagrams later."

Already know how they work, and agree they work in the way usually thought and not the Setterfield way.

BUT ... I take objection to two statements.

"It is of particular interest to Christians, because it is applied in Biblical archaeology."

Basically true for anything since King David, but misleading when applied to for instance the times of Abraham. Carbon dated 2000 BC (the whenabouts of his birth) would be Early Bronze Age IV to Middle Bronze Age I. In reality, 1935 BC (80 years after his birth) is carbon dated to 3500 BC, which is in the late Chalcolithic.

As per the carbon dates of the reed mats of the evacuation of temple treasures from En Geddi.

"I will gradually demonstrate the evidence of C-14 decay back to 40,000 years ago, which is evidence that the earth is older than that."

You have just made a time-loop from 1935 BC to 3500 BC. Did Abraham access Sodom and Gomorra via the Tardis?

B

Ken Wolgemuth

25.X.2024

Hello to you who are connected to my Profile. This is Part 2 of the sequence related to Radiocarbon Dating, that will include examples from Biblical Archaeology. My first posting will always be on my Professional Page with the photo. I invite you to follow me there.

Creation’s Story by Geology – by Ken Wolgemuth
Radiocarbon Dating: Cross-Dating: C-14–Part 2

This Part 2 explains the Cross-Dating process, with one example of real C-14 data measured from German Oak species in Europe. That data extends back to 14,000 tree-ring count, and years Before Present, BP. In the future, I will explain the significance of the blue solid lines on both sides of the squiggly red line.

I also show the concept of how we can establish evidence that a mammoth lived thousands of years ago. Later I will show the Calibration Curves which are named IntCal13 and IntCal20. The meaning is International Calibration, and the year each was published.A reader of Part 1 pointed out that there are also other radiometric dating methods that can be applied to igneous rocks, with atoms and isotopes that are also radioactive like carbon-14, but with very long half-lives (HL). Examples are Potassium-40, HL 1.25 billion years; Uranium-238, HL 4.5 billion years; and Rubidium-87, HL 48.8 billion years. I may share that part of Creation’s Story in the future.

I commented twice

I and II, plus added to two other men's comments, III

I

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Seems very confidence inviting as long as you look at this very schematic view.

Hohenheim are world wide experts.

Jonathan Baker

Hans-Georg Lundahl also invites confidence if you look at the raw data, such as what you shared.

More so when you consider than these chronologies comprise hundreds to thousands of overlapping tree-ring segments—not just two. For example:

SCIENCE.ORG : 2500 Years of European Climate Variability and Human Susceptibility
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.1197175

Hans-Georg Lundahl

My point was that the "overlap" is a somewhat sketchy affair.

Jonathan Baker

Hans-Georg Lundahl how? Not when you have hundreds of samples overlapping with statistical significance.

Not to mention, individual tree rings can be radiocarbon dated and tested for proxies like d13C to validate the correlations

Jonathan Baker

[inserted here from II]

Hans-Georg Lundahl the example you gave is quite excellent demonstration that the overlapping of tree-ring chronologies is robust. What are you talking about? 🤔 Although it’s worth pointing out, this is NOT a plot of only two samples overlapping. Each curve is a composite of multiple samples from two different regions, different tree species. And their overlap is statistically robust. I think you need to spend more time looking at the raw data (which are public) before arriving at such erroneous conclusions.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

The further back, the less is left of each sample and the fewer samples.

"this is NOT a plot of only two samples overlapping. Each curve is a composite of multiple samples from two different regions, different tree species."

Hohenheim hasn't been genius on communicating what it is exactly that they are showing. I may have looked in haste, but I do read German ...

"And their overlap is statistically robust."

Even if that is statistically robust, once samples are fewer and shorter further back, it becomes circular with the radiocarbon dates.

"the raw data (which are public) before arriving at such erroneous conclusions."

As I mentioned, I tried consulting Hohenheim, and it didn't look very informative, they aren't sharing all that much to the online reader.

Jonathan Baker

Hans-Georg Lundahl if you want an explanation of how it works, read papers on tree-ring chronologies, rather than simple copying a figure that you don’t understand. The purpose of the university page is simply to explain the basics and provide an illustrative example, which they did.

There are fewer trees for ring chronologies further back in time, but so what? They still number in the thousands and are more than robust.

What do you think is circular with regard to radiocarbon dates? Those overlapping segments are validated to be overlapping by yielding consistent 14C activities and temporal signals. In other words, independently corroborated reconstructions.

YEC has zero explanation for this, as you’ve shown.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I'm sorry, the page from Hohenheim does not have any link to lots of papers.

I have tried to get access to a research access page as independent researcher, but got denied.

I do not have the means to get a subscription to lots of papers I don't believe in, and what I could get for free doesn't encourage me to believe in it.

Your comment is equipollent to "trust us who can afford to pay" ... well, no.

[To clarify to less disingenious people, it is circular if insufficiently well identified fragments get their identification from radiocarbon, and then this is used to validate radiocarbon. I would say "insufficiently" begins some time 3000 years ago.]

Jonathan Baker

Hans-Georg Lundahl you don’t need a subscription to access them, you just need to know how to do it 😉

How do you know you “don’t believe in” the papers you never accessed? Sounds suspicious…

The page from Hohenheim is just one of dozens explaining the process (U of A, for example??). Textbooks also do a fine job and are freely accessible at any uni library. You don’t have an excuse not to track down detailed explanations.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I believe there is excellent reason why their conclusion is wrong.

History trumps searching diverse types of tracks.

Hohenheim is not just "explaining the process" they are in fact doing it and have the samples or largest collection of them.

Textbooks give no more than the very schematic diagrams shown already above by Ken Wolgemuth. The thing I'm going after with a screenshot from Hohenheim.

"You don’t have an excuse not to track down detailed explanations."

You have claimed that the matching is much better than the diagram would seem to suggest, that implies you already have detailed knowledge of this.

How about providing it?

I already know the process in principle, it's just how reliable it is.

II

Hans-Georg Lundahl

The mammoth has 6 remaining pmC.

After 23 000 years, 100 pmC would decay to 6.19 pmC.

In my tables, the carbon date 21 000 BC is:

2738 av. J.-Chr.
11,073 / 11,069 pcm, donc daté à 20 938 av. J.-Chr.

It is the very node between the slow initial carbon 14 buildup after the Flood and the much quicker one between then and Babel. Note, "carbon 14 buildup" is not a misunderstanding of decay.

The buildup in the atmosphere means that, between Flood and Fall or Troy, the closer you get to the present, the closer the initial values of any sample gets to 100 pmC. Inversely of course, the further back you get, the lower it gets and the more extra years that involves. The buildup is not from the process of decay, but from the process of carbon 14 formation in the high layers of the atmosphere.

That process was on my view sped up, and this does NOT conflict with a constant half life of 5730 years.

2738 + 1950 = 4688 years.
0.5^(4688 / 5730) = 56.717 % (of initial value)
11,069 pmC * 56.717 / 100 = 6.278 pmC

Precisely what we find in the mammoth, a few decimals apart.

Jonathan Baker

Hans-Georg Lundahl Not all mammoths have 6 pmC—they vary by more than an order of magnitude, because they spanned ~40,000 years within the limits of radiocarbon dating. These disparities undermine the alleged 'post-flood buildup' of atmospheric 14C.

A further test is the corroboration of the 14C chronologies not only from tree rings but U-Th dating of corals and speleothems. Why should these correlate if historical 14C were the result of some 'post-flood buildup'?

Further tests are the corroboration of 14C chronologies with ice-core and various lake data (e.g. Ammersee, Lake Van, Dead Sea, and a thousand others). In particular, Δ14C and 10Be as a function of solar irradiance / geomagnetic moment.

All of this precludes that atmospheric 14C built up in the last ~5,000 years.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"These disparities undermine the alleged 'post-flood buildup' of atmospheric 14C."

Not really. See the sketchiness of the overlap of two samples pretended to be overlapping.

"not only from tree rings but U-Th dating of corals and speleothems."

U-Th would be pretty iffy. First, the halflife is so long, that it's virtually impossible to observe it. It's a bit like if you told me the earth we live on were a very, very huge elephant back, even apart from travellers' narratives (corresponding to Biblical history on my view), I could reply, "well, if so, the elephant is so very, very, very big, we can't observe it."

Second, there are radioactive processes that would speed up the decay of either Uranium or Thorium (nuclear plants and atomic bombs use them), and unlike for carbon, the radioactivity would not ALSO increase the parent isotope.

Third, as to the correlation, I have it from Creationists who regularly read science papers it is sometimes pretty blatantly imperfect, they have conflicting dates ... but even if that were cherry-picking, which I think it is not, the correlation could have at least during the Flood been arranged by demons, who were probably acting as God's executioners outside the Ark and its surroundings and probably could have obtained permission to prepare for an end times deception.

"In particular, Δ14C and 10Be as a function of solar irradiance / geomagnetic moment."

My point is precisely that the build-up was sped up by more cosmic radiation, which would not have just increased the carbon 14, but also the Beryllium 10, and which was mainly aimed at shortening the lifespans after the Flood (see Genesis 11 lifespans for results) and also caused the Ice Age much more rapidly than is usually thought by the YEC community.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Jonathan Baker "Not all mammoths have 6 pmC—they vary by more than an order of magnitude, because they spanned ~40,000 years within the limits of radiocarbon dating."

Perfectly accounted for by my tables.

40 000 BP comes from the Flood, and the atmospheric level back then would have been at 1.628 pmC. I only showed the relevant exerpt for the 21 000 BC dated sample. Here is the full post, but it is in French, however, if you take into account that "pcm" = "pmC" and that the pmC I give is for when the sample is from, not what remains in it today, you should be fine:

New blog on the kid: Mes plus récentes tables de carbone 14
Wednesday 1 May 2024 | Posted by Hans Georg Lundahl at 09:28
https://nov9blogg9.blogspot.com/2024/05/mes-plus-recentes-tables-de-carbone-14.html

Jonathan Baker

[see above, inserted in the tree ring discussion under I]

Jonathan Baker

Hans-Georg Lundahl I work at the lab where those half lives were determined. 😂 They are not really that long—about 245,000 and 75,000 years for ²³⁴U and ²³⁰Th.

We don’t measure the half life by waiting around for it to decay enough to measure a difference in the masses. That’s not at all how that works, so again, you e come to an erroneous conclusion naively.

Jonathan Baker

Hans-Georg Lundahl I have spoken with those very creationists and they made it clear they don’t understand those science papers about paleoclimate, especially orbital scale rhythms.

The correlation is not at all imperfect, and I’ve just spent the last two weeks getting almost 100 new dates, all of which exhibit a perfect correlation between Greenland, Europe, and Southeast Asia. You shouldn’t give so much credence to pretend experts who don’t work with producing these data. They are very good at misleading the public.

If the alleged buildup were caused by cosmic radiation, then we would see a clear disparity between 14C and U-Th ages in corals and speleothem. But instead, there’s nearly a 1:1 relationship back to 50,000 years. You seem to have missed this point!

In addition, you wouldn’t see the divergence between ¹⁴C and ¹⁰Be in ice core data if there were such a rapid buildup from cosmic radiation. We see that divergence because of carbon cycling in the oceans, but that makes no sense in the context of your post-flood conjecture.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Naively, admitted, but erroneously, you'll have to back up.

For ¹⁴C, you can find wooden spoons from 200 years ago, 500 years ago, 1000 years ago, and materials more readily historically parallel dated, and you can verify the different remainder pmCs. 90 pmC = 0.5^(n/x)?

5 years is too little to detect a difference, so, wait ... ²³⁰Th just possibly could be historically tested. It's just 13 times longer than ¹⁴C.

Now, you just claimed that you "didn't wait for it to decay enough" which presumably means you are not taking the historic samples as the main (or even a?) source of the half life.

Show how the method you actually use doesn't have a parallel flaw?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"you wouldn’t see the divergence between 14C and 10Be in ice core data if there were such a rapid buildup from cosmic radiation. We see that divergence because of carbon cycling in the oceans, but that makes no sense in the context of your post-flood conjecture."

This one's important, I had presumed it was a convergence.

You put it down to "carbon cycling in the oceans" and I could put it down to carbon cycling in fossil carbon resurfacing in the unstable environment the centuries after the Flood.

"I have spoken with those very creationists"

I'd like to see more like a written and detailed debate, and not just your word for it.

"they made it clear they don’t understand those science papers about paleoclimate, especially orbital scale rhythms."

I'd once again want more than your word for it.

Written or youtube registered, but preferrably written, public debate would be more to the point.

"we would see a clear disparity between ¹⁴C and U-Th ages in corals and speleothem. But instead, there’s nearly a 1:1 relationship back to 50,000 years. You seem to have missed this point!"

You seem to have missed the point that a speed up of decay in U-Th could very well have been carefully mnipulated by demons, as they were executing God's judgement during the Flood. AND had His permission to prepare for the end times delusion.

"You shouldn’t give so much credence to pretend experts who don’t work with producing these data."

Why would this be relevant?

"They are very good at misleading the public."

You may be very good at misleading yourselves AND the public. As far as I'm concerned, you are misleading a bigger part of the public than they are leading in a moderately correct direction.

Jonathan Baker

Hans-Georg Lundahl I can’t go through everything in detail at the moment (on the subway, on my phone), but a few things to note:

U and Th half-lives are determined by measuring the ratio of materials in secular equilibrium. That method is described in detail here (again, in the very lab where I am currently):

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0012821X13001878

This method can date materials accurately less than 100 years old, so yes, we do validate it with historical samples. I’ve contributed to a number of these studies, which I’d happily link later when I have time.

You can’t explain the divergence between C/Be in a post flood scenario, because of physical limitations on rates of oceanic overturning. It clearly undermines your alleged explanation for 14C buildup (which also could not happen on the scales you’re talking, given the size of that reservoir).

I’ve written at length on my interactions with YEC attempts to explain radiocarbon. You can read it for yourself, or I’ll link later. You don’t have to presume it doesn’t exist.

“…but erroneously, you’ll have to back up”

That’s easy. Your conjecture is plainly refuted by the Hulu cave 14C / U-Th chronology and the coherence between radiocarbon-, U-Th-, and laminated/carved chronologies for the LGM to present. Happy to link in detail (later). These chronologies should not corroborate in a “post flood rapid build up” of atm 14C. They do; so your idea doesn’t work.

Yes, I think it’s relevant that no YEC critics of radiocarbon have direct experience in 14C or even geochronology generally. There is no debate if they aren’t even qualified to assess the discipline.

If you’re seriously suggested that “demons altered rates of decay to deceive us”, then we can stop now because you don’t deserve to be taken seriously.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I'm not unhappy to stop with you.

The technical stuff involves other things than what I've been concentrating on, I'll try to consult some YEC experts in the field on it.

I was not suggesting that the interactions between yourself and other creationists do not exist.

Given your reading skills, I would as mentioned have wanted to see the interaction from both sides instead of trusting how you chose to sum it up.

An example is :

If you’re seriously suggested that “demons altered rates of decay to deceive us”, then we can stop now because you don’t deserve to be taken seriously.

I did not suggest that demons altered the normal rates of decay. I did suggest that there was a speeding up of decay, and that demons could have been involved in the execution of it and therefore also had an opportunity (granted them by God) to use the opportunity to get some samples prepared for you to mislead the public.

If you do not think this deserves to be taken seriously, are you a Christian?

Because, if you are, you should believe that demons exist (Matthew 8 ), that they engage in deceiving people through people (Apocalypse 13:13 f) and that they need permission from God to act (Matthew 8, again).

You should also prefer the chronology of the Bible over chronologies got at by very roundabout and even unhistoric methods, even if you think you have reasonably double-checked.

III

The following discussion was not reuploaded after Wolgemuth apparently reuploaded the initial status. I reposted the previous comments under the new upload. Only after did I discover that the original upload had not been taken down.

John Schutt

I wish that all Christians understood this, and that they also understood that an ancient earth does not negate a sinless, literal Adam.

Jeff Reichman

John Schutt Billy Graham provides some pragmatic advice along your same thoughts. “I don’t think that there’s any conflict at all between science today and the scriptures. I think that we have misinterpreted the Scriptures many times and we’ve tried to make the Scriptures say things they weren’t meant to say, I think that we have made a mistake by thinking the Bible is a scientific book. The Bible is not a book of science. The Bible is a book of Redemption, and of course I accept the Creation story. I believe that God did create the universe. I believe that God created man, and whether it came by an evolutionary process and at a certain point He took this person or being and made him a living soul or not, does not change the fact that God did create man. … whichever way God did it makes no difference as to what man is and man’s relationship to God.” Billy Graham: Personal Thoughts of a Public Man, 1997. p. 72-74

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Jeff Reichman Thank you for documenting how opposition to YEC is a Protestant thing!

Hans-Georg Lundahl

John Schutt what about an Adam too far back negating our historic certainty of Genesis 3 as a historic fact, transmitted by Adam over Noah and Abraham to Moses?

What about an Adam too far back negating God's goodness in keeping the implicit promise in His threat to the serpent?

On a YEC view with LXX based chronology, Redemption came within the SIXTH lifespan of Adam, just as Adam came on the SIXTH day of Creation week.

On an OE view, an Adam we all uniquely descend from would be so far back that Genesis 3 would be reduced to nearly myth as to reliability of transmission, while Genesis 5 and 11 show there is no reliability of prophecy if the genealogies are not literally true.

Also, God would very unreasonably long have delayed the Messiah.

Also, Adam and Cain could not have been farmers and Abel not a shepherd.

That's sufficiently much of a breakdown in theology.

Billy Graham didn't think that through, or some rumours he was a Commie are true.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Jeff Reichman "I believe that God created man, and whether it came by an evolutionary process and at a certain point He took this person or being and made him a living soul or not, does not change the fact that God did create man."

It changes what man is.

And what counts as man.

Human language cannot come about by an evolutionary process, and traditionally that's one sufficient criterium to classify a being as God's image.

Jeff Reichman

Hans-Georg Lundahl Is a Protestant thing? Not following.

John Schutt

Hans-Georg Lundahl Note that I didn't say a thing about the date of Adam. ALL evidence shows that the universe and earth are old. It doesn't mean that Adam was.

Jeff Reichman

Hans-Georg Lundahl Graham never stated nor has he ever state (that I am aware of) that man came about through evolution. He stated that it is possible that God usedwhat we call evolution for his purposed and then at some point made his a living soul.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

John Schutt With an Old Universe, Carbon 14 dates will imply, either that Adam was old, or that mankind ante-dated him.

The latter is as blatantly heretical.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Jeff Reichman "that it is possible that God used what we call evolution"

Human anatomy cannot exist in functioning populations without human language, and therefore, if for no other reason, cannot come about by "what we call evolution" ...

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Jeff Reichman "Is a Protestant thing?"

Well yes, you will hardly say Billy Graham was a Roman Catholic (or Eastern Orthodox) will you?

Jeff Reichman

Hans-Georg Lundahl No but I really don't understand your point.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

OK, do you understand it better if I say, there is an urban legend among Roman Catholics, and I'm suffering from it, that YEC is a Protestant thing?

Jeff Reichman

Hans-Georg Lundahl Frankly no I’m not following at all???

John Schutt

Hans-Georg Lundahl Your point about Adam being old and many generations passing is a good one. But, that is a separate issue from the age of the earth

John Schutt

Hans-Georg Lundahl "With an Old Universe, Carbon 14 dates will imply, either that Adam was old, or that mankind ante-dated him."

Carbon 14 is not used for dating the earth. It's used for fairly recent objects. The age of the universe/earth is a completely separate discussion from the age of Adam. And, no, he was not ante-dated by humans. Yes. That would be anti-Biblical.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"But, that is a separate issue from the age of the earth"
"Carbon 14 is not used for dating the earth"

If the atmosphere were very old, there is no possibility that Carbon 14 could have been as low as 1.628 pmC in 2957 BC when the Flood happened.

"And, no, he was not ante-dated by *humans*."

Are you under the impression that Neanderthals weren't human? Do you ignore they belong to our ancestry?

I need a universe at the very least an earth in which La Ferrassie 1 or La Ferrassie 2, carbon dated to over 40 000 years ago, can be from just before 2957 BC. Not one in which she was "pre-Adam's times" because clearly she was not pre-human.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Jeff Reichman In Paris, there is an Urban Legend that pretends that YEC and OEC basically are Protestant and Catholic versions of taking the Bible seriously.

Some, who believe that one, have concluded that I'm somehow YEC "because I'm Protestant" which I'm definitely not.

As this debate is mirrored on a blog, you'll be doing me a service before our readers.

Jeff Reichman

Hans-Georg Lundahl oh ok. I’d never heard of those positions YEC-Protestant or OEC-Catholic. Ok so now your posts make sense. Thank you for the clarification. I did a little research and sure enough there is some truth to that position.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Too little.

But thanks for appreciating.