HGL's F.B. writings: janvier 2024

mercredi 17 janvier 2024

Ah, He's Back!

I Had Hoped to Show a Dialogue I Had on Morals the Other Day · Ah, He's Back!

Zachary Miller
3 d a: Here's an interesting one that people are disagreeing about: if you're in McDonald's drive thru and pay for the next persons food at the first window, then, upon presenting both receipts, proceed to take both meals at the second window, and you do this maliciously because the next person beeped at you or something, I say you have committed theft. When you tendered payment for the meal as a gift, the next person owned the meal, and you took it.
Hans-Georg Lundahl: For my part, I'd also consider it theft, unless you were a diabetic and had a very urgent blood sugar drop, and needed more than you had paid for for yourself.

But on a somewhat different ground.

What one steals in that way is not money, not even so much money's value in strictly economic terms, as the goods paid for. What one steals is time and confidence.

One robs the other of a carefree occasion to eat a nice meal. He's behind you, he has already left his place in the queue to someones behind him, and if he wants a meal the same place and him paying for it as originally planned, you have robbed him of the time he had originally, and made sure he's angrier and hungrier when he arrives in the queue, or he could have been forced to continue without the meal and buy sth more sugar and less consistent somewhere where it's faster.

If it's done once, simply because one regrets the generosity, that's probably still venial, though depends on the size of the meal. In stealing, a day's wage is the limit between venial and mortal, I've been told, and just one meal is usually not the full usage of a days' wage, but it's a pretty substantial part of it.

If people make sure to do so and similar things more often, it's systematically robbing someone of peace, it is manstealing, such people deserve the death penalty according to Exodus 21:16.

Please arrange for his compositions to be played, someone!

If you like to do the same for me, I'd appreciate./HGL

mardi 16 janvier 2024

I Had Hoped to Show a Dialogue I Had on Morals the Other Day

I Had Hoped to Show a Dialogue I Had on Morals the Other Day · Ah, He's Back!

The wall under which it happened was ... a guy who is right now not active on FB.

Hence, I have no possibility to go to his wall and copy his status and my comment.

I anonymised the friend, but ...

if he himself on his own initiative disactivated his account, he's kind of the kind of jerk the dialogue was about
if he didn't, two other possibilities are possible, and someone else is a horrible jerk:
- his father confessor is, if he was obeying him
- some censor on FB is, if he "needed help to" disactivate his account.

Right now, I'm getting a meal somewhere, and I'm not relying on the car in front of mine (non-extant object) to pay my meal .../HGL

lundi 15 janvier 2024

Really From FB? Or Someone Trying to Hack Me?

I don't know for sure, but look at this earlier one:

If the earlier one is also an attempt to hack, it speaks the same story : someone doesn't like what I say. If it's not, but really from FB, it means someone else doesn't like what I say./HGL

PS, here is my page, btw: Hans Lundahl
https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100063737091020

Here is a picture on it:

Is someone hateful of the suggestion that the geocentric and heliocentric systems cannot be totally distinguished by ocular evidence (though the most direct reading of it is geocentric)? Or that the universe could be small and the Distant Starlight Problem some allege against Recent Creationism is totally moot? Perhaps./HGL

dimanche 14 janvier 2024

Young Earth? Old Earth? Which if Either is Unworthy of God?

Two Debates, first one:

Allen J Dunckley

6 Oct 2023

The God of the OECs and TEs is "Another Jesus"

His is another Jesus whom the Apostles did not preach, 2 Cor 11:4.

As a theologian who follows the Bible, I believe that the Jesus presented by Old Earth Creationists (OECs) and Theistic Evolutionists (TEs) is “Another Jesus” as revealed in 2 Corinthians 11:4 and Galatians as "another Gospel." This means that their concept of Jesus is different from the traditional one. According to them, THEIR Creator Jesus did not CREATE SUPERNATUALLY ; instead, He created the world through a NON-MIRACULOUS natural evolutionary process that involved death, suffering, and bloodshed and was anything but “Very Good.”

Furthermore, they believe that the flood described in the Bible brought by the pre-incarnate Jesus was only a non-registered, regional event and did not affect the whole world; hence, it was meaningless. Their version of Jesus aligns with modern scientific theories but does not match the Creator-God revealed to us in Scripture.

If this Jesus is not the Supernatural Creator as Scripture Reveals Him to Be, then he cannot be their Supernatural Savior to save them from their sins.

Allen J Dunckley

Auteur

To those that what I said not being clear, I clarified the "miracles" of the OEC version of Christ during creation in the above OP. There is nothing miraculous about Naturaliistic slow evolution over millions of years. That was the whole point the Deists, that is, the proto-atheists intended -- to have no miracles or SUPERNATURAL involved in Nature and its processes.

Ken Wolgemuth

Allen Dunckley,
//Their Creator Jesus did not perform supernatural acts//. This statement is simply false. I am an old earth creationist and I believe that Jesus Christ is the supernatural Creator of everything in the universe, and He created matter "ex nihilo", out of nothing. This is reported in the Bible in Genesis 1:1, "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth". Colossians 1:16:17. Furthermore, 'In Him all things hold together." So He sustains the universe continuously. I believe that God supernaturally destroyed all wicked mankind and associated animals by Noah's Flood as described in Genesis 6-8. What that looked like, I do not know. I believe that God supernaturally caused the walls of Jericho to fall down once the Israelites marched around the city as God had directed. It is possible that God used an earthquake to accomplish this, but maybe not.

The reason I am persuaded that young-earth creationism is false is because of the evidence we see in creation itself that requires a long time to form. This accumulation of fossils in the sedimentary record I believe is real, because it is a repeatable science of observation today. Your children can go see this record for themselves and revise it with new discoveries. The gazillions of animals in the Paleozoic sediments, plus the completely different dinosaur animals during the Mesozoic could not have grown up in the few thousand years from Creation to Noah, to be buried in the one year of Noah's Flood as claimed by YECs. Then all the gazillions of mammal fossils to have lived in the last 4,400 years since Noah's Flood. This could not have happened with the present laws of physics, and principles of chemistry and biology during the young earth time frame. Period.

Could God have supernaturally done this as you, Charlie, and millions of YECs believe? Of course.

Let me state what your belief seems to mean. Sometime between 10,000 years ago and say 3,000 years ago, God miraculously created those gazillions of Paleozoic fossils, plus the gazillions of dinosaurs and Mesozoic fossils, and the gazillions of Cenozoic fossils of animals that never lived, and organized those gazillions of different species into the orderly pattern of the 12 geological time periods to fool us into thinking these animals lived and died in their respective habitats. In my opinion, this makes your god to be more like a cosmic prankster than God the Creator who is the God of all truth.

It sure seems to me that this makes the God of YECs into "Another god". How in the world can you explain the fossil record? The flood geologists' story just does not hang together, because all the Paleozoic and Mesozoic animals could even be alive physically on the earth's surface for burial in one year by Noah's Flood. I can't even imagine it. How many feet high would they be stacked on top of each other?

I want to share one bullet point from Frank Turek in his lectures about creation. "There is no conflict between the Bible and the natural world. There may be conflict between some interpretations of the Bible and the natural world." I see YECism right here, at war with the natural world, due to their interpretation of the Bible.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Ken Wolgemuth "Let me state what your belief seems to mean. Sometime between 10,000 years ago and say 3,000 years ago, God miraculously created those gazillions of Paleozoic fossils, plus the gazillions of dinosaurs and Mesozoic fossils, and the gazillions of Cenozoic fossils of animals that never lived, and organized those gazillions of different species into the orderly pattern of the 12 geological time periods to fool us into thinking these animals lived and died in their respective habitats. In my opinion, this makes your god to be more like a cosmic prankster than God the Creator who is the God of all truth."

I can be more precise about the date.

2958 BC. God created LOTS of fossils by sending a Flood.

But where do you get "of animals that never lived" from?

Most of them were very well and alive 2959 BC (some were not made yet, and some were sick before they fossilised).

"into the orderly pattern of the 12 geological time periods"

Can you show me exactly one place on earth where:

several different (at least three) of these "time periods" appear together?
in the right order?
in settings that were not aquatic when they lived?

I add the last condition because it's fairly easy to have several levels of biota living above and below each other in water, less so on the flat surface called land.

Ken Wolgemuth

Hans-Georg Lundahl, There are so many gazillions of fossils in the 12 Periods of Geologic Time that they could not be alive on the land at the same time, piled on top of each others. Not even time to grow.

The Williston Basin in North Dakota has all 12 Geologic Periods in order. I will let you look it up yourself.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I did. Megamyonia is a brachiopod, and Kirkella is a trilobite.

Did you miss that I spoke of LAND fossils?

Williston Basin is Aquatic.

At least for the Ordovician, which is the most typical result, I also caught a glipse of palaeocene plants.

If you think there are different faunas of land fossils piled on top of each other, I suggest you help me look THAT up.

My source for the two fossils, by the way:

Ordovician fossils from wells in the Williston Basin, Eastern Montana
Ross, Reuben James, 1918- author.; Geological Survey (U.S.), issuing body.
1957, Disponible en Ligne
https://omnia.college-de-france.fr/discovery/fulldisplay/alma997046759207166/33CDF_INST:33CDF_INST

Then the other:

Allen J Dunckley
6.I.2024: The Truth is...
Charlie Wolcott*: The modern "Young Earth Creation" "movement" is the same as the Reformation. It is a RETURN to what has always been taught. It is a codification of what has always been taught. And it is a rise to confront a false teaching that has infiltrated the church for the last 200 years, a teaching that was intentionally set up to destroy faith in the record of Scripture but not let the Christians realize that is what it was doing. The deception worked and because the church slept on that point, it has taken a lot of work to undo the damage being done.
I
Hans-Georg Lundahl*: Charlie Wolcott "is the same as the Reformation. It is a RETURN to what has always been taught."

Not really.

The modern YEC movement is a revitalisation of what has still always been taught and never ceased to be taught.

A "return" to "what always HAD been taught" is contrary to Matthew 28:20.
Charlie Wolcott: Hans-Georg Lundahl I did not say "had". I said "has". It has never changed nor will change. Modern "science" will never be right because it is always changing.
Hans-Georg Lundahl: Well, my bad, but then its not a return, and the comparison with the Reformation is fortunately moot.
* (note): Unless someone hacked, I misread what Charlie Woolcott wrote.
II
Ken Wolgemuth: Charlie Wolcott,
Your idea of comparing this modern YEC movement to the Reformation sounds very confusing, because the categories are quite different. As I understand it, the Reformation was about core theology and the indulgences. The modern YEC movement is not about core theology but mostly tertiary issues of the age of the earth and the mechanism of biological evolution, neither of which affects salvation. The modern YEC from 1961 is significantly an anti-science movement of rejection of understanding God's truths revealed in creation, in light of Romans 1:20 "For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities---his eternal power and divine nature---have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse." I know the passage is primarily focused at those who reject God completely, although God's character is still revealed to us as God's children.
II a
Charlie Wolcott: Ken Wolgemuth If you knew Romans 1 is about those who completely reject God, you would know better than to listen and side with those whom it is talking about. You would know better than to sit at the feet of those who mock and deny him and call their models science. You would know better than to teach the same thing those people do. You don't have to embrace YEC. But by teaching OEC and millions of years...you JOIN those whom Romans 1 is talking about. Those who deny God and worship the creation, putting it as the authority over all matters...as you have done...instead of letting the Creator actually be the Creator and TELLING YOU how he did things.

Your understanding of theology is not exactly sound. Those in the days of the Reformation thought that it wasn't a salvic issue either. Neither did those who defended Arius in the 3nd century. They argued just as you did. I know YOU think it is not a salvic issue. But the last 200 years of seeing every church and institution that teaches OEC die and go full liberal should be enough compelling evidence that a born-again believer will want nothing to do with it.
Hans-Georg Lundahl: Charlie Wolcott , is that so?

"Those in the days of the Reformation thought that it wasn't a salvific issue either."

I think the Council Fathers at Trent very much agreed the issue was highly important for Salvation of the individual soul.
Allen J Dunckley
Author: Hans-Georg Lundahl Charlie and I have shown Ken Wolgemuth the disaterous effect "enlightenment" thinking has had on the Gospel of Christ and the Character and Nature of God. Key theology, not secondary nor tirtiary! He hand waves this truth away in the name of His golden calf called NATURALISTIC Science.

He is correct on one point: Romans 1:19-20 does say Creation points to the Nature and Character of God -- ONE WHOSE NATURE AND CHARACTER IS SUPERNATURAL and WHO created SUPERNATUALLY in a miraculous 6 normal earht days.

THIS CREATOR GOD is the opposite of the OEC versoion of the creator.

And he actually thinks the "speed of light" measures "time." LOL
Hans-Georg Lundahl: I actually also thing distance X speed of light measures time since light emitted.

I also think the stars were one light day up on creation day 4, visible to fish and birds on day 5, either still that distance, or at most 3 and a half light years up, if, for instance the Antichrist defies Christ on the beginning of the final tribulation, and Christ immediately steps off his throne and goes down, at light speed, arriving at the end of the tribulation.

As I am a Geocentric, I have no qualms about dismissing the pretence that "parallax measures distance" ...

Also, the sole possible mechanism for Sun going around Earth each day is God moving the Heavens around Earth. Theoretically, angelic beings or supermen could be moving each body through complete void, but this option goes out of the window with Coriolis. And even when it was an option, it implied the diverse beings doing so obeyed a common plan.
II b
Hans-Georg Lundahl: Ken Wolgemuth If the world is billions of years, you are very hard set to find a first man within the last 7000 of them.

If Adam was not the first man, original sin makes no sense.

If Adam had biological ancestors who were not fully human, God was a monster to him before he sinned.

If Adam lived 40 000 or 750 000 years ago, Genesis 3 is not recorded and transmitted history, and it has never traditionally been claimed as prophecy.

YE / OE once WAS tertiary, before radiometric dates involved it with Christian anthropology. It no longer is so.
Ken Wolgemuth: Hans-Georg Lundahl, Just because the earth is 4.6 billion years old has no implications about when Adam was created, whether 6,000 or 30,000 years ago or earlier.

If you want to continue an exchange, send me a message to [omitted for his privacy]

This group has become so toxic and Pharisaical that I will not try to continue a friendly exchange here.
Hans-Georg Lundahl: Ken Wolgemuth Our exchange is what it is, irrespective of the group as such.

"has no implications about when Adam was created, whether 6,000 or 30,000 years ago or earlier."

Yes, it has.

It has via the carbon date of a Neanderthal woman called La Ferrassie.

If Earth was created 7000 years ago, or little more, the carbon 14 content would have been still very low, like before the Flood.

If Earth was created millions of years ago, the carbon 14 content would already have been like at present.
III
Jeff Reichman: Than I have to assume you accept in his work "Confessions" and "The Literal Meaning of Genesis" (also known as "De Genesi ad litteram"). Augustine was not a strict literalist when it came to interpreting the biblical account of creation.

In "The Literal Meaning of Genesis," Augustine argued that the six days of creation need not be understood as a literal, 24-hour day period. Instead, he proposed a more symbolic interpretation, suggesting that God created the world with a simultaneous ordering of potentialities rather than in a temporal sequence. Augustine believed that God's creation could be understood as a simultaneous act, and the six days were seen as a literary device to help humans comprehend the divine order.

Augustine also emphasized the importance of interpreting biblical passages in a way that aligns with reason and does not contradict established knowledge. He cautioned against a rigid literal interpretation that might conflict with the empirical evidence available in his time.

Of course it's important to note that Augustine's views were shaped by the scientific and philosophical understanding of his era, and his interpretations have been influential in shaping the approach of many Christian thinkers to the interpretation of Genesis.
Hans-Georg Lundahl: Jeff Reichman It is highly worth noting that Genesis is more than just the creation account, that the timespan of that was if anything shortened in De Genesi ad Litteram Libri XII (specifically books 5 and 6), but that that shortening was optional. Yes, I checked a few years ago.

It is if anything even more worth noting that this was why I set strict Biblical chronology to the side soon after converting, and returned to it on reading what St. Augustine wrote about what happened AFTER creation - City of God, which I suggest you check, and on any point after the six days account, like Genesis 5 and 11, you'll find he supports a literalistic understanding. Specifically he makes a Q and A session about them and about the Flood in books 12 to 16 of the work.

samedi 6 janvier 2024

My New Tables And Their Theoretical Background, Discussed with Matthew Hunt and Ken Wolgemuth

I could not link to my New Tables post on FB, I know it is regularly censored as anything else on creavsevolu, but here is the link for you guys:

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

It's from 13.VIII.2020, incorporates work I did on paper during the lockdown, which blocked my internet access. Hence the I—II table, Flood to beginning of Babel, which should have began on 40 000 BP, began on 41 000 BP, and the correct carbon date for 2958 BC is just 39 000 BP.

Anyway, here is the first debate:

Matthew Hunt: https://www.facebook.com/groups/201189381177748/posts/1047308916565786/
4 Jan 2024: Thanks to the geologists here, I have gained an understanding of radiocarbon dating as being different from the use of other radioisotopes for radiometric dating. You may have issues with the calibration curves, and my (brief) examination into this topic makes it appear very complicated. This however doesn't invalidate the dates that the simple method that I presented in the files section invalid.
Hans-Georg Lundahl: I am sorry, but your last sentence seems somewhat of an anacoluthon. I e began from different view points.

I suppose you mean (correct me if I am wrong), this:

This however doesn't invalidate the dates nor prove that the simple method that I presented in the files section is invalid.

That said, I would consider radiocarbon as the one radiometric method that's valid, only, when it comes to dates before the Fall of Troy, the direct dates need to be reduced if there was a carbon build up.

Let a sample today have 15.603 pmC. This means it's carbon dated to "13 333 BC". 15350 YA, +/- 10 - 2024 = 13326 BC +/- 10.

If the original carbon 14 content was 100 pmC, then 15.603 pmC means that.

However, if the sample was from 2733 BC, and the original carbon 14 content in it was back then 27.679 pmC, that also perfectly accounts for the "13 333 BC" date.

In such a case, I take 27.679 pmC, see that it means 10600 years, meaning that was the sample's instant age, and then add that to the real BC, making 10600 + 2733 = 13333 BC.

I obtain the 27.679 pmC by "plotting a curve" (except I'm sore at graphs) from 1.4 pmC, now corrected to 1.625 pmC at the Flood to 42.8224 pmC when Babel begins. Dates are

2958 BC read as 39000 BP
2607 BC read as 9600 BC

THOSE carbon dates I have from Campi Flegrei tephra and from lowest charcoal layer found in Göbekli Tepe.

From the real and carbondated dates, I obtain the extra years, and from there the carbon 14 levels.

Basically same thing that is done in calibration curves, except instead of giving real carbon 14 levels and deducing carbon date as that influencing the view of the real date, as long as the variations are seen as very small, they do calibration as percentages of carbon dates instead.

I see the variation as much bigger, a major rise between Flood and Fall of Troy (archaeology of Hissarlik having a layer that matches the historic date of the Fall of Troy). The production rate of C14 was at times c. 10~11 times faster than it is on average now.

Here is another one:

Ken Wolgemuth: https://www.facebook.com/groups/201189381177748/posts/984572859506059/
7 Sept 2023: Fred Mcnabb, To wrap up the tree ring segment for radiocarbon dating, I will show examples of the calibration curve. This first one is from 1950 to 2k, meaning 2,000 years BP, before present. Notice there are about 1,500 C-14 measurements for this segment along of the calibration curve. The for 2k to 4k there are over 200 points. Then the 3rd, shows the Biblical Archaeology examples.
Matthew Hunt: So how do the calibration curves work? It isn't the same as the radiometric dating using other radioisotopes is it?

Are there other radioisotopes that can be used as an alternative to carbon?
Hans-Georg Lundahl: The calibration curves work like this:

1) know the date by some other means

2) note the difference from the raw radiometric date

3) apply the same difference all over the board.

The ones presented by Ken Wohlgemuth use tree rings, mine own uses Biblical events reflected in archaeology for the independent knowledge of the date.

A third:

Ken Wolgemuth: https://www.facebook.com/groups/201189381177748/posts/979901389973206/
28 Aug 2023: TO: Fred Mcnabb
This post is in response to your request quoted below. To be sure that you can continue to receive the steps of radiocarbon dating, I suggest you send me an email message to have a backup way for me to send the steps to you: [left out, since my readers are a wider audience than the group members in that closed FB group

"I would be very interested in diving into that topic.
Could you break it down into numbered steps so if I don't understand a point I can specifically refer to the number for clarification?"

Thank you for asking, and I am willing to step through the process slowly. Step 1 is to understand that Carbon-14 is produced in the upper atmosphere by cosmic rays bombarding the earth, hitting nitrogen-14 atoms, and converting them to carbon-14. This combines with oxygen forming carbon dioxide which is taken up by trees and plants for photosynthesis. Animals eat the grass and C-14 gets into their bodies and bones.

It is well-known that C-14 production in the atmosphere is variable due to the variability of cosmic ray flux. This variability is evident in the attached graph by the squiggly red line. This means that a calibration curve must be constructed to account for all of those variations. (I will comment about Hezekiah's tunnel later).

Step #2 is the Cross-dating process which I showed on another Reply in this group. It matches the tree rings patterns of dead trees to living trees to extend a continuous sequence in years back in time. Did you see that, or do I need to repeat it?

More Later,
Ken
Ken Wolgemuth
Auteur: TO: Fred Mcnabb,

This graph shows the criteria that are addressed with the 4,000+ sample red line I posted previously, back to 14,000 years. The two solid blue lines are the expected window for the carbon-14 content will fall if the tree rings are formed 1 per year, if the half-life has remained constant at 5,730 years over the last 50,000 years, and if the production of carbon-14 in the upper atmosphere has remained with the limits of the squiggly line I showed before. The yellow dotted line would indicate that many rings per year were formed by the trees. The red dotted line would indicate there was much less carbon-14 in the atmosphere, and/or the decay rate of carbon-14 was faster over the last 50,000 years. This means the half-life changed and was much shorter than 5,730 years.

As you saw in the graph for step # 3, the 4,000+ data points fall with the solid blue lines, affirming that, on average, German Oaks trees grow and form 1 ring per year, and the half-life of carbon-14 has remained the same, and the production of carbon-14 in the upper atmosphere has remained very similar, with the variations due to variation in cosmic rays bombarding the earth.

The next step coming later, # 4, will add sedimentary varves which extend the calibration curve from 14,000 years back to 50,000 years.
Hans-Georg Lundahl: Ken Wolgemuth In order to do the steps for radiocarbon from tree rings, you need to have a much more exhaustive tree ring record than you have from that far back.

I think Biblical history is more reliable than tree rings, like it is more reliable than tea leaves.

The historic (not exclusively Biblical) dates, and the reasonably associated archaeology match at the fall of Troy, and diverge by 1500 years or more at Genesis 14. I'll believe Genesis 14 over tree rings. At fall of Troy, tree rings and carbon match the pagan account anyway.
Ken Wolgemuth
Auteur: Hans-Georg Lundahl,
The Fall of Troy is certainly within the time window for the calibration curve derived from Tree Ring counting, about 3,000 years ago. Be aware that there are error bars for radiocarbon ages in the range of ± 50 to ± 100 years, depending where on the calibration curve the sample is located.
Hans-Georg Lundahl: Ken Wolgemuth I was not denying that. But Troy fell 1180 BC, Asason-Tamar was evacuated in 1935 BC (with Abraham born in 2015).

Now, carbon dates for Troy are 1180 BC. Carbon date for evacuation of Chalcolithic En-Geddi (a k a Asason Tamar), is 3500 BC.

I think that is a very much more reliable calibration than tree rings.
Ken Wolgemuth
Auteur: Hans-Georg Lundahl,
I know that archaeology has various ways of assigning ages to events, but I have not studied them. So I have no background for discussion.
Hans-Georg Lundahl: Ken Wolgemuth I know for a fact that the findings from Troy involved burned wood, and the findings from a cave at a stream near En-Geddi involves reed mats.

In other words, I know that these two datings repose on carbon dating.

A reed plant is hardly eligible for reservoir effect. It gets its carbon from the atmosphere.

A clam living in water that's rich in calcium is eligible for the reservoir effect. So is a man eating such clams.

And there is more to it.

Men have been carbon dated to 40 000 BP. Pretty many Neanderthals, Denisovans, and actually a few Homo sapiens. In a cave in Romania, two men were found, carbon dated to 45 000 BP, who were half Neanderthal and half Homo sapiens.

It is certain that Neanderthals have shown human behaviour traceable in paleo-anthropologic archaeology. The hyoid bone in Kebara 2 had been using the tongue exactly the way a modern man would while talking over many years.

1) If you don't admit that Adam was the first man, you are in trouble as a Christian, in many ways.

2) If you think he could transmit the story of Genesis 2 and Genesis 3 faithfully to the time of Moses over that many generations, like between 38 000 or 43 000 BC to Moses c. 1511 writing the Genesis as a whole book, you have more confidence in oral tradition than I do.

3) What time would you put the Civilisation of Nod?

For me, Adam was created 5200 BC, Seth was born 230 years after that, so Henoch in Nod was arguably founded the same time, soon after Cain killed Abel, in 4970 BC. It lasted up to 2012 years later, at the Flood.

It turned abhorrently evil after pretty few generations.

God had a reason to wipe out even the material traces of it, so the worst we see of the pre-Flood world is cannibalism in country-bumpkins in Atapuerca or near the Solo river on Java. We have not seen wall paintings or wall carvings from Nod so far, because of that.

However, if there were tens of thousands of years between Adam and the Flood, there must have been some civilisations that were not that bad, and which God therefore didn't wipe out even the traces of.

Where are on your view the traces of Nod like cultures, that were not cursed by Lamech's behaviour?
Ken Wolgemuth
Auteur: Hans-Georg Lundahl, I am glad that you understand the reservoir effect. YECs don't know radiocarbon dating, even the PhDs. I have never seen them show the calibration curve. Dr. Snelling said he did not have room for it in his 1000-page book. I have not studied the archaeology of early man, so have no comments.
Hans-Georg Lundahl: Ken Wolgemuth well, among the YECs, I'm "the odd man out" with two more exceptions.

Tas Walker some years ago did a very sketchy one, not much help for archaeology, too large resolution.

Anne Habermehl did a recalibration, not of carbon specifically, but of all "conventional dates" lumped together.

The difference between me and Tas is, he uses the Glacial maximum along with Oard's calculations on when that was as anchor point, I use archaeology of events related to (usually) the Bible.