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.

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.