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 ...

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.

Less moved by his talking down to me ...

Presumed Ignorant, Because YEC! · Less moved by his talking down to me ...

Ken Wolgemuth

Hans-Georg Lundahl, You are correct on several steps. N-14 in the atmosphere is bombarded by cosmic radiation that produces C-14, and the process is not constant, but variable. Geochemists have known this for decades. Unfortunately, YEC organizations and false teachers claim that scientists assume the production is constant, but this is false. Your second point is also correct, that the rate of decay – the half-life – is constant at 5,730 years. Your third point is also correct, that trees or plants which get their C-14 from the atmosphere, will have 100% pMC (percent Modern Carbon). However, there can be a "reservoir effect" that sometimes animals or plants will get carbon dioxide that is less than 100% pMC, and this must be accounted for. Another example from what you mentioned is marine animals which get their C-14 from carbon dioxide dissolved in the oceans, and this is less than 100%. This offset must be accounted for, as you said with an "instant age". The radiocarbon community has now prepared multiple calibration curves to apply to C-14 dating. These are the standard one for the northern hemisphere, one for "marine" calibration, and in some a "southern" calibration for the southern hemisphere.

This last—and most critical step—for C-14 dating you missed, probably because it is never mentioned by the YEC false teachers. It seems like they don't want you to know about it, so I cannot fault you. This diagram shows what you have described as the concept for using the C-14 pMC. (continued in next post)

Ken Wolgemuth

Hans-Georg Lundahl, The first part of the calibration curve is derived from tree rings, at covers 1950 and going back 14,000 tree-ring count, and years. Geochemists selected 1950, because the atmosphere still contained little C-14 from the atomic bomb testing, and on a 50-year, half-century Since individual trees live maybe 100 to 300 years, geologists (specifically dendrochronologists – tree-ring scientists) do a step called Cross-Dating to tie the tree-ring growth from living trees to dead tree trunks buried in the mud of rivers in Europe and elsewhere. Tree-ring width depends on wet vs dry seasons, and the climate pattern of a dead tree can be matched to the same growing seasons as the living tree. Those two trees will have the same quantity of C-14 in the matching rings. See the next post.

The radiocarbon-dating group of geochemists has been updating the calibration curve in 4 to 7 year cycles, with the present one named IntCal20, released in 2020. I will show a segment below.

Ken Wolgemuth

Hans-Georg, This describes how tree rings growing in the same summers will have the same quantity of C-14.

Ken Wolgemuth

Hans-Georg, This is the longest set of data that goes into the calibration curve. This is 4,310 samples of German oat species with 14,000 years of continuous tree-ring growth in Europe. The blue lines demonstrate that the production of C-14 was variable because the line is squiggly, but within narrow limits, and the half-life of C-14 was basically constant. Notice that the very loud and noisy claim by YECs that Noah's Flood 4,300 years ago changed everything, but had absolutely no apparent effect on the oak trees growing in Europe over the last 14,000 years. Have you ever seen this data that goes into the calibration curve?

Ken Wolgemuth

Hans-Georg,
This is the same data set from today back to only 4,000 years. The Dead Sea Scrolls had ~77 pMC which yields a calendar year age of 100 to 150 years BC. This is one piece of evidence that the Scrolls were written before Jesus lived.

Here you can more clearly see the variable production of C-14 in the upper atmosphere by the cosmic rays. Does it bother you that YECs continue spreading the lie that geochemists assume the production is constant? Can you see why the science community, both Christians and naturalists, observe YECs as dishonest, and bringing shame on Christianity?

Ken Wolgemuth

Hans-Georg,
This is the reconstruction of mastadon bones discovered in Glen Ellen, IL, in 1963, and donated to Wheaton College. The geology Professor had a radiocarbon analysis done, and the next post has the results.

Ken Wolgemuth

Hans-Georg, This is the calibration curve IntCal13 for 12,000 to 14,000 calendar years BP. It is composed of 276 data points from Heidelberg, the lab in Germany with the Oak species for Cross-Dating. The mastodon bone has C-14 content that is 11,700 +/-60 years BP. Using the IntCal13 calibration, this evidence is that the mastodon lived in Illinois 13,500+/-60 years ago.

The variability of C-14 production is evident. Notice that these oak trees were growing in Europe back to 14,000 years ago, and the C-14 got into the tree rings at that time. Over this 13,500 years, and C-14 decayed away to ~27% of MC. See the next post.

Please note VERY well. The calendar years from 1950 back to 13,500 years ago come from COUNTING the tree rings, NOT from the half-life of C-14. The mastodon bones have the same amount of C-14 as the tree rings that grew in Europe 13,500 years ago.

Have you ever heard this before?

Ken Wolgemuth

Hans-Georg, This is the diagram like the one for the Dead Sea Scrolls, with the y-axis as %MC or pMC.

Ken Wolgemuth

Hans-Georg,
This is the IntCal13 calibration for 2000 to 4000 calendar years BP. The calendar years BC are the scale at the top. Note that this segment of the calibration curve has data from 6 different labs! 161 data points come from Heidelberg, and the rest from Seattle, Belfast, Pretoria, Livermore, and Irvine. This is the calibration for the Dead Sea Scrolls, and for wood recovered from Hezekiah's Tunnel in Jerusalem. Tourists are permitted to go through it. This is ~800 BC, consistent with the Bible.

Have YECs ever explained this to you? I don't think so, and therefore I do not blame you for missing this absolutely critical step, to learn the truth of radiocarbon dating. To skip this is to deceive innocent people in Church pews.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I think we already had a round on calibration.

Perhaps you were distracted by David K. Muncie and Affez Tlemsanix.

Look up this one, and then go from there to "He did some answering though"

Ken Wolgemuth Understood the Argument
https://hglsfbwritings.blogspot.com/2024/02/ken-wolgemuth-understood-argument.html

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Ken Wolgemuth "The calendar years from 1950 back to 13,500 years ago come from COUNTING the tree rings, NOT from the half-life of C-14."

Just in case you missed it.

You do not have ONE tree with 13 500 rings. In order to count tree rings from before the tree you already know the age of, you need to check matches. Even in today's world, with ample samples, matches seem to my eye sketchy.

The further back you go, the more fragmentary and the more rare they are. At a certain point, if not every match, at least some, could have been inserted more recently or more into the past, and at that point, it becomes circular with Carbon 14 where you insert it.

For when (on my view, and if I am right) carbon 14 was rising, this will cause false matches. Hence, a false count of rings.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Ken Wolgemuth "This describes how tree rings growing in the same summers will have the same quantity of C-14."

Initially. After some time C-14 will even out between rings, due to contamination, right?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Ken Wolgemuth "This last—and most critical step—for C-14 dating you missed, probably because it is never mentioned by the YEC false teachers.'

Would you VERY much mind quitting this tone of talking down to people?

If I were (as I wish to be) paid for what I write for YEC, and I have been writing partly on this topic since 2001, you would be decrying me as one of the false teachers. To someone else whose intelligence you would be heavily insulting.

Will you say "sorry" or shall I get angry? People like you have been so overprotective of me, it has ruined my life. If you continue this road, there is a curse on you.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Ken Wolgemuth "Have you ever seen this data that goes into the calibration curve?"

Again, talking down to me, again, presuming I'm ignorant.

Again, if you continue, you are under a curse.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Ken Wolgemuth "Does it bother you that YECs continue spreading the lie that geochemists assume the production is constant?"

If some do, it's because they have shallow information on the other side, and so have you.

"Can you see why the science community, both Christians and naturalists, observe YECs as dishonest, and bringing shame on Christianity?"

This is their interest.

Admitting sincerity => dealing with actual arguments (like the Bereans and unlike the majority of Jews in Thessalonica).

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Ken Wolgemuth "Have YECs ever explained this to you? I don't think so, and therefore I do not blame you for missing this absolutely critical step, to learn the truth of radiocarbon dating."

Again, talking down to me.

You are under a curse.

"To skip this is to deceive innocent people in Church pews."

No, false religions (including Deep Time) have no claim to the attention of the faithful to yet another and yet another and yet another argument just because they think it's the silver bullet.

In fact I did know about the argument, you presumed I didn't, this sours relations between us, but worse, people hearing you about me will also have their relations to me soured, and I don't have the resources to absolutely circumvent all targetting.

That's why you are under a curse, for as long as you keep up this talking down.

Ken Wolgemuth

Hans-Georg Lundahl, I am sorry to have offended you, as I did as best I could, explain the IntCal13 calibration curve. Have you seen it before? I will say it again, I certainly don't blame you for presenting what you heard from other YECs. I just hope you can understand the calibration process.
Ken

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Ken Wolgemuth I understand the calibration process you do.

You know I do a different one, with Biblical events calibrating associated organic material.

You seem not just oblivious to the previous time we talked about it, but genuinely certain, not just that I am wrong, but that I'm a victim. I actually am a victim of what people like you are arranging socially around me.

If you quit, the curse is lifted.

Ken Wolgemuth

Hans-Georg Lundahl, I don't think so, because the C-14 around are not floating around. They are combined in the Canton and hydrogen bonds in the cellulose of the wood. As technology improves, geochemists are now using wood from a single year, rather that 5 years. They have discovered a few years when there was a measurable higher spike.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Ken Wolgemuth "are not floating around."

Extra neutrons can get from one atom to another.

That's why I don't use "diamonds are a Creationist's best friend" ...

Before the following

my responses above disappeared:

Ken Wolgemuth

Hans-Georg, I am so sorry. How can I write my concerns? Would you be willing to have a Zoom session to change to having a conversation?

Ken Wolgemuth

Hans-Georg Lundahl, We don't know the age of a tree except by counting the rings. Of course, one tree does not live for 13,500 years. That is why the Cross-Dating is an important part of the process.

Ken Wolgemuth

Hans-Georg Lundahl, Where is your description of the Biblical events and organic matter. I'd like to read it again. Can you email it to me so I can find it in the future also? wolgemuth2@aol.com

Hans-Georg Lundahl

OK, you may be on your way out of the curse, zoom is impossible, I don't have that.

You are factually wrong that "we don't know the age of the tree except" since trees can also be carbon dated. When it comes to old matches carbon dating the general layout of the find, perhaps the tree itself becomes more and more paramount.

Do you read Spanish?

Because I think my best summing up of Biblical identifications was on Spanish quora, mirrored on my Spanish blog.

En lengua romance en Antimodernism y de mis caminaciones: La datación carbónica—¿en conflito con la cronología bíblica?
https://enfrancaissurantimodernism.blogspot.com/2023/11/la-datacion-carbonica-conflito-con-la.html

En lengua romance en Antimodernism y de mis caminaciones: ¿Y las dudas sobre los faraones eligidos?
https://enfrancaissurantimodernism.blogspot.com/2023/11/y-las-dudas-sobre-los-faraones-eligidos.html

En lengua romance en Antimodernism y de mis caminaciones: ¿Como sabemos si un faraón existió y cuando?
https://enfrancaissurantimodernism.blogspot.com/2023/12/como-sabemos-si-un-faraon-existio-y.html

En lengua romance en Antimodernism y de mis caminaciones: Babel y Göbekli Tepe
https://enfrancaissurantimodernism.blogspot.com/2023/11/babel-y-gobekli-tepe.html

C. 24 hours after the exchange, no reply from Ken Wolgemuth ...

Presumed Ignorant, Because YEC!

Presumed Ignorant, Because YEC! · Less moved by his talking down to me ...

Ken Wolgemuth

12 September 2024, 18:05

Those of you who accepted being a FB friend for years can now follow my FB Page with my name and and photo. I will soon be going through RADIOCARBON DATING, because almost no young-earth creationists are geochemists and understand C-14 dating.

[plus reposting older material that is less relevant for carbon dates.]

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I'm not a geochemist, but my stepfather was a chemist.

I think I do understand carbon dating very well.

No, I'm not falling for the canard of "an oil painting in South Africa was carbon dated to 10 000 years old, so it doesn't work", the painting is not the point, the carbon in it is, it does not consist of just recent linen, but given modern oil painting classes, to some degree also of acrylic, i e on my view Flood deposits. On yours even older.

David C. Campbell

Hans-Georg Lundahl Yes, that is a key issue in any carbon dating. For example, besides having a modern snail with ancient carbon in the shell because it got carbon from older limestone, you can also get a shell with fairly modern carbon on a snail with ancient carbon in the body because it eats bacteria that eat hydrocarbons.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Such things are pretty marginal.

David C. Campbell

They illustrate how the carbon-14 system works. Although tiny amounts of 14C result from radiation in the ground from radioactive decay of other elements, most is produced in the atmosphere by high-energy radiation hitting 14N and turning it into 14C. Like any other carbon, it can be incorporated into living things through photosynthesis or dissolved in water, maybe making carbonate minerals. If you are getting carbon fairly directly from air, your 14C levels will be appropriate for the process you get your carbon by. If you take up old carbon from somewhere, your carbon date will be older. If someone wishes to slander carbon dating by trying to make it look unreliable when it's well-known why it might be complicated, this gives many opportunities for such dishonesty.

Ken Wolgemuth

Hans-Georg Lundahl, Would you please explain the main concepts of radiocarbon dating. No one, not even the PhDs who have the capacity to understand, have described it correctly. I am certain you did not hear it, if you only follow the YEC organizations. I certainly will not berate you for not knowing, because no one has ever shared it within the YEC community except me. They only talk about the limited example where it is applied incorrectly.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"They only talk about the limited example where it is applied incorrectly."

Including, like I have refuted, the "recent" oil painting in South Africa, where I have pointed out that it involves acrylic colours.

However, that's the case for people like Kent Hovind. A bit amateurish on some issues, but I owe him a reference to the general principle.

"Would you please explain the main concepts of radiocarbon dating."

N14 is in the high atmosphere bombarded with cosmic radiation and turns into C14. The rate of production is not strictly constant, but comparing with historic material, it has been close to constant since the Trojan War.

The rate of decay is constant, and if it were accelerated by radioactivity, the result would not be an decrease of carbon 14, since the radioactivity would also increase carbon 14 via contamination of carbon 12 (a process which means I am not using the "diamonds can't be contaminated with younger carbon" since younger carbon isn't the issue in such a case).

Green plants living on land get their carbon dioxide mainly or exclusively from the atmosphere, meaning their level of C14 gets (since Trojan War) close to the classic 100 pmC.

The closer you are to green plants (from same year) and the less close you are to fossil carbon (including in the calcium intake!) the less likely you are to show any reservoir effect.

In cases without reservoir effect, the decay means that if you know the initial carbon 14 level, you can calculate the age from the remainder. For instance, 50 % of the initial level is 5730 years old, 71 % of the initial is 2865 years old, 84 % of the initial is 1432~1433 years old ... in general, if you have a specific age, T, the expected remaining carbon 14 level is to initial as 0.5^(T/5730) = decimal fraction, usually converted to a percentage.

This means that if I have a historic age for an object which has an older carbon 14 age, and is not suspect of reservoir effect, I can take that age surplus as the "instant age" and from that calculate the carbon 14 level in the atmosphere back then. E g, Genesis 14 took place in 1935 BC or close enough, but reed mats from En Geddi (Asason Tamar is En Geddi) are carbon dated to 3500 BC. Surplus = 1565 years. 82.753 pmC would have been the atmospheric carbon level.

Ken Wolgemuth

Hans-Georg Lundahl, Thank you so very much for explaining this. It's late this evening, so I will respond tomorrow. You do have these beginning steps correct. Ken

Hans-Georg Lundahl

So moved, so moved ...

Debate on Geology

HGL's F.B. writings: Debate on Geology · Creation vs. Evolution: 4.5 Billion Years Worth of Nuclear Decay, Before the End of Day Three? · Correspondence of Hans Georg Lundahl: Continuing debate with David C. Campbell on YEC, OE, Palaeontology · Continued Debate with David C. Campbell · Mr. Campbell is Back · Mr. Campbell. Can you guess? Is. Back.

Ken Wolgemuth

2 Sept 2024 21:11

Creation’s Story via Geology — with Ken Wolgemuth

How are oil and gas formed in the earth, and why is the U.S. the world’s leading producer?

I have had a haitus due to taking our grandchildren on a trip to see Mt. Rushmore, and a trip east to attend the annual meeting of the American Scientific Affiliation. This topic of oil and gas came up because I was asked to give the answers to those questions to a group without a geology background. I am certain that homeschooling families will be interested, because gas heats our homes, and we all ride in cars!

The answer from a Christian worldview is that in God’s divine design of this earth to be our home includes many gigatons of organic matter stored in sedimentary rocks. These resources provide the energy for our advanced technology of the last few hundred years to support the billions of people who now live on the earth.

The oil and gas come from organic matter of marine organisms that live in ocean waters, use carbon dioxide to form organic matter which falls to the sea bed and is in black shale sedimentary rocks.

[Plus three info sheets]

Ken Wolgemuth

2 Sept 2024 21:49

Many of you have been in my group of FB friends for years, as I reach out to the evangelical church community to describe creation through the lense of geology and geochemistry. Recently I have been posting with my Professional Page, which is my Picture alone. If you have not yet looked at my Professional Page where I now post items of Creation's Story via Geology. I will cover any topics about geology that interest you. You may email questions to me to address. wolgemuth2@aol.com

Thank you all for helping the spread the story of God's creation through geology.

I

Nick Tavani

YEC is a mindset apart from reasonable discourse; more psychology than geology probably.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Nick Tavani Have you missed that Ken Wohlgemuth gave no specific reason against YEC?

Nick Tavani

Hans-Georg Lundahl He is graciously focusing on his topic

Hans-Georg Lundahl

No, not here.

The one aspect of how petrol and gas is formed that in his view contradicts young earth creationism is HOW much plancton died and was gathered together. In a Flood scenario, there is another way in which they would die.

Nothing in the subsequent process he outlined contradicts YEC.

II

Hans-Georg Lundahl

YEC basically agree on the process with two caveats.
1) marine life need not naturally die and drop to the bottom, it can well have been buried i the Flood
2) the seal rock would very easily also be from the Flood.

150° F and 300° F = 65.556° C and 148.89° C.
This would imply Flood waters were hotter below and cooled on top, since that's where the heat could escape by radiation etc.

Phil Woodhull

Hans-Georg Lundahl The amount of heat from accelerated nuclear decay would have been several dozen times higher than what’s needed to literally vaporize (not just boil) the oceans.

Jeff Greenberg

Hans-Georg Lundahl Way too much geological info available that contradicts ALL of the YEC weak "models". Cyclothems included. YEC excuses always leave out loads of key details. Works for their tribal adherents. Fails miserably among anyone knowing the geology and related chemistry-physics. YEC geologists are NOT involved in Science but are really pushing poor apologetics insupportable with narrow biblical interpretations.

David Price

Hans-Georg Lundahl Ah yes, but that would require reasonable geological evidence of said global flood, which is pointedly lacking. And the implication of hotter and colder is another stretched "If, ... then ..." so characteristic of YEC straw-grasping gestures and their circular reasoning.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I think I might start in reverse order:

another stretched "If, ... then ..." so characteristic of YEC straw-grasping gestures and their circular reasoning.

The fallacy "circular reasoning" doesn't exist. At best, it's a group of fallacies, and if all enumerable fallacies within the group are lacking, so is the group. I did not commit a circular proof, not a circular explanation or invoking a circular causation, not a circular definition.

"If ... then ..." is a certain type of proposition called hypothetic. It's really useful when reasoning about things that cannot be directly observed.

"reasonable geological evidence of said global flood"

I find it reasonable evidence that in land fauna, you don't find several layers directly on top of each other. Even in marine fauna, when it comes to whales and plesiosaurs, animals that needed to be near the surface, you don't find whales on top of plesiosaurs either.

"Way too much geological info available that contradicts ALL of the YEC weak "models". Cyclothems included."

I just noted that *faunal* cyclothems are inextant. You don't find a sequence of ammonites, dimetrodons, jurassic sharks, eocene brontotheres, miocene whales and then pliocene woolly mammoths. Ever.

Non-faunal cyclothems may have their explanations within Flood geology. Ah, yes. Sandstone and shale are both pretty normal Flood deposits, and put coal into it, we deal with floating forests. Logmats.

"The amount of heat from accelerated nuclear decay would have been several dozen times higher"

Phil Woodhull, sounds like one of these "if ... then ..." clauses that David Price characterised as "circular reasoning" ...

Has it escaped your notice that:
1) a world wide ocean would act like a radiator with that heat, radiating it out into space?
2) megacyclones would have added convection, drawing heat upwards into the atmosphere?

That's at least what YECs suggested on:

"Does Radiometric Dating & The Heat Problem Debunk YEC? Could THIS be evidence for Accelerated Decay?"
On the channel: "Standing For Truth" (unusually short for that channel, just 15 minutes).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SBYvhTH1ZJk

Jeff Greenberg

Hans-Georg Lundahl Thanks for all your comments, simply because all of us who devoted lives* in studying earth history see your faulty thinking. Your reading seems to be limited to YEC nonsense. The more you post, the evident that you are misled, badly. Should be embarrassed. Like me trying to correct my physics prof about magnetism!🤔

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"simply because all of us who devoted lives in studying earth history see your faulty thinking"

We are in a debate.

You are free to refute me so that you convince, if not me, at least others.

Why waste your time on an ad hominem + ex autoritate instead of arguing the points?

The one about "circular reasoning" or absence of fallacy is not even relevant whether you studied earth sciences all of your lives, since formal logic is not a part of these, but a prolegomenon to any serious study.

"Like me trying to correct my physics prof about magnetism!"

If you have Dawkins as your biology prof, you should correct him about the "gay gene" ... you don't inherit genes from uncles.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Jeff Greenberg If you are Jeffrey Greenberg, emeritus of geology at Wheaton, I have noted even with Geologists of CMI, they are somewhat insensitive to the Faunal side, the Palaeontology.

While Palaeocritti (a site fed by people reading professional publications) was up, I found no evidence of superpositions of land faunas.

I know there is superpositions of faunas in drill holes, and that's generally marine fauna. On the places I went through on palaeocritti (yes, they had a search by place function), there was not a single place where Permian lied below Triassic.

That includes places in the Karoo, where both are found, and the locations of which were the first or among the first I looked at.

Cut-out

following comments were taken away:

Jeff Greenberg

You are horribly confused. Appoint your paleo questions to experts. I suggest KeithandRuth Douglas Miller and David C. Campbell in particular. You might ;learn something useful.

Phil Woodhull

Hans-Georg Lundahl A mere global flood and even a globe-spanning super-hypercyclone would be many orders of magnitude too little to keep the planet from becoming glass.

See the calculations and admissions of the very Young Earthers who hypothesized those failed fixes here: https://youtu.be/yT908HUZ7nI?si=wG3dVW80J_U0rzCJ

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Jeff Greenberg I did not QUESTION.

I did AFFIRM. And I did so after CONSULTING actual experts from Karoo.

Correspondence of Hans Georg Lundahl : Contacting Karoo about superposition of layers and fossils
https://correspondentia-ioannis-georgii.blogspot.com/2015/06/contacting-karoo-about-superposition-of.html

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Phil Woodhull I'm not sure if you have missed it, but the video is a very long one by Gutsick Gibbon, who is very far from a YEC, and who is cherry-picking their material, as likely as not.

Phil Woodhull

Hans-Georg Lundahl Yes, I watched the video. She quotes YECs (really, plays interviews of YECs by other YECs). The math is in there too (because the YECs don’t do that part.)

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Would you mind telling me at what exact part she is doing the maths for them, since in fact an over two hour long video is a bit unwieldy to plough through ...?

I already came to a part where she was misrepresenting patristics.

Phil Woodhull

Hans-Georg Lundahl Uhhh, you on the right video? The one I sent is 46 minutes.

Results of the math for how much heat starts at 11:30. Hypercanes math is at 30:54. But the entire video is just about heat and miracles vs science.

The Death of "Scientific Creationism"?
https://youtu.be/yT908HUZ7nI?si=MDbZOahwO41ASLz6

Cut-out

ends here, the comments that follow were not taken away.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

11:30? I commented there.

@hglundahl

11:51 You have limited the km^3 to the globe?

Have you considered radiation and other processes pushing the heat out into the universe?

Plus, you have spoken about the sum total of decay heat, what is the sum total of the kg of uranium?

@James-hd4ms

Have you factored in refrigerators?

@hglundahl

@James-hd4ms yeah, precisely ... a world wide ocean might have functions in common with such a thing ...

Will take a look at 30:54 too ....

Hans-Georg Lundahl

At 29:16, the normal mSv from food and water are basically thought of as coming only from the decay of uranium to lead?

AND the decay will directly affect food and water on the ark?

Because that's implied when accelerated decay is thought of as implying multiple lethal doses per hour ....

The logic isn't baffling other than for lack of itself ...

Hans-Georg Lundahl

At 34:34 Gutsick Gibbon is missing the point, by presuming the molten core was molten before the Flood.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

W o u l d you mind telling me who has ever (apart from Soroka and Nelson, the latter identic to AronRa) given any total of how much Uranium has decayed on Earth?

Because, if there is only 1 kg of Uranium, even accelerating the decay won't do much ...

Phil Woodhull

Hans-Georg Lundahl Do you know how cooling in space works? It’s terrible… satellite cooling takes forever. Just invoking “space” doesn’t get you much of anywhere.

You’re skipping huge chunks of the video that answer those questions, and blowing off mechanisms that always are there but are at such low levels we don’t usually care.**

Phil Woodhull

Hans-Georg Lundahl She explains why the molten core (or not) doesn’t help. You’re cherry picking and merely nitpicking to discredit, not trying to learn.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Phil Woodhull The video is still plenty long for simply consulting, OK.

You are not giving "this is a fact and here is the reference" you are giving "here are 46 minutes of reference, don't say another word until you have mastered it all" ... on top of that irrelevant for the point of Ken Wolgemuth's actual status.

Comments

in the debate keep disappearing. Phil Woodhull's second last comment disappeared when his last appeared, and some of mine disappeared too.

Phil Woodhull

Hans-Georg Lundahl I was addressing heat being a problem for the Flood model, since YOU mentioned heat escape by radiation. That’s what the video is about (no, not about petroleum, granted). Sorry you can’t bear with explanations that take more than 15 minutes. Details and more-complete stories are hard, huh?

Buddy Spaulding

The capstone rock could easily have been deposited by the flood.

Hans Georg has not given any evidence to support this assertion. It appears to be a personal belief.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Phil Woodhull Debates involve telling each other where references are, not telling each other to school themselves.

In fact, it was the response video by Standing for Truth that was over 2 hours.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Buddy Spaulding Flood, basically any YEC model, involves the deposition of both limestone and sandstone.

How would both of them be inadequate as capstone rocks?

Buddy Spaulding

Hans-Georg Lundahl I don't claim to know for certain, although I do have a pretty good idea.

But that is irrelevant, since I didn't make an unsupported assertion. You did. So don't try shifting the burden of proof to me.

Ball is in your court.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I did not make an assertion. I pointed out a possibility.

The burden of proof is on impossibility.

A necesse ad esse, ab esse ad posse valet consequentia.
A non posse ad non esse, a non esse ad non necesse valet consequentia.

More comments

have obviously gone missing, my whole dialogue with Buddy Spaulding, and the question Buddy Spaulding obviously posed to Jeff Greenberg. If it was about "a necesse ad posse" I think I understand scholastic philosophy better than modern natural scientists do, because it is my home lane. Not theirs.

Jeff Greenberg

Buddy Spaulding From, something he read and does not understand.

Jeff Greenberg

Hans-Georg Lundahl No debate, You aren't even neat being qualified.

Jeff Greenberg

Hans-Georg Lundahl Last comment. That "KAROO"reference is a joke. If you really care, other than trying to put tiny dents in the grand theories of earth history, DO seek out valid sources (like the two experts I posted) and not quacks. Bye now.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Jeff Greenberg Is it so hard for you to no longer have students to abuse?

Again, in the literature I could find online for Palaeontology, Karoo was one of the very few places on earth where Permian and Triassic co-existed in some way shape or form.

I took pains to go over each assemblage zone, they were not overlapping in the terrain.

No Permian creature has been found ten metres below a Triassic one.

The reference you considered a joke, and qualify as a quack is my blog with correspondence with Karoo.

The man I got in touch with is:

Johann Neveling
Council for Geoscience · Geological Mapping
B.Sc. (Hons.), M.B.A., PhD
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Johann-Neveling

Doesn't sound like a quack to me.
Dito for:

Professor Emeritus
Bruce Rubidge
Evolutionary Studies Institute (Witwatersrand, Johannesburg)
https://www.wits.ac.za/people/academic-a-z-listing/r/brucerubidgewitsacza/

The latter told me:

I really do not understand your question. To simply dig down from the Katberg into the Balfour in the hopes of finding vertebrate fossils is a senseless exercise as you have to dig through rock and it is hard work. I doubt whether anybody would do that.

In other words, fossils of the Triassic are not even in Karoo found straight above those of the Permian.

Jeff Greenberg

Hans-Georg Lundahl Ah, you finally SHOW the true nature of a Troll! You know nothing but what you get from fringe bias and then turn to personal attacks when cornered by real Science. I'll leave this (I promise) last comment about your nonsense: Consider a person wanting to show-prove that a strong, well-established fortress is actually just a "house of cards" and can be destroyed by their effort. So this one goes up to tremendous blocks of granite with a rock hammer and chisel. After laboring for many hours, they are able to produce a few small chips of rock. "SEE WHAT I DID? THIS THING IS REALLY NOT SO BIG AND STRONG. I REMOVED SOME IT, THUS PROVING THAT IT IS REALLY WEAK AND NOT SUCH A TRUE FORTRESS!" Bottom line for those with any sense of reason is that even if one can determine a wee bit of uncertainty about a premier, established, constantly tested and refined theory, you accomplish nothing, unless confirmed by the grand community of experienced scientists who serve academics. Your tiny bit of the Karoo is a tiny chip off the great fortress. One can rightfully say, "SO WHAT?" 🤔💥

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"You know nothing but what you get from fringe bias"

Paleocritti is not fringe bias. Or was, it was taken down.

I'm learning from Ken Wolgemuth, but not the denial of YEC.

Johann Neveling and Bruce Rubidge are mainstream scientists, believers in Millions and Billions of years.

I did not attack them.

"and then turn to personal attacks when cornered by real Science."

I did not feel cornered by Ken or by Johann or by Bruce. I do not feel cornered by you.

I did not turn to personal attacks against any of the three.

Between us two, you are the one who started the ad hominem.

"After laboring for many hours, they are able to produce a few small chips of rock."

Nice to know you can do poetry, but what is it you consider as "small chips of rock" in comparison to what "well-established fortress"? The non-superposition of land faunas in Karoo, was in fact mirrored even more basically all other places I had the time to look up. It's just that Karoo was the most promising for my opponents, the most promising to refute my wager of non-superposition. Mainstream scientists from that area told me it hadn't refuted me there.

"unless confirmed by the grand community of experienced scientists who serve academics."

Mutatis mutandis, and without in the least pretending to be either God or Saviour, you sound like a Pharisee telling Jesus He accomplishes nothing, unless His rulings on the law be confirmed by the grand community of Pharisees.

God did not promise the Scientific Community infallibility any more than He promised it to Pharisees. If anything less, since the Pharisees were delegates of the OT Magisterium of Ezra.

David C. Campbell

Yes, there are abundant examples of sequences of layers of terrestrial faunas. For fossilization purposes, land has the disadvantage of being elevated and thus tending to erode away, but where multiple layers are preserved, they record the sequence of geologic time. For example, different chronological faunas of dinosaurs occur in the sequence of Mesozoic formations in the Alberta to Montana region, overlain by Cenozoic mammal-rich deposits. In the Karoo, there are sites with the Triassic faunas overlying the Permian, though of course anywhere that has the Triassic completely eroded away will not show that sequence. Similarly, for ocean deposits, non-drilling collection (which is generally necessary to have large fossils) requires the layers being exposed at or near the surface. Nevertheless, layers with Mesozoic marine reptiles are overlain by layers with whales. For example, I have collected a mosasaur tooth in the layer near river level along the lower Cape Fear River and whale bones from higher levels. And all the other fossils show the same pattern of different kinds in the different layers. The oysters with the Mesozoic reptiles are quite different from those in the various higher beds. Other invertebrates, fishes, etc. likewise show such changes. The microfossils likewise show drastic changes. The sequence of geologic layers is real and is not compatible with a young earth, as was suspected by the late 1600's and firmly established by the 1770's.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"Yes, there are abundant examples of sequences of layers of terrestrial faunas."

Let's see what you actually mean.

"different chronological faunas of dinosaurs occur in the sequence of Mesozoic formations in the Alberta to Montana region, overlain by Cenozoic mammal-rich deposits"

I'm not disputing these formations and at least theoretical overlays are attested.

But is there any place where you dug out a Cenozoic mammal and then dug down even deeper and found dinosaurs?

"In the Karoo, there are sites with the Triassic faunas overlying the Permian, though of course anywhere that has the Triassic completely eroded away will not show that sequence."

And where the Triassic is overlying, they are not digging deeper to find Permian below it. I actually wrote them and checked.

"Nevertheless, layers with Mesozoic marine reptiles are overlain by layers with whales. For example, I have collected a mosasaur tooth in the layer near river level along the lower Cape Fear River and whale bones from higher levels."

As the fossils not buried in situ according to Flood geology would tend to be very fragmentaric, are you sure the Mosasaur tooth was buried in situ?

But, supposing it was, by "higher levels" do you mean you walked uphill or do you mean you had dug a hole and was climbing up in the hole again?

Because, very obviously, if they are on the most basic and naive level side by side, you haven't actually shown that there was an overlay of levels millions of years apart, the Mosasaur and the Whale could have been just swimming side by side during the Flood and then one of them got buried in a higher sequence of mud ...

* "us who devoted lives" = we could be dealing with at least two geologists apart from Ken Wolgemuth: Jeffrey Greenberg, Ph.D., Professor of Geology Emeritus, Wheaton College and G. David PRICE, Emeritus Professor of Mineral Physics, President and Provost, University College London — for Phil Woodhull I didn't find anything ...

** It actually wasn't Gutsick Gibbon's video that was over 2 hours, but the response to it. Link to it on next post, on my Creationist blog./HGL