He did some answering, though, to others ...

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 ...

HGL'S F.B. WRITINGS: He did some answering, though, to others ... · Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere: Oceanic Deep Water Waves in Whole Gale : Whitecaps on a Lake, But Bigger

David K. Muncie

Admin, Principal contributor

4 March 2024

Why a C-14 date of 20,000 years doesn’t disprove a 6000 year old earth.

https://www.facebook.com/100076370270119/videos/7884801801549887/

I

Hans-Georg Lundahl

• 1) It is not strictly true that the Flood removed all living carbon from the biosphere, unless you assume that it reversed the proportion of marine to land biosphere, which now is predominantly marine. But a predominant marine biosphere before the Flood is also argued by the prevalence of marine fossils, so this is unlikely.
  
  If he meant "from the atmosphere" that's true, since non-aquattic biota outside the Ark perished.
  
  
• 2) The C-14 to C-12 ratio would have been the same before and after the Flood reduced the amount of carbon. If a straw of grass held 1.628 pmC before the Flood, because the atmosphere did so, the fact that the Flood buried lots of straws of grass doesn't change that a straw of grass growing after the Flood would also hold 1.628 pmC the first years.
  
  Or if the C-14 was unevenly mixed, that it remained unevenly mixed after the Flood -- between 0.73 and 8.767 pmC both before and after the Flood.
  
  
• 3) The real reason why Carbon 14 was low before and after the Flood is more empirical. Fossils dated to the Flood by their type of preservation and rapid burial and by their plenty would have this kind of low pmC, and the real physical issue is how and why C-14 rose rapidly after the Flood to 100 pmC in less than 2000 years rather than in 30 000 years (minus some).

II

Ken Wolgemuth

Principal contributor

This speaker clearly does not know that geochemists have developed a calibration curve that is continuous from 1950 back to 14,000 years with the ring data, and then on back to 50,000 years from the sedimentary varves in Lake Suigetsu, Japan. So he is blowing a smoke and mirrors story of ignorance.

If he is a Christian, why does he dishonor Christ's like this, ignoring New Testament teaching to speak the truth?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Ken Wolgemuth The previous replies have already brought on a somewhat long debate, on which my contribution would be marginal.

Disagreeing that the treerings prove (taken together from 200 different tree fragments over 2000 years, fewer and fewer backwards) proves, ultimately, 13 000 years, and reasoning from a saner starting point, is that lying to you?

We have already taken tree rings, we already both know we disagree, but let's take the moral problem : why do you have a problem with allowing someone to take a starting point outside academic consensus and considering him as still honest, even if he disagrees with you?

The question was not if you considered him orthodox, a big disagreement may mean, you have no room to consider him orthodox, but why would that make you privy to his motivations and degree of honesty?

Ken Wolgemuth

Principal contributor

Hans-Georg Lundahl,
//tree ring counting has been debunked//.

I do not expect young earth creationists to agree with me, because they never will. The blanket statement above is a lie, because I have already shown the IntCal13 tree-ring data to 14,000 years. David Muncie can say he doesn't give it any credibility, but that credible counting of the tree rings still stands.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Let's note, the quote "tree ring counting has been debunked" is not a quote from me.

I would say, tree ring counting, like the other lignine based chronology (writings from the times), becomes scarcer and more fragmentary the further back you go. I'll give it some credibility for the last 3000 years, but not further back.

IF you prefer tree rings over Genesis 5 and 11, I think that says something about your faith, and it's not nice.

You have still not explained why you took him as dishonest rather than just wrong. The quote is also not from the speaker Calvin Smith. And in a 38 second overview, you are entitled to lots of blanket statements, without including the fine nuance an opponent would prefer, just so his opponent has to communicate in a more cumbrous way, IF the statement HAD been from Calvin Smith in this clip.

Affez Tlemsanix

Admin

Ken Wolgemuth Oh, IntCal13 approximation is based on data that has zero actual evidence backing said data.. it's based upon assumptions upon assumptions of stitching together tree rings into loose matches with such premature understanding of the dynamics of tree ring formation. It's just as medieval as the embryo gill slit theory, when the flaps behind the ears were loosely interpreted to be actual gill slits proving that we evolved from fish, amphibians, reptiles, and then pigs and dogs in our own mothers' wombs.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Affez Tlemsanix Would you agree that tree rings seem to function for the last 2000 or perhaps even 3000 years?

David K. Muncie

Admin

Principal contributor

Hans-Georg Lundahl it’s been proven that tree rings have not been accurate for the last 2000 years.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

David K. Muncie How?

There certainly was a test in the 1960's about wood in Arizona, tree rings and carbon dates, for trees that are growing same micro-climate basically, and it worked out back to 1400's or even 1300's ...

What's the evidence for tree rings being inaccurate the last 2000 years?

It would need to be a better evidenced thing, like history ...

David K. Muncie

Admin

Principal contributor

Hans-Georg Lundahl
The use of tree rings in dating
Tree-ring data (Regional Curve Standardisation and Age- Band Decomposition) do preserve more medium and long-timescale evidence of growth forcing changes, but they very prone to bias.

Uncertainty in the Interpretation of tree ring data:

A major source of such uncertainty is the imposition/selection of a specific climatic parameter against which to ‘calibrate’ tree-ring chronology or chronologies. Many series have strong seasonal sensitivities, but their characterisation is also variable in time. Climate forcing is often time varying and its expression in different tree-growth parameters subject to complex lag effects. There is a likelihood of regression bias. Thus there exists very large potential for over-calibration in multiple regressions and in spatial reconstructions, due to numerous chronology predictors (lag variables or networks of chronologies – even when using PC regression techniques). Frequently, the much vaunted ‘verification’ of tree-ring regression equations is of limited rigour, and tells us virtually nothing about the validity of long-timescale climate estimates or those that represent extrapolations beyond the range of calibrated variability.

We tested the level of uncertain identification of growth-rings in olive trees growing on Santorini. Cross sections of stems and branches of 37 live trees were sampled in June 2008. No specific permits were required for the described field studies because the trees were growing in abandoned fields, they were not privately owned or protected. All samples were analyzed using standard dendrochronological methods. Because the cross-dating was very difficult, we also prepared wood microsections with a sliding microtome, stained them with Safranin and Astra Blue to be analyzed under an Olympus BX41 microscope, using standard wood-anatomical techniques. Five samples (L8, AT, E2, E3, T) were selected for a blind test involving six dendrochronologists working at the same laboratory (Swiss Federal Research Institute WSL) and four external experts based at: the Laboratory for Wood Biology and Xylarium at the Royal Museum for Central Africa, Tervuren, Belgium; the Wood Anatomy Laboratory, University of Haifa, Oranim, Israel; and two anonymous laboratories (one European and one North American) to count growth-rings.

We also analyzed wood density by Neutron-Imaging Radiography at the cold-neutron-line (ICON) at Paul Scherrer Institute, Villigen, Switzerland. Scanning X-ray Fluorescence Microscopy (SXFM) using the F3 bending-magnet beamline at the Cornell High Energy Synchrotron Source (CHESS), Cornell University, Ithaca NY, U.S.A., was used to produce elemental maps along measurement radii of four of the samples, to detect elemental boundaries which might help to elucidate true growth-rings from IADFs and bands of phenolic discoloration. Of particular interest are changes in Calcium (Ca) already used to elucidate annual growth in ringless tropical species, or the impact of precipitation in African Acacia spp. Calcium is one of the most abundant and least mobile trace elements analyzed in trees and is primarily bound to the cell walls to provide structure and rigidity.

the blind test, thin polished stem discs from five olive trunks were sent to all involved laboratories with the request of dating while marking the putative growth-rings with a pencil and giving age estimations for each sample. The WSL laboratory measured these dated radii and compared these data. The average number of counted growth-rings per person shows maximal deviations from the median over all experts from 24.5% (sample AT), to 41.2% (sample E2), 41.2% (sample E3), 50% (sample L8) and 56.3% (sample T). Specific radii in two of the five samples (sample L8: 50% and sample T: 56.3%) reached over 50% deviation from the median.

The implemented blind test contains various sources for uncertainties: imprecision by marking the growth-ring borders, accidental interpretation by the growth-ring width measurement, and uncertainties because of the use of different stem discs although they were thin and followed each other at a distance of only a few millimetres within the stem sample. The analysis may result in different counts of growth-rings, if each radius is analysed independently. Inconsistent counts of growth-rings along one to four radii of each single olive stem disc were made by the different dendrochronologists (Table 1), so there was no agreed growth-ring count. The various irregular patterns of dark discoloration further complicated the growth-ring counts. The number of growth-rings counted on the microsections, with the aid of larger microscope magnifications that eliminated the effect of discoloration, did not match with those of the polished cross sections studied under a binocular microscope. Furthermore, even in individual microsections various anatomical types of putative growth-ring boundaries could be found. Because of all these types of growth-ring structure variability, cross-dating the growth-ring-width series of the samples was impossible.

Neutron imaging of the growth-rings shows a similar spectrum of results as the traditional dendrochronological methods. The analyzed samples (L8, AT, E3) could not be dated and dating problems in the samples L8 and AT by neutron imaging occurred at the same locations as in the visual analysis of the stem discs and microsections. The high quality of the neutron image of sample E3 demonstrates the same problems of growth-ring boundary identification. Thus, demonstrating that the problem of dating tree rings is of a biological nature and not a detection problem. However, if the wood fiber direction is not exactly parallel to the direction of the exposure (samples E2, T) no usable results could be achieved.

Our results show that adding high-technology growth-ring identification methods such as Neutron-Imaging Radiography to traditional optical microscopy does not provide better information on the nature of olive tree growth-rings, i.e., allowing to reproducibly determine the number of rings and whether or not they are annual. The problem encountered when dating olive growth-rings is thus not only their basic problematic anatomical nature, but also the inability to distinguish between annual growth-rings versus IADF’s.

The bottom line is that no growth-ring measuring method currently used in dendrochronology, not even the most sophisticated methods, were able to reliably identify the annual growth-ring borders in olive wood from Santorini. The very variable counting results of the blind test by ten well-experienced scientists clearly demonstrates the problem of the identification of olive growth-ring boundaries. There were also large discrepancies in the growth-ring numbers among different radii of the same cross-section, even when analyzed by the same expert, and similar differences among experts.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Could olive trees be bad material for tree ring dating?

David K. Muncie

Admin

Principal contributor

Hans-Georg Lundahl why would they differ?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

David K. Muncie Like, if the growth rings are finer and less marked?

Less easy to see, simply, than growth rings in oaks or fir ....

What paper were you citing?

Affez Tlemsanix

Admin

Hans-Georg Lundahl "Perhaps?"... LOL that's a cute pleading.. 😛 The oldest tree dated by simple ring counting appears to be a 2,200-year-old redwood from northern California.

The next oldest tree that was verified to be dated by actual ring counting in this database turned out to be 1100 years old. Here's a lengthy list of trees and the dating method used here:

Rocky Mountain Tree-Ring Research : OLDLIST, A Database Of Old Trees
https://www.rmtrr.org/oldlist.htm

(also, the oldest tree to be directly C14-dated with verifiable source is 1275 years - "However, radiocarbon ages of trees are considered if the date came from a piece of wood that can unequivocally be associated with the individual tree itself.")

2200 years is an extreme outlier here. Even most "1000-year-old" and much younger tree ages are extrapolated using cross-dating based on circular reasoning and scientifically immature premises of infantile dendrochronology that carried the same amount of understanding as the "science" of embryo gill slits that inferred that we started out as fish, then evolved into amphibians, pigs, dogs, etc. in our mothers' wombs - which some scientists still believe today.

Oh, and 2200 rings might not mean 2200 years. Tree rings become a record, not of age but of climate conditions when they were formed and when successive rings formed. That means that simply counting rings is not a viable method of determining age. Studies over the past 18 years have shown that tree-ring growth in bristlecone pines is not limited to a single growth ring per year. Trees of genus Cedrela form one ring a year in several South American countries, but in Suriname, they produce two rings a year.

In this case, the Bible probably needs less "faith" than quack pseduo-science of "Institutional Dendrochronology of the century-old set of assumptions."

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Affez Tlemsanix 2200 rings are anyway beyond the 2000 years I considered minimal reliable time for tree rings.

I am not putting tree rings against the Bible. Beyond 2000 years possibly and beyond 3000 (+?) years certainly, I hold the samples get too fragmentary and too scarce to give complete certitude. Precisely like papyrus records from Egypt are no match for the Bible, because they are much more fragmentary and further between than paper records from the 18th C.

Affez Tlemsanix "also, the oldest tree to be directly C14-dated with verifiable source is 1275 years"

By verifiable source, you mean for its actual age, right?

Possibly. When "Old Tjikko" is carbon dated to 9000 years old, there certainly is NOT a source for that age, and I reduce it to after Babel. Between 2454 and 2437 BC.

Affez Tlemsanix

Admin

Principal contributor

Hans-Georg Lundahl At least what this quote from the article means: ""However, radiocarbon ages of trees are considered if the date came from a piece of wood that can unequivocally be associated with the individual tree itself."

David K. Muncie

Admin

Principal contributor

Hans-Georg Lundahl , they used electron microscope to try to count the rings, and still failed.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
I can’t find a link it’s a pdf down load

Hans-Georg Lundahl, oops sorry not Electron microscope.

with the aid of larger microscope magnifications that eliminated the effect of discoloration, did not match with those of the polished cross sections studied under a binocular microscope.

Ken Wolgemuth

Principal contributor

Affez Tlemsanix,
Here is the IntCal13 from 1950 back 14,000 years. You may not like it, you may refuse to believe it is real data for radiocarbon calibration, but it is made up of real C-14 data measured in real tree rings.

Radiocarbon calibration goes back to 50,000 years with leaves recovered from Lake Suigetsu, Japan. I know you won't like that either, but it is from real carbon-14 data measured, and real sedimentary varves.

Of course, you are free to reject this, as I expect you will. But this is still a real part of God's creation.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Ken Wolgemuth I think there are more punctual double-checks, whatever you called them, for the last two thousand years than for lots of the rest, if not all.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

David K. Muncie "larger microscope magnifications"

Not an ideal way to get an overview over a larger thing. That's pretty well needed to count tree rings.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Affez Tlemsanix Thanks for the clarification. You meant oldest carbon 14 dated tree among the ones considered by that page.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Ken Wolgemuth "But this is still a real part of God's creation."

For the record, so are planets coinciding with constellations, doesn't mean astrology is correct.

Skipping

two for now.

Affez Tlemsanix

Admin

Principal contributor

Hans-Georg Lundahl No problem. I only meant what the quote meant. Here it is again:

"However, radiocarbon ages of trees are considered if the date came from a piece of wood that can unequivocally be associated with the individual tree itself."

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Affez Tlemsanix In that case, you should know that root material has pretty unequivocally been associated with Old Tjikko in Sweden, it's 9000 BP, and, as said, I consider that that uniformitarian radio carbon date gives sth a bit after Babel.

Affez Tlemsanix

Admin

Principal contributor

Hans-Georg Lundahl Hehe, that's a funny combination of words, "pretty unequivocally"... The word "unequivocally" is such a strong adjective that it is customarily used alone - to match it up with the word "pretty" defeats the meaning of the word "unequivocally".

A jigsaw puzzle either fits perfectly, or it does not. Otherwise it is mis-matched. Cross-daters accept pieces that fit "pretty" good after applying for generous allowances in their calibrations to get almost any result that they need.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

The root pieces from Old Tjikko are NOT dendro-chronology, they are JUST carbon dated.

The root pieces were found under the living roots of Old Tjikko.

And I am reducing the carbon dates. No offense against Biblical chronology involved, on my side.

Roger M Pearlman

Admin

Principal contributor

Affez Tlemsanix i think the wording fits well.

unequivocal 9k inflated consensus is relatively mid Abraham (1948-2123) within decades of the 1996 start of the dispersion from Bavel. '9k' being relatively not long 9k after in relation to The ice ages (1657- about 1996, with Ur-Uruk founded about 175 years prior) and Egypt about a decade after 1996 anno-mundi.

The 'pretty' qualifier is due to assuming consensus at least has the relative dating right. which is not always the case.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Tjikko

Affez Tlemsanix

Admin

Principal contributor

Hans-Georg Lundahl (critically for Ken Wolgemuth to understand)

Agreed, any "old" radiocarbon date suggesting well over 3K years is to be treated with a dramatically different calibration curve according to YEC science that is in line with the global flood taking place around 5000 years ago.

Here is an interesting use of wording in that wiki article Roger M Pearlman linked above:

"Carbon dating is not accurate enough to pin down the exact year the tree sprouted from seed; however, GIVEN the ESTIMATED age, the tree is SUPPOSED to have sprouted around 7550 B.C." [caps-emphasized]

Probably as to why it was not considered as unequivocal association for direct RCY dating, this result was from pieces of wood found BENEATH the living trees, not sampled from them. Simply confirming that the specimens with the old dates had the same genetic material as the now-living trees (i.e. were clones) does not mean that it was directly from the living tree itself.

Estimations based on circular reasoning of climatic data loosely extrapolated from embarrassing "science" of dendrochronology and assumed date of the recent ice age, radiocarbon dating table of inferences, also inferred from a narrow interpretation of lake varves, etc. make for such a fantastic "SUPPOSED" jigsaw puzzle for most to believe in.

Oh well, here goes as to what constitutes as "real" science.. INTCAL13 just isn't one of them. It's artificial science, just like AI being able to make fitting jigsaw puzzles out of almost anything and making "curves" to fit whatever the agenda needs or to "deep-fake" any set of data as to make them appeal to atheist peer-reviewers for the sake of media publication and additional grants. If these same scientists still believe that these folds behind our ears when we were embryos meant that they were gill slits and that we were fish that turned into amphibians in our mother's wombs, it says a whole lots about them.

Funny regarding Old Tjikko:

"Interestingly, this tree’s date, Kullman notes, cancels out previous studies (“the general conception,” he says) that said the spruce migrated to the area only 2,000 years ago. Was that previous research in error, or has the perceived infallibility of radiocarbon dating overridden a more accurate account of these trees’ history?"

AiG : Oldest Living Tree Located In Sweden
https://answersingenesis.org/geology/carbon-14/oldest-living-tree-in-sweden/

David K. Muncie

Admin

Principal contributor

“The tree itself isn’t that old, but researchers allege that the root system dates back 9,550 years.”

So they don’t have anything to base that on other than a guess

Affez Tlemsanix

Admin

Principal contributor

Ken Wolgemuth Circular Reasoning 101:

When looking at “false rings,” one study openly admitted the only way to determine that rings were not true annual rings was by cross-dating.

https://cdnsciencepub.com/doi/10.1139/X09-088

The problem, as mentioned above, is that cross-dating assumes one ring a year. As shown above, in some conditions, and in at least some genera, more than one ring a year form. That means cross-dating cannot be used to determine “false rings.” Therefore, “false rings” might simply be a second ring formed the same year, thereby eliminating the possibility of counting rings to determine age.

https://answersingenesis.org/age-of-the-earth/ask-the-trees/

David K. Muncie

Admin

Principal contributor

Ken Wolgemuth , you don’t have to call yourself an ignorant Christian, just refer to yourself as a Christian that has been missed lead into the worldview and needs correction.

Affez Tlemsanix

Admin

Principal contributor

Ken Wolgemuth Ken, you're broken-minded. What are you talking about? I quote the Bible more than you do. At least I think so. I could look up the history here in this group and see who quotes the Bible more per post.

What really matters is that I quote the entire Bible, not just a few select parts of it like you do to try to gaslight others as to what a stumbling block is.

Skipping

three comments.

Ken Wolgemuth

Principal contributor

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Genesis 5 and 11 is the creation of mankind from Genesis 1:26. In the beginning God had created the heavens and the earth is Genesis 1:1. The verb tense for create is past perfect, according to Hebrew scholars.

Ken Wolgemuth

Principal contributor

Steve Meyers, I do fear God so much that I cannot add to Scripture what is not there. The Bible is not a science book and does not inform us about the age of the earth. The 6,000-years creation belief is not Biblical Doctrine or part of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. It is adding a secondary issue,

Steve Meyers

Principal contributor

Ken Wolgemuth You fear God and stand to boldly call him a liar?

Robert Bennett

Admin

Principal contributor

Steve Meyers yes, Ken Wolgemuth calls Christ a liar, while bolstering his man-made god.

I'm with you brother Steve Meyers. God created ALL THINGS within six normal days, and I believe one of the reasons He did that was to leave no room for the man-made fairy tales of deep time and evolution.

Steve Meyers

Principal contributor

Ken Wolgemuth science can't determine the age of the earth. Scientists can make educated guesses that can never be verified.

Ken Wolgemuth

Principal contributor

Steve Meyers, I answer to God, not you. God cannot lie, and your claim is false.

Robert Bennett

Admin

Principal contributor

Ken Wolgemuth you don't answer to Christ, who inspired Moses to write that ALL THINGS were created in six NORMAL days.

You only answer to the god you made. That's also in Exodus 20.

Ken Wolgemuth

Principal contributor

Robert Bennett Genesis 1:1 says God created in the beginning which is clear before the first "Yom".

Robert Bennett

Admin

Principal contributor

Ken Wolgemuth wrong, Exodus 20:11 says that God created ALL THINGS within six normal days. You are creating fairy tales when you try to add billions of years and evolution.

Ken Wolgemuth there was NOTHING created before day one. NOTHING.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Ken Wolgemuth Genesis 1:1 is before the first yôm like a Saturday evening is before a Sunday morning.

Steve Meyers

Principal contributor

Robert Bennett Everyone must choose whether to believe God's word or atheists words.

Roger M Pearlman

Admin

Principal contributor

Hans-Georg Lundahl if they just did a bling guess they (who view data via flawed current deep-time dependent current consensus assumptions) would have a much higher probability chance of being accurate.

still their methods can help as far as relative dating.

still often enough they do not even get that right.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Affez Tlemsanix "Simply confirming that the specimens with the old dates had the same genetic material as the now-living trees (i.e. were clones) does not mean that it was directly from the living tree itself."

The only thing that's affirmed is that Old Tjikko as it stands is a clone replanting itself since "7550 BC" (meaning, in reality, since 2505 or 2455 BC).

[Here is where I had commented before, and it had disappeared, for the years, see my remake of the comments below]

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I think two of my comments have been deleted.

I do not know if the admins in the group or the internet admins of the library are responsible. I'll retrace their content.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Ken Wolgemuth Genesis 5 and 11 are not "the creation of mankind" as you said, in Genesis 1:26.

Between Genesis 5 and 11, on the one hand, and Genesis 1:26 on the other, you have Genesis 3 and Genesis 4, the fall and the murder of Abel by Cain.

Genesis 5 and 11 are history and depending on text version pinpoint Adam's creation to 2000 to 3500 years before Abraham was born.

This is human history, not creation account.

There is also the theology that Adam was created just after the Universe, not millions of years between (Mark 10:6 and Exodus 20).

IF you were slack on theology, on this point, you would have to admit human skeleta carbon dated to 40 000 years old. This would contradict the historicity of Genesis 3 (you can't keep a historic memory alive orally for 40 000 years) and arguably even the theology (God was not letting Adam's descendants wait 40 000 years for the Messiah promised in Genesis 3:15).

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Affez Tlemsanix "7550 BC" in carbon dates.

I'll give the utmost respect to the exactitude of their measures of carbon content, and assessments of where the date leads. In Uniformitarian dating.

I'll still land on top as Biblically consistent, since I recalibrate this within the Biblical time frame.

I also have a calibration, but based on Bible rather than tree rings.

For the calibration I have been using for pretty long now, it's in 2455 BC:

2466 B.C.

53.2551 pmC, so dated as 7666 B.C.

2444 B.C.

54.5151 pmC, so dated as 7444 B.C.

For the revision, in 2505 BC, here:

2505 BC

54.394 pmC, so dated as 7555 BC

Sources

are banned from FB, but here they are:

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

Creation vs. Evolution : The Revision of I-II, II-III, III-IV May be Unnecessary, BUT Illustrates What I Did When Doing the First Version of New Tables
https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2024/01/the-revision-of-i-ii-ii-iii-iii-iv-may.html

Affez Tlemsanix

Admin

Principal contributor

Hans-Georg Lundahl Got it. This is a wonderfully respectable study of YEC, with corrected calibration curves being applied.

I'm just wondering why spruce trees apparently were not in that area, as if the clones did not make any seeds for other trees to appear for thousands of years, if previous researches were correct.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

The previous research was not correct.

The spruce was a "Lazarus taxon" for the area.

Affez Tlemsanix

Admin

Principal contributor

Ken Wolgemuth Fine, I'll quote the Bible again for you, but you do not respond to that quote from Jesus:

(Matthew 24:)
37 But as the days of Noah were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.
38 For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark,
39 And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.

......

Those who are not psychologically blind can see what Jesus was referring to, as to this context. Then there is the literal Genesis account of the global flood that utmostly stressed how it was indeed a global flood that covered all the mountains of the whole earth, beyond doubt. Anybody who is not psychologically blind can understand the literal account of the global flood that overwhelmingly outlined the details as to how it was an utterly global flood covering ALL the hills and ALL the mountains of the whole earth for well over a year (including exactly how much the highest mountain of the whole earth was covered), even explaining in so many additional verses as to the globality of the flood, how even the winged fowl of the sky needed the ark in order to survive, etc. etc. etc. etc. It's a no-brainer, for those with a brain and a functioning pineal gland that is not psychologically blind.

Ken Wolgemuth didn't respond to this, and instead asked me to quote the Bible again. So, I quoted it again for him. He thinks he can just troll the living daylight out of us. I'll just keep on holding the cross of truth in front of him and see him squirm like a vampire all day long.

Ken Wolgemuth

Principal contributor

Steve Meyers, Geochemists have calculated that it would take 4.6 billion years of radioactive decay of uranium-238 to produce the lead isotope ratios that we measure today. The best inference is that God created the earth 4.6 billion years ago.

Steve Meyers

Principal contributor

Ken Wolgemuth Prove that the lead was not present before decay began. And then prove that uranium could be formed without lead in existence.

Roger M Pearlman

Admin

Principal contributor

Ken Wolgemuth the best inference IF they are correct (about 4.6B age assignment) which has near a zero % chance of being correct, based on the highest probability explanation of all the empirical observations in context.

So obviously one or more of their assumption premise are flawed.

Based on SPIRAL cosmological redshift hypothesis and model 'thousands not billions ' of years have elapsed subsequent to the 'day four' hyper cosmic inflation expansion epoch that was early on in history.

start study at Pearlman YeC on researchgate.

Aside from that falsification, one of our references / mentors on this specific issue is Yaacov Hanoka PhD chemistry Bor Hatorah journals 13, 15 and 17.

Roger M Pearlman

Admin

Principal contributor

Steve Meyers true that. not sure what Ken asserted was false with your statement.

science on the age of the, universe, Earth, life, and man is all probability based, thus not absolute, thus does not 'prove'.

For absolutes look to scriptural testimony taken in context.

Ken Wolgemuth

Principal contributor

Affez Tlemsanix, I believe completely that God directed Noah's to build the ark to protect Noah and his family from the judgment of ALL the wicked mankind and related animals that were alive that He intended to destroy with a catastrophic Noah's Flood.

There is no Biblical case for Noah's Flood to have caused catastrophic volcanic activity. Period. The Bible says the waters came down, water rose up and up and up, and massive amounts of water came up out of the ground. Those are called springs. With 40 days and nights of rainfall, Noah's whole world was flooded.

Ken Wolgemuth

Principal contributor

Roger M Pearlman, I will not prove anything, because science is a process of investigation. Proof fits with math and liquor. You just don't seem to even understand science. In spite of all you doubts upons doubts, geochemistry still provides credible evidence that the earth is ancient.

So does the Grand Canyon. Have you ever been there? If not, get and good picture of it and sit down to examine it. Try to find a picture that that includes the inner gorge. There are thousands of feet of sedimentary rocks that were deposited, and later tilted to 20 – 25 degrees and cemented to hard rock. Extensive erosion made to flat surface the the tilted beds below, and then another sequence of sedimentation of rocks that are horizontal

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Ken Wolgemuth "it would take 4.6 billion years of radioactive decay of uranium-238 to produce the lead isotope ratios that we measure today."

I totally second the request to prove there were not those isotopes of lead independently of decay of U-238.

And in case you take "science does not prove, science investigates" how come you dismiss without investigation that the lead isotopes could be there anyway?

"There is no Biblical case for Noah's Flood to have caused catastrophic volcanic activity."

Here are the actual words:

all the fountains of the great deep were broken up, (from Genesis 7:11)

All the fountains or just the water fountains?

Even if you take it as just the water fountains, what BROKE them up? Volcanic activity certainly would.

The kind of volcanic activity we associate with Campi Flegrei would ALSO destroy large swathes of mankind if occurring independently outside the Flood. Indeed, the latest theory on why Neanderthals went extinct is, they came into the shadow of the volcanic winter caused by the Campi Flegrei eruption. And given that the carbon dates of the eruption and the carbon dates of living men coincide, you can't dismiss that as a pre-human event either.

"There are thousands of feet of sedimentary rocks that were deposited, and later tilted to 20 – 25 degrees and cemented to hard rock."

Sounds like a good case they were tilted while still soft.

"Extensive erosion made to flat surface the the tilted beds below, and then another sequence of sedimentation of rocks that are horizontal"

Except natural erosion over millions of years could not have made a flat surface, there would have been gorges. The thing being swept away by Flood waters while still soft makes better sense.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Roger M Pearlman I missed one earlier.

You state carbon dates don't necessarily come in order. Or technically you didn't, you said uniformitarian dates. That would include K-Ar dates too, and I agree they don't come in order (I'd also say they are usually from the Flood), however it sounded as if you considered carbon dates between them also don't come in order.

For carbon dates not to come in order, you need one of three things : 1) contamination in the earlier or reservoir in the later sample, giving an impression they are later and earlier instead; 2) bad mixing of carbon 14 with carbon 12, so the earlier sample comes from top of the pmC, the later from the bottom of pmC; or, most probably most of the time, 3) carbon 14 dates sinking.

Now the numbers 1 and 2 are random and exceptional.

The number three, fall of carbon 14 levels, is actually unlikely. Because, if we had very low levels to begin with, they needed to rise to get us to the level we have. Therefore, carbon dates, within them, are normally in order, if not to scale.

Roger M Pearlman

Admin

Principal contributor

Ken Wolgemuth i think you are falling into the uniformitarian assumption trap Ken, and not grasping The Mabul epoch potential.

Study HTP hypothesis where we can get mature galaxies within 4 days.

So a[[lies to element / rock formation too.

Yes i have been to the Grand Canyon that looks about 4.5k rounded years old from my perspective, that your science teachers did not even know they did not know. You know you do not know, so the only honest thing you can do is admit you do not know if the actuality is within YeC and one day it might make sense to you like it does already to some of us.

Roger M Pearlman

Admin

Principal contributor

Hans-Georg Lundahl agree,
one place i think they get the relative dating wrong is the founding and Ur and Uruk in relation to the end of The ice ages.

define The ice ages as materially lower ocean levels (so land bridges connected more of the continents.

I hold by the end of Peleg (1996 anno-mundi the approx. end of The ice ages,

Abraham already 48 and UR / Uruk found about 126 +/- years prior to the 1948 birth of Abraham.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I hold that the Ice Age ended (in these latitudes) in the time when Noah died (the ice edge had retreated to present day Stockholm when Babel ended).

So, Younger Dryas ends in carbon dated 9500 BC or real 2607 BC. Noah dies and Göbekli Tepe begins under the direction of Nimrod. Jericho also begins at this time, and we have found paths of bricks and mortar in Jericho from this period. 51 years later, Peleg is born, 2556 BC, carbon dated to 8000 BC.

Uruk seems to be founded in 5000 BC and Ur in 3800 BC. Note, one candidate for "Ur Kasdim" is Urfa, close to Göbekli Tepe, which is older.

Uruk:

2182 BC

70.704 pmC, so dated 5032 BC

Woolley's Ur, between these:

2005 BC

79.859 pmC, so dated 3855 BC

1988 BC

80.681 pmC, so dated 3788 BC

Roger M Pearlman

Admin

Principal contributor

Hans-Georg Lundahl so we agreement on the approximate end of The ice ages close to the passing of Noach.

If Pearlman Torah Chronology that's in 2006 anno-mundi, 350 years post global flood (1656) so just a decade after a 1996 of Peleg (start of the dispersion from Bavel 'when the land divided'). 2006-1948 = when Abraham age 58.

We also agree consensus is wrong even on the relative dating of Ur and Uruk in relation to the end of The ice ages. They gave after we have they were founded prior, to the end of The ice ages .

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"We also agree consensus is wrong even on the relative dating of Ur and Uruk in relation to the end of The ice ages."

No. Ice age ends 350 after the Flood + 2242 = 2792 Anno Mundi.

Uruk is founded in 3018 AM.

Woolley's Ur c. 3204 AM.

Abraham is born 2242 + 942 = 3184 AM.

Roger M Pearlman

Admin

Principal contributor

Hans-Georg Lundahl OK, sorry my misunderstanding. thank you for clarification.

so while we agree The ice ages as defined above end at/near 350 post global flood, of the 2 models, only those who hold the flood was in 1656 have the founding of Ur and Uruk after the 350 years.

when in anno-mundi do you have the founding of Gobekli Tepe?

in Pearlman Torah Chronology within month/s off the ark).

'350,..2242 = 2792 (typo)' = 2592?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Göbekli Tepe / Babel = between death of Noah, 350 after Flood, and 401, birth of Peleg.

Genesis 5 = LXX.
Genesis 11 = LXX without the second Cainan = Samaritan (and closeish to Josephus + second Cainan).

Roger M Pearlman

Admin

Principal contributor

Sounds right if LXX,

if Messoric and if Pearlman Torah Chronology than:

1056-2006 Noach 1056+600= 1656 Global Flood
1757-1996 Peleg (so passes on just 10 years prior to Noach)

then it makes sense if :

1657 Gobekli Tepe then about 350/2= 175 years till
1832 Settle in 'plains of Shinar' found Mesopotamia.

1996 Peleg passes on, start dispersion from Bavel. Canaan and sons move into the Levant land of Shem.

2006 Noach passes on Mizraim and sons found Egypt 175 post founding of Mesopotamia.

So The ice ages span about the 350 years Noach passing of Noach. (i am fine with approximate 340 or 350 as a gradual end.

with a healthy approximate 175 years (+/-25) from Gobekli Tepe till Mesopotamia and 175 from Mesopotamia founding till founding of Egypt.

With Abraham 1948=-2123.

Affez Tlemsanix

Admin

Principal contributor

Ken Wolgemuth RE: "I believe completely that God directed Noah's to build the ark to protect Noah and his family from the judgment of ALL the wicked mankind and related animals that were alive that He intended to destroy with a catastrophic Noah's Flood.

... "With 40 days and nights of rainfall, Noah's whole world was flooded."
____________________
Cool, but it's not just that!!! It were not just some small springs and a little bit of flooding across the world, LOL..

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Affez Tlemsanix Indeed, without a rather big height of the water, the waves would have been too violent for the Ark.

While it probably had thicker walls than Wyoming, where Wyoming sunk in Nantucket Bay, the depth was medium 9 meters (5 fathoms).

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Roger M Pearlman If "Shinar" = Mesopotamia, then Göbekli Tepe IS in a plain (or just outside a plain) in the land of Shinar.

Also, you have Göbekli Tepe just after the Flood, but you can't explain the jump upward in carbon 14 levels that that would mean.

Roger M Pearlman

Admin

Principal contributor

Interesting.

Perhaps an initial founding of Gobekli Tepe (GBT) soon off the ark, but it was used periodically even after the founding of Bavel?

Perhaps when hunting and exploration parties would leave Bavel during the time of Nimrod, they would at times make a pilgrimage to GBT, and what they left is what is being dated to the tail end of The ice ages?

Roger M Pearlman

Admin

Principal contributor

Ken Wolgemuth for sure Gen. 1:1 not 'clearly' before day one. Perhaps not clear enough that it is an intro, that will be backed and filled starting with verse 2.

I think it may have been intentional to allow confirmation bias and free will. that all the details are not spelled out and that it takes a lot of good faith, study and consideration to understand in context.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Roger M Pearlman "an initial founding of Gobekli Tepe (GBT) soon off the ark,"

You have TWO huge problems.

1) Highest possible carbon date for the Flood year is to dated 20 000 BP. In your scenario, that's 2114 BC. When that is dated as 18 000 BC, the 15 886 extra years translate as 14.636 pmC — just after that, you have Göbekli Tepe, carbon dated 9500 BC. Just 7586 extra years which translates as 39.945 pmC. How do you rapidly rise from 14.636 pmC to 39.945 pmC?
2) You have NO argument you have cared to state for Babel being elsewhere than Göbekli Tepe. If Shinar means Mesopotamia, Göbekli Tepe fits the bill. Moving from the Mountains of Armenia to Göbekli Tepe is clearly moving miqqedem.

But those huge problems are shadowed by an even huger one. Göbekli Tepe was the base for some man who took heads of bodies, made holes in the skulls, stringed heads together, and who also left headless bodies to be devoured by vultures. To me, this screams that Göbekli Tepe was Nimrod's base, not just somewhere he from time to time visited "on pilgrimage" ...

Affez Tlemsanix

Admin

Principal contributor

Hans-Georg Lundahl The ark likely had perhaps a dozen of special "ring" anchors attached around the ends to do a fantastic job at stabilizing the ship, as some of these (weighing over a ton) were found in the vicinity of the Ararat region.

Genesis 7:16 -- And they that went in, went in male and female of all flesh, as God had commanded him: and the LORD shut him in.

::: If the Lord did some divine intervention there, it would stand to reason that they were protected during the global flood from "hot spots", extreme tidal waves and winds, etc. by this same kind of divine intervention, while they were "shut in" the ark.

Hans-Georg Lundahl Also, it was probably 10x stronger than the strongest ark that can be built today. Heck, if poorly-fed Egyptian slaves could build the pyramid, hauling 200-ton blocks that cannot be carried by the biggest machinery today, I'd imagine that pre-flood ancestors who lived for over 900 years could build such a fine ark with gopher wood that were much stronger and more massive, coated with gobs and gobs of bitumen pitch..

Roger M Pearlman

Admin

Principal contributor

Hans-Georg Lundahl
OK i had not caught that you place the tower of Bavel at Gobekli Tepe.

If it was i would have to make several revisions to my model.

Now while radio metric carbon dating in theory, based on the assumption of modern isotope saturation levels, caps out at after 60k year, based on the one historic actuality, that aligns with scriptural testimony, saturation levels, it might cap out at 20k or even under 6k years.

So any results consensus dated 20k - 60k and most (all?) over 60k that do not have enough isotopes to date are likely from Mabul global flood residue and shortly thereafter earl The ice ages.

Now in Pearlman YeC we have the break-up of the original single continent formed on day 3, 1656 years later, cause and effect due to the Mabul impacts year. Thus the global flood epoch can by some metrics account for hundreds of millions of consensus history.

At least on the placement of the skulls at GBT i tend to agree they date from closer to the dispersion from Bavel, then too just off the ark..

Not many people were dying during the 350-year span from the flood till the passing of Noach 350 years later. As several generations born after the flood living 400+ years as increase in entropy still in early stages of the 1k + year transition from Pre-flood to modern world levels.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"to do a fantastic job at stabilizing the ship"

In a river or shallow coast water yes.

"it would stand to reason that they were protected during the global flood from "hot spots","

I'd agree, but a very deep global ocean would be one of the means by which this is done.

You see, whatever winds are on the Pacific, waves don't get very high compared to their width.

Affez Tlemsanix "I'd imagine that pre-flood ancestors who lived for over 900 years could build such a fine ark with gopher wood that were much stronger and more massive, coated with gobs and gobs of bitumen pitch.."

I'd agree on the stronger part. Greek translates gopher wood as "hyle kybite" = I take that means the thickness of balks was 1 or at least a 1/2 cubit.

Still, stability would have suffered on a very shallow sea.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Roger M Pearlman "So any results consensus dated 20k - 60k and most (all?) over 60k that do not have enough isotopes to date are likely from Mabul global flood residue and shortly thereafter earl The ice ages."

In carbon dates, we have two things.

1) how much can be measured accurately, or rather how little.
2) how many different levels could mix.

If levels for up to 50 000 BP to 20 000 BP could mix, I don't reckon it correct to add 11 500 BP to that. As said, it would on your chronology involve a very rapid rise for a maximume of 14 pmC to 39 pmC.

In the case of bad measurements, I think those levels are perfectly measureable.

Affez Tlemsanix

Admin

Principal contributor

Hans-Georg Lundahl No, I'm not sure it would've worked great in really shallow waters, because there were too many of these anchors weighing over a ton each - ideally hanging around up to a couple hundred feet down below the ship. So the water should have been a bit deeper than that.

I read a book about it, showing how preliminary tests were done on a ship with dozens of these anchors. It was phenomenal how stable the ship was, staying upright when it should have turned over 10 times already, or so.

There was a mention of a great wind that passed over the Earth during the flood. Of course, the ship had to withstand this, or it was somehow protected. I am inclined to think that God did guide the ark with some protection, if only by divine "destiny/luck/chance" at the very least in a terminology that caters to the language of an average atheist who readily accepts impossible odds of big bang-abiogenesis-evolution.

Roger M Pearlman

Admin

Principal contributor

Affez Tlemsanix In Pearlman YeC volume I 'Recent Complex Creation Framework 'RCCF' we hypothesize the massive storm pattern and ocean currents created an eye of a hurricane sweet spot for the ark.

Now wind and or currents could have piled high the water level in that eye.

To over 15 spans (so over 4 span clearance as an 11 span draft) where not high tide/piled higher, in the eye.

Might that alleviate the concern of Hans-Georg Lundahl ?Thus allowing use of such anchors.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Affez Tlemsanix "ideally hanging around up to a couple hundred feet down below the ship"

Has that even been tested?

The known ancient use would have been in shallow waters.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Roger M Pearlman "the massive storm pattern and ocean currents created an eye of a hurricane sweet spot for the ark"

Not even necessary.

I only have a concern with shallow waters, as I know that deep water doesn't produce steep waves.

If the water was 1.5 km or 1 mile deep, and only the lowest 100 feet at a time were depositing sediment, in oversaturation, the Ark would have been safe anywhere in the world.

Read up on Kon Tiki, how they only got wet at a three sisters phenomenon, over deep water, but how they got stranded on a reef when they were in waters shallow enough to have that reef close under the surface.

Or the boy who survived the 2004 Tsunami because:
1) the wooden bed he was on was floating, not navigating
2) he was out on deep waters, where tsunami waves were not dangerous.

Leaving out one.

Affez Tlemsanix

Hans-Georg Lundahl I can't recall if it were tested on a moderate-sized ship (let alone a gigantic ship) - gotta check out my book collection again and see if I can find it.

Do you really believe that there are no "dangerous" waves out in the open ocean where the water is deep? Why was it almost always necessary for the integrity of ships to use the Magellan Strait instead of going in the deeper waters around the cape of S. America, etc. etc. etc.?

Do you really think that there were no storms during the global flood? Edit - I'm not talking about the earthquake-generated tsunami - I'm talking about waves associated with local storms and heavy winds.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"Do you really believe that there are no "dangerous" waves out in the open ocean where the water is deep?"

For sinking, not much.

"Why was it almost always necessary for the integrity of ships to use the Magellan Strait instead of going in the deeper waters around the cape of S. America, etc. etc. etc.?"

I don't know what etc. etc. etc. refers to but for Magellan Strait, it could be a question of another hasard, like drifting out too far from the coast or getting the wrong oceanic stream, or the water being too cold. Plus, how deep is it really outside? Perhaps still lots more shallow than what is safe in storms. Plus, in a storm with sails up, the ship can capsize because of the sails, the wind, and the waves are not necessarily the worst part. The ark had no sails. Magellan's Strait could have been the one place where they didn't have to take down the sails (whatever seamen call that action).

"Do you really think that there were no storms during the global flood?" [+ distinction of wave origins]

Not the point. ANY wave ANYWHERE tends to have the sea bottom as centre of its radius. This means on the shallow waters waves become breakers, on the deep ocean they become drawn out and long. Whether they come from wind (however strong) or from earthquakes, they are not as steep where it's deep.

The only really steep waves you find are isolated giant waves. Or three sisters, three giant waves after each other. An ark with a rolling period of 12 seconds or little short of that could handle such things, that are rare interference phenomena.

Affez Tlemsanix

Admin

Principal contributor

Hans-Georg Lundahl Although wave heights in hurricanes have not been systematically studied, we're finding out more about how high they can get in the middle of deep seas far off continental shelves. In 2005 the Naval Research Laboratory installed wave measuring devices in the Gulf of Mexico. Shortly after this was done, the category 4 Hurricane Ivan passed through the area. Wave heights of over 90 feet (27 meters) were recorded. It was previously thought that only rogue waves could reach this high, but the measurements showed they were common inside the hurricane. Since then, computer models have predicted that wave heights up to 130 feet (40 meters) can occur in eyewalls of intense hurricanes.

Hans-Georg Lundahl Here, Antarctic storm waves move north into the oncoming Agulhas Current, and the wave energy gets focused over a narrow area, leading to constructive interference. This area may be responsible for sinking more ships than anywhere else on Earth. On average about 100 ships are lost every year across the globe, and many of these losses are probably due to rogue waves.

Waves in the Southern Ocean are generally fairly large (the red areas in Figure 10.2.6) because of the strong winds and the lack of landmasses, which provide the winds with a very long fetch, allowing them to blow unimpeded over the ocean for very long distances. These latitudes have been termed the “Roaring Forties”, “Furious Fifties”, and “Screaming Sixties” due to the high winds.

INTRODUCTION TO OCEANOGRAPHY : 10.2 Waves at Sea
https://rwu.pressbooks.pub/webboceanography/chapter/10-2-waves-at-sea/

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"Wave heights of over 90 feet (27 meters) were recorded."

I believe you, but you have not stated how steep they were.

I'd say a wave of 27 meters or 40 meters on the Pacific would be like 81 or 120 meters from wave top to wave top. Or even wider.

Rogue waves, however are steep, but rare.

Your link is a page 10.2, it links back to page 10.1 where I find:

When the water below a wave is deeper than the wave base (deeper than half of the wavelength), those waves are called deep water waves. Most open ocean waves are deep water waves. Since the water is deeper than the wave base, deep water waves experience no interference from the bottom, so their speed only depends on the wavelength:

INTRODUCTION TO OCEANOGRAPHY : 10.1 Wave Basics
https://rwu.pressbooks.pub/webboceanography/chapter/10-1-wave-basics/

Note

The text quoted links to two formulas:

Let's take a look at the second, simplified one:

speed (m/s) = 1.25 * sqrt(L)

This would clearly mean, the wavelength is proportional to the speed. Not inversely proportional, but directly proportional. The faster the waves go, the more space there is from crest to crest, in deep water waves. That's why high waves in deep water are usually not steep waves. It's perhaps an unrealistic example, but I'm now assuming the waves are moving the speed of a whole gale, wherein 60 mph of the air is included.

60 mph = 96 km.h = 96000 m / 3600 s = 26.7 m/s

= 1.25 * x, x = 21.3

21.3 = sqrt(L), L = 21.3² = 455 m.

Affez Tlemsanix

Admin

Principal contributorr

Hans-Georg Lundahl The steepness can be a surprise, if there is a source of interference from suddenly changing winds or another wave. Most of today's cargo ships can withstand them anyway. There's a video on Youtube - check out the 6:30 mark in the video where it's out in the middle of the Atlantic at 4000m or 13000ft depth:

Ships in Storms | 10+ TERRIFYING MONSTER WAVES, Hurricanes & Thunderstorms at Sea
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMNH4nmOims

But check out the 1:30 mark! Scary! I don't know how steep that wave is.

More info regarding this Southern Ocean wave that hit the ship (as mentioned in the above post):

NZ tech could reveal planet's largest waves
https://blog.geogarage.com/2017/05/nz-tech-could-reveal-planets-largest.html

You can see the exact latitude and longitude at 1:30 in the second video. Google Earth shows that the water would be over 1500 feet deep in that location.

Well, if the ark did have these anchors around the sides, it'd help against the winds as well. Genesis 8:1 - ... and God made a wind to pass over the earth, and the waters asswaged;

I'd imagine that it was an unimaginable wind, lol.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"if there is a source of interference from suddenly changing winds or another wave."

With a global ocean under the air, why would wind change direction? It is sensible to assume winds around the equator would be blowing very steadily westward all through the Flood.

From another wave? Well, that interference phenomenon is exactly what rogue waves are.

0:29 into the video, I notice that the tanker is going from crest to crest, and even so the waves are not that steep. The Ark would have its sides facing where the tanker has its bow.

The difference is, the tanker has a propulsion independent of the waves. Arguably a motor. The Ark was just drifting with the waves and would have been much calmer in exactly the same waves, since it was not going anywhere.

1:49 The warship had the same problem as the tanker : heading into the waves.

6:30 The Russian tanker was also heading into the waves, and while they were high enough to run over the sides, they were not steep enough to do so if the tanker had been still and had its sides to the crests.

Affez Tlemsanix None of my points were, there would be no violent winds or waves would not be very high.

All were about the waves would not be turbulent in themselves that far offshore, and not to the Ark if it held it's side facing the crest.

Affez Tlemsanix

Admin

Principal contributor

Hans-Georg Lundahl Storms usually change winds on the spot. The biggest/steepest waves in *deep* water are usually associated with storms.

Yeah, large ships have to head directly into the waves, so that they don't get tossed over from the side. Obviously, the ark didn't have a motor to propel and direct it into the waves, so it would make such anchors all that much more necessary, I think.. As long as it wasn't like a 100-foot breaking wall that we see off the coast of Portugal - the biggest wave a surfer could dream of riding down - a bit of water going over the massive ark would quickly drain off the top (and probably do a great job at washing away all of the manure and animal waste via an intelligently designed duct system).

Roger M Pearlman

Admin

Principal contributor

Affez Tlemsanix traditionally Noah and family on the top level.

The land animals of the mid level.

The supplies, then the waste on the lower level.

Compartmentalized, not western hull design.

Keep in mind the vegetation was more nutritious and digestible prior to the global flood year epoch degradation of the atmosphere, the start of the transition from low entropy to modern world entropy levels.

So a lot less waste than under modern conditions.

reference Pearlman YeC framework 'RCCF'

Affez Tlemsanix

Admin

Principal contributor

Roger M Pearlman It's also possible that many of them could eat nutritious algae/seaweed that could be filtered through a duct system for the purpose of harvesting seaweed. Many animals back then would have been to eat it, carry such a diverse and capable set of genes like those that led to the panda bear and other bears (Asiatic bear, etc.) being largely vegetarians.. koalas eating eucalyptus leaves and so on.. Seaweed, no problem. That would solve the food problem for all of these animals over such a long period of time. Such warm flood waters would have yielded an incredible supply of algal blooms and seaweed patches filled with plankton/krill stuff as well.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Affez Tlemsanix "Yeah, large ships have to head directly into the waves, so that they don't get tossed over from the side."

No, since the waves are not that steep.

If there is 300 metres from crest to crest, the heading into the waves is superfluous to keep a floating object from capsizing.

And that's an example from 60 knots waves on the deep seas.

This is why storms before Rapanui affected only the capacity of Kon Tiki to keep their sail up and to work outside the "cabin" ... this is why the boy in 2004 survived the Tsunami on a wooden bed.

And this is especially so, if the object on top of that has a rolling period of 12 seconds, something I calculated without taking any anchor stones into account.

So, unless I totally got the way of calculating radius of gyration wrong, the rolling period of the Ark, according to the formula given in wiki, would have been between 11.71 and 12.82 seconds. Recall that first sentence?

A passenger ship will typically have a long rolling period for comfort, perhaps 12 seconds while a tanker or freighter might have a rolling period of 6 to 8 seconds.

Crooks on FB have spam marked the blog I am quoting, but you'll find it if you seek.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Affez Tlemsanix "That would solve the food problem for all of these animals over such a long period of time."

Also not necessary.

With the most probable loaded weight of the Ark, with 2000 couples of animals could share the Ark with the weight of nutrition in comparison to body weight that would last sheep one year.

Thou shalt take unto thee of all food that may be eaten, and thou shalt lay it up with thee: and it shall be food for thee and them.

Genesis 6:21 = no food intake from the outside necessary.

Perhaps even admitted.

However, water, if the waters on the then global ocean were mainly sweet water, could be taken from outside. Perhaps.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Affez Tlemsanix "As long as it wasn't like a 100-foot breaking wall that we see off the coast of Portugal"

Note : COAST. = Shallow water.