Death Threat?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I did not count the mentions of "die!" but if there had been no interruptions, by extra letters, there would have been 468 mentions in the first comment this morning, and there was one more.

Sternfield Thoughts: The US Election: what is more dangerous, a flawed character, or a flawed idea? A flawed idea.
https://sternfieldthoughts.blogspot.com/2024/07/the-us-election-what-is-more-dangerous.html

Hans-Georg Lundahl

(Sorry, the morning US time, somewhere, but like 5PM for Paris time)

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 ...

I Follow Dr. Abby Johnson, Here She is Right — As Usual

See also:

See also:

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

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

Next Question on Geocentrism

HGL's F.B. writings: Quick Question on Geocentrism · Next Question on Geocentrism · Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere: Levi Joshua Pingleton Nearly Right · Baronius is NOT Galileo · Moon Landing, Not TOTALLY Proven, and Even If Completely True, No Proof Against Geocentrism

Carl Tan

same group, 23.VIII.2024

Hello, i am sure you have all heard about the theories saying the moon landings were fake. I have my own theories about what really happened. I have watched a few of the moon landing videos on youtube. Here is my conclusion. The moon landings were real, but they did not see what they wanted to see, instead they saw what they did not want to see. And that is why the moon missions ended, because if they had continued doing the manned moon missions, the truth would eventually spill into the public.

I believe that they saw a completely still earth when they were on the moon, and i also believe they saw the sun and the rest of the universe revolving around the earth. And both would be visible on the moon, since the moon revolves much more slowly around the earth compared to the sun and the universe.

I

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I believe that they saw a completely still earth when they were on the moon, and i also believe they saw the sun and the rest of the universe revolving around the earth. And both would be visible on the moon, since the moon revolves much more slowly around the earth compared to the sun and the universe.

No. The universe revolves around the Earth in 23 h 55 minutes, the Sun in 24 h, the Moon in 24 h 55 min.

The Moon would hide the universe revolving, since facing the Sun and revolving. Its movement would hide the stillness of Earth, since a moving train hides the stillness of trees.

The Moonlanding, if totally real, if totally honest and upright, is and remains irrelevant for the Heliocentrism / Geocentrism debate.

Mil Sneler

Hans-Georg Lundahl Exactly. It’s relativity and what moves as far as eyes can see is dependent on the perspective of the observer.

Carl Tan

Author

Hans-Georg Lundahl The moon revolves around the earth once every 28 days, so it is much slower. So the motions of the sun and the universe would be visible, as would the rotation of the earth if that were true.

Mil Sneler

Carl Tan the motion will be visible from any vantage point, from the moon, from the earth, from the sun. Eyes can’t tell us if anything is actually standing still and which is standing still and which one is moving. It’s called relative motion.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Carl Tan "once every 28 days" - no, not around earth, but around the zodiac.

The Moon moves WITH the Zodiac, with a delay caused by that, so, while the Zodiac circles Earth once every 23 h 55 minutes, Moon does so once every 24 h 55 minutes. Have you seriously NEVER seen a moon rise and set the same night? THAT's the concrete movement the Moon has around Earth.

You looked up a fact, you didn't bother to translate it, and you consequently misapply it.

II

Simon Skinner

Without an absolute (preferred, special) frame of reference, ALL motion is relative. A preferred frame of reference has never been detected, nor is one required to explain what we see.

Observations from the moon would just show the same relative motions we already see.

II a

Levi J. Pingleton

Simon Skinner many experiments have aimed at detecting Earth's movement... they've all failed. Not once has their ever been experimental data they showed the Earth is moving. NOT ONE.

Simon Skinner

Levi J. Pingleton That's true, because as I wrote above 👆 there's no absolute / preferred frame of reference, meaning there's no such thing as absolute motion. Equally, there's no such thing as stationary in absolute terms.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Simon Skinner "there's no such thing as stationary in absolute terms."

If the universe is finite, there is.

Simon Skinner

Hans-Georg Lundahl No, there isn't. Your definition might be 'stationary relative to everything else' but that's still relative.

No measurable difference between any inertial frame has ever been found. This underpins general relativity which is one of the most accurately and widely validated theories in science.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Stationary relative to everything else would be stationary in absolute terms.

"No measurable difference between any inertial frame has ever been found."

A thing does not need to be measurable from our perspective to exist. The limits of (our) observation are not the limits of being.

II b

Carl Tan

Author

Simon Skinner If the earth is the center of the universe and is motionless, then the earth is the absolute frame of reference, it means no motion is relative.

Simon Skinner

Carl Tan "IF". However, in reality we find absolutely NO detectable difference in the laws of physics between inertial frames. No preferred frame of reference has ever been found. Ever.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Simon Skinner Reality and what we find are not identic circles of the Venn diagramme.

There are other implications than the kind of tests you think of which can help to determine between the "reference frames."

Generally: if I am Geocentric, I take the observations of Sun, Moon, Stars (by sight, and for Sun also heat sensation) and of Earth's stillness (equilibrial sense of the inner ears) at face value, because there is no sign it SHOULD be taken as an illusion (of the parallactic type, like trees seen moving from a train window). I then take this reality as basis for further conclusions, like God exists and moves the whole shebang around us each day, and angels exist and move individual celestial bodies even somewhat in relation to the whole shebang. BUT if I'm Heliocentric, I discount that explanation (though there is no reason other than Atheist prejudice to determine I should), and conclude from a complex speculation on celestian mechanics that I ALSO should discount the face value of observations. The former makes more sense.

To a Christian, specifically: if I am a Geocentric, there is no trigonometry by parallax of starlight, as the distance moved by the star need not be the same as the distance moved by the Sun in their relations to the Zodiac or Sideral dome. This allows me to posit the fix stars are a relatively close by collection (say, 1 light day up) of relatively small celestial bodies (Betelgeuse, if one light day up: The radius of Betelgeuse would be around the distance of flight between Paris and Belushya Guba, Arkhangelsk Oblast, Russia. The diameter would be a bit larger than half the diameter of earth.).

This involves:
a) there is a beyond this limited sphere of fix stars (that's where Jesus went on Ascension Day, and Our Lady at Her Assumption)
b) the starlight takes one day of our time to go from star to our eyes or optical instruments, there is no Distant Starlight problem to interfere with YEC.

[Betelgeuse quote is from: With Stars in a Sphere One Light Day Up, How Big is Betelgeuse?, from 2019, on my main blog. The post also involves calculations on how I got that result.]

III

Johnny Proctor

Admin

I'd love to hear more about this theory. At first blush it seems plausible. I wonder what counterpoints contradict it.

Dolores Flynn

Johnny Proctor It would be so awesome to see. I would probably faint.

Carl Tan

Author

Johnny Proctor Ok, basically, the sun and the universe revolves around the earth once per day, while the moon revolves around the earth once per 28 days. So if you were on the moon, you would be able to see the sun and the rest of the universe revolve around the earth, because the moon's motion is much slower than the sun and the universe. Now if the earth were rotating once per day, then that would also be visible on the moon, since again, the moons orbit would be much slower than the so-called rotation of the earth. And i believed, the NASA astronauts did see a motionless earth and a moving sun and universe, and that is why they stopped the manned missions to the moon. They didn't want the Truth to get out.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Johnny Proctor If you have ever lived in a portal town with tides, I hope you know what to reply to "the moon revolves around the earth once per 28 days"

IV

Mike Fahy

How could they see a still earth if the moon was moving? I think Dr. Sungenis has come up with the most likely scenario about both the moon landings and relationship between the earth and the other bodies in our solar system.

Mil Sneler

Mike Fahy Can you explain further? I am not aware of any possible scientific scenario that could within the system itself distinguish between relative and absolute? You would have to be that absolute in order to accurately describe motions relative to absolute. In other words, you would have to be observer outside of the universe

Carl Tan

Author

Mike Fahy Because the moon moves much slower than the sun and the universe, and if the earth was indeed rotating then it would be visible from the moon because the moon revolves around the earth once every 28 days, whereas the sun is revolving around the earth once every day. If the earth was rotating then it would be rotating once every day, so such motion would be visible from the much slower moon.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Check the gif in this page by NASA, it's about tides:

https://science.nasa.gov/moon/tides/

The thing that's called "view from earth" in the lower left edge of it is what we as Geocentrics see the Moon doing. It is certainly NOT taking 28 days to cross the same horizon twice.

V

Hans-Georg Lundahl

since the moon revolves much more slowly around the earth compared to the sun and the universe.

I think you may be thinking of 27 d 7 h 43 min 11.5 s (sidereal) / 29 d 12 h 44 min 2.9 s (synodic).

To a Geocentric, this is not Moon's orbit around the Earth, it's Moon's orbit along the Zodiac or Ecliptic Plane.

As the Zodiac is rotating around Earth at 23 h 55 min (approx) in the opposite direction, Moon also has, concretely, a quasi-daily orbit around Earth. It's highly relevant for tides, and no Oceanographer is likely to ebb in information about the c. 24 h 55 minutes. Pun very certainly intended.

To clarify. Carl Tan is basically pretending that while the Sun circles Earth "28 times" (rough approximation), the Moon circles it once. He is very unlikely to have based this on direct observation. Direct observation would more like suggest that while Sun circles the Earth "28 times", the Moon circles it "27 times" ...

When I did, a failed, still attempt, at refuting tides as evidence reality is highly governed by gravity, I obviously learned about the Moon's daily movement in connexion with tides. The high tide, as opposed to the ebb, is when Moon is either in Zenith or Nadir, so, one circle of the Moon equals two high tides. There are very roughly speaking two high tides per day, but they don't come the same time each day. There are also solar high tides, coinciding with or getting in between the Lunar ones. At Full Moon and New Moon, a Solar Tide and a Lunar Tide will coincide. If they coincide for 12:00, any locality, the previous Solar one (there) was 00:00, but the previous Lunar one slightly before that, the next Solar one is 24:00, but the next Lunar one comes after that. Obviously, when a Solar and Lunar tide are separated by only 27 minutes, they will be the same tide, in a somewhat complex rhythm of prolongation combined with slight variations of maximal water height. This in turn is again an over simplification, since the gravitational pulls (of Moon or of Sun) on the water or backpulls on the earth are not directly tied to maximal height, but rather the gravitation difference is a tidal force which accelerates the movement of the water upward or earth downward, and this acceleration takes some time to get a tide actually effected.

But more realistically, when he admits the Sun circles Earth once every day, he's "applying the referential frame" of non-rotating Earth, and when he pretends the Moon circles Earth only once every 28 days, he's applying the incompatible "referential frame" of Earth rotating. If Geocentrism is in fact true, only the former applies, but whichever were true, or even if relativity were the only absolute, it's a mistake to mix the "referential frames."

Quick Question on Geocentrism

HGL's F.B. writings: Quick Question on Geocentrism · Next Question on Geocentrism · Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere: Levi Joshua Pingleton Nearly Right · Baronius is NOT Galileo · Moon Landing, Not TOTALLY Proven, and Even If Completely True, No Proof Against Geocentrism

Catholic Cosmology and Geocentrism

Rick Todd · 17.VIII.2024

Quick question: what purpose do the stars serve in the geostatic/geostationary model? Do they act as gravitational pull to keep the earth as the center of mass? Why have stars at all? I am assuming that it is impossible to visit the stars from earth and that there is no life other than our planet, so is that why they were created? I consider the placement of the planets in our solar system to protect us from space debris and place our planet in a habitable zone so life can exist...

Carl Tan

For navigation on earth, and the fact that there is a pattern to the placement of the stars and galaxies and quasars means God is showing us that the earth is the center of the universe and that He is real.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Decoration.
Times and seasons (the seasons happen when the Sun goes through the Zodiac).
As Carl Tan mentioned, navigation, not just of men, but also of certain fish and birds.

This last point, as the fish and birds were created on day 5 and the stars on day 4 is a good reason to believe the stars were then, perhaps are still now, 1 lightday above earth.