Ken Wolgemuth part IV

In Response to Ken Wolgemuth on Carbon · Ken Wolgemuth, Part III · Ken Wolgemuth part IV

Creation vs. Evolution: Why is Carbon Dating More Important than Potassium Argon? · Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere: Argon, Carbon, Magnetic Field · HGL'S F.B. WRITINGS: Ken Wolgemuth Understood the Argument · If Ken Wolgemuth Avoids Answering Me Directly, What Does That Say of Him? Update : he did some answering · He did some answering, though, to others ... · Ken Wolgemuth part IV

Ken Wolgemuth

18 Nov. 2024

If you are following my series on Radiocarbon Dating, this post gives examples of applying the method to Biblical archaeology with the Dead Sea Scrolls, and to a mastodon that lived in North America about 13,500 years ago near the present location of Glen Ellyn, Illinois.

Creation’s Story – Geology – by Dr. Ken Wolgemuth
Radiocarbon Dating for Biblical Archaeology: C-14–Part 4

I have explained how C-14 from the atmosphere eventually gets into tree rings, charcoal, and bones of animals. I also demonstrated how we test for the criteria necessary to obtain a credible radiocarbon age in calendar years. Now I will show examples of how the process is done in the laboratory to determine calendar years of samples of unknown age for Biblical archaeology, and for a mastodon that lived and died in the area of Glen Ellyn, Illinois.

The Great Isaiah Scroll describes Christ’s crucifixion in chapter 53 in such detail that critics of the Bible claimed that Isaiah MUST have been written after an eyewitness saw the event. The scroll material is parchment, a specially prepared animal skin that has carbon-14. Let’s see the result of radiocarbon dating.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Oh, I am following it.

The Dead Sea scrolls fall this side of "equilibrium point" (or reaching c. 100 pmC, corrected for pre-industrial values). The mastodon doesn't.

13,500 BP = 11,500 BC.

2685 BC

34.269 pmC, so dated 11 535 BC

34.269 pmC = atmospheric value back then. 4709 years ago. If 4709 years ago we'd had had 100 pmC, the remainder would be 56.573 pmC. As it is, 56.573 % of original value.

34.269 * 56.573 / 100 = 19.387 pmC

Since we find 19.387 pmC now, we date it to ... 13,550 years ago. As you mentioned.

Other issues with him than Carbon 14:

K-Ar Dates:

Affez Tlemsanix

Best Contributor

19.XI.2024

Remove the foundation from the circular reasoning of old-age earth dating, and it all crumbles like a house of cards..

Ken Wolgemuth

Best Contributor

Right here is the examples of deceit. All of these are misapplications of the methods.

I

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Best Contributor

Ken Wolgemuth Sure. The eruption of Mt. St. Helens is too recent.

So was the eruption of a New Zealand volcano.

So was the eruption of a Hawaii volcano.

How can we be sure the eruptions you DO date by K-Ar aren't too recent too?

II

Charlie Wolcott

Ken Wolgemuth then surely you would know how to do them correctly and if you do, put it on display and show us how these methods will accurately date these rocks. And for the record, a robust system would know how to handle ALL types of input and know how to throw flags when something is actually wrong. But we have no reason to trust any of your calculations when your calculator doesn't know how to handle division by zero and things of the like. Stop lying that you actually have a sound system...let alone that you even know how it works.

Allen J Dunckley

Star Contributor

Charlie Wolcott Yeah, the implication of KW's response is that only OEC deep-timers know how to radio-date a specimen; and Ph.D YEC geologists that are just as trained and with field experienced don't. What a joke!

If I were a millionaire, I would set up and send a team of Bible-believing geologists to Sertsey Island and take igneous rock samples from all areas of the island, and send them to the labs to be blind tested for their radio dates. I would bet that all would come back well over millions of years. Yet we know and have a historical record of when that island was formed.

So, maybe the Hawwian Islands are not as old as claimed simply because no records were made when they were formed, like Sertsey. If we did not know and have the record of Sertsey's formation, we would think, from radio-dating like Hawaii, that it would be millions of years old.

The scientific principle is basic:

Igneous rock closure starts the Radio-Clock with zero daughter element, and 100% parent.

Then over time, daughter amount builds up at a set rate, the parent amount deminishes.

Daughter build up measured determins "AGE / TIME" since closure.

SO, over a short period of time, like 50 to 100 years there should not be any or bearly trace amounts of the daughter element, and near 100 of parent.

But instead what has been shown is that this is not the cases when it should be.

SO, this shows the weakness that the process is blind to.

Ken Wolgemuth

Allen J Dunckley, This demonstrates clearly that you do not understand how to apply the potassium-argon dating method. Then you continue here in a Radiometric Dating group that is not even able ot apply the method correctly. What a stumbling block, and embarrassment to a Christianity.

Just look how nicely it works for the Hawaiian Islands.

Allen J Dunckley, And for the continuation of the Hawaiian Islands and Emperor Seamounts, back to 80 million years. This data is backed up with the satellite measured data that the Big Island is moving now at a rate of 3.1 inches/year. Scientific evidence for an ancient earth does get any better than this. But your theology causes your eyes and mind to be so blind to God's creation, you cannot see the obvious. There is a saying that fits you and YECs. "There are none so blind as those who will not see."

I guess something like this fits the situation.

Charlie Wolcott

Ken Wolgemuth how many times did you date that stuff until you found a match for your fantasy story?

Charlie Wolcott

Allen J Dunckley You are spot on. And take notice that Ken NEVER actually answers the questions we are asking and instead seeks to prove one false dating method with ANOTHER false dating method. He has NO IDEA that he is actually doing the same thing that was done before radiometric dating: dating fossils with rocks and rocks with fossils. It's the same thing. He's validating radiometric dating with extrapolated plate tectonic movement that no one ever observed...and validating his extrapolations with radiometric dating.

And take notice how these adamant defenders of these methods STILL refuse to address very right concerns when their clocks are NEVER SET...thus making the ENTIRE METHOD INVALID.

The problem with Ken's education and career on this topic is that he actually never learned how these methods actually operate. He's simply told to use them and he accepts them with complete blind faith to the point where they are a Baal he bows before. Because he never lets them be questioned...scientifically...which is what scientists too. And he can't explain them scientifically, nor defend them scientifically.

If he REALLY wanted to shut up the Creationists for good...here is how he can go about it: gather his scientists together, go to Mt St Helens, get the rocks with the "correct conditions without alterations or anything", NOT TELL THE LABS THE SOURCE of the rocks, and date them and show us through the dating process that the K-Ar method...which is very robustly tested and examined...will produce an age of "zero" or throw a "too young to date" flag. We know they will never do that because we know what the results will actually be...the same as that which Steve Austin got. They complain about his process till they are blue in the face, but they won't show us how it is supposed to be done. Why is that? Any scientist sure of his methodology is ready to showcase his work. Why not Deep Timers? Answer: because they are not scientists but priests of a false religion of Deep Time...and do not practice science.

Allen J Dunckley

Charlie Wolcottat. Let us get a team of their guys with our guys and go to Surtsey Island and by whatever method they want with our guys double checking their work and it would be verified that Surtsey Island would date in the millions of years — guaranteed.

Charlie Wolcott

Allen J Dunckley And then we'd get all the stories in the world about how the very specific rocks that they just HAPPENED to chose would be the very ones that never actually completely melted and perfectly retained all their isotopes for the specific dating methods they need...without bothering the others, but it only LOOKS like its a new rock.

I guess that's too "complicated" to explain to laymen.

Allen J Dunckley

Charlie Wolcott so the question is: If no one knew the actual dates of the latest igneous rocks from Hawaii and Surtsey

Charlie Wolcott

Allen J Dunckley That's why I always emphasize they need to PROVE their methods to be sound and robust by testing when they DO NOT know the answer BEFORE "dating". That's a key problem with every dating method. Those running the program know what the dates are SUPPOSED to be BEFORE dating and in any court of law, if someone influences the witness like this, that testimony is discarded. So ANY dating result in which the "estimated age" is given PRIOR to dating...is by the laws of evidence...invalid.

And frankly...that's the ENTIRE system...except for what YEC has presented.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Ken Wolgemuth Impressive K-Ar dates.

Definitely not random chance.

However, I have an alternative theory.

The older it is dated, the more Argon was trapped. The more Argon was trapped because it was in cooler Flood water.

That first Island off-coast from Hawaii is about the same age as a very recent lava flow one or two km offshore.

So, presumably, when that island was formed, the Flood was as shallow as the shelf 2 km outside the coast of Hawaii.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Charlie Wolcott I think there is one aspect of the theory you did leave out.

In fresh lava, Argon either from the air or from Argon already decayed is supposed to be still present on the moment of eruption.

However, it peters out if the lava cools at a normal rate, but if cool water (rain or offshore seawater) speeds up the cooling of the lava, argon can get trapped, and if so it would look older, if it's too fresh.

Now, one part I'm not sure of is this. Are they saying that such cooling would not be expected most of the time, or are they saying even of cooled the lava would still let the Argon escape in some 10 000 years? The latter seems incompatible with the nature of the method, so, I'll go with the former.

They are probably also saying that the cooling we observe in the present only adds perhaps 1 or 2 million years, so it doesn't matter for very old materials. Now, the thing is, Ken Wolgemuth has a reason not to say it here.
1) All volcanic eruptions would have had lava cooled during the Flood.
2) SOME of the lava would have cooled under much deeper and cooler water than we observe now, so would be trapping lots more Argon than we observe in the present.

Charlie Wolcott

Hans-Georg Lundahl This could be a possibility, but it's not one these deep timers ever bring up. Most likely because such cooling really would not make a notable difference. The fundamental principle behind the dating methods that everyone who has ever been to school knows is that for K-Ar to work, the "clock" has to be set when all argon is either gone or beyond measurable amounts. As these Deep Timers KNOW that "excess argon" has been known for decades...it sure is amazing how NONE of them has proposed how the clocks are actually calibrated to incorporate this fact...and STILL use the method as though nothing is wrong with it.

This is hardly the practice of any quality science.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I think the cooling, if rapid enough is the actual key to inflated ages.

In other words, the earlier in the Flood (from when waters were very high) the more rapid the cooling and the more excess argon.

That would explain why, for instance, in Laetoli the volcanic layers come "in the right order" according to the deep time ages.

Ethics:

Pete F. Fiske

Best Contributor

22 Nov 2024

COUNTLESS People Have Been Deceived by This LIE From Evolutionists...

This DANGEROUS Lie From Atheists Is Fooling More and More People
Answers in Genesis Canada | 22 Nov. 2024
https://youtu.be/A1WkIyZgKYQ?si=4nTMf79cukbshkUm

Ken Wolgemuth

Best Contributor

This dangerous lie that the earth is 6,000 years old has been spread by the YEC religious cult, and has deceived over 100 million people in half a century. It is the stumbling block to the Gospel of Jesus Christ of the 21st century.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Best Contributor

"dangerous" — Why dangerous?
"lie" — Why not mistake?
"has been spread by the YEC religious cult" — YEC is not one denomination or sect, it is a position.
"has deceived over 100 million people in half a century." — Apart from "deceived" thank you for the statistics
"the stumbling block to the Gospel of Jesus Christ" — why "stumbling block"?

Ken Wolgemuth

Hello Hans-Georg,
That is a polite way to ask, and it is partly from quoting Answers in Genesis Canada, from "This DANGEROUS Lie From Atheists is Fooling More and More People". There is a level of danger to young people who grow up in a rigid YEC church and may face a risk to their faith when they learn what they taught in church was a lie. Just two lies are that the earth was created 6,000 years ago, and that the behavior of the earth's magnetic field is evidence that it is less than 10,000 years. I admit that "dangerous" may not be the right word, but they certainly face that "high risk". I know because of emails I have seen and personal stories from parents.

Your next question is using "lie" rather than a "mistake." When a person has earned a PhD in one of the quantitative sciences, they have the capacity to search the literature and learn the reality of the earth's magnetic field. But they don't, they just make up lies to mislead and deceive non-scientists in our churches.

You certainly have a good point that YECism is not a denomination or a sect. But there is a similar behavior of blindly accepting false propaganda from a very small group of "leaders" or "high priests". They have a massive body of literature and an endless stream of meetings to build the body of propaganda outside the faith and science community within the body of Christ. The whole modern movement was initiated by one engineer who did just that, left the body of Christ. It seems so parallel to Joseph Smith's Mormonism.

Pete F. Fiske posted: "COUNTLESS People Have Been Deceived by This LIE From Evolutionists..." In the US, polls estimate that 30–40% of the population believes the earth is 6,000 years old. There is no body of scientific evidence for this claim. 30% is about 100 million people.

For your last question of why there is a "stumbling block", I draw straight from Scripture in 2 Corinthians 6:3, "We put no stumbling block in anyone's path, so that our ministry will not be discredited." Every YEC ministry and individual is indeed a stumbling block to the Gospel of Jesus Christ, if they choose to pass off the junk science as evidence for a young earth. It is analogous to walking around with a sandwich board promoting the view that the earth is flat. Hans-Georg, please note that anyone can have a persuasion of a religious view that the earth is 6,000 years old from their view of God's Word. But they should not participate in spreading the lies of counterfeit science concocted by the YEC ministries. When they witness the fabulous, overwhelming Good News of salvation by accepting Jesus Christ, do so. Do not talk about YECism.

P.S. Do you go by Hans, or Hans-Georg? We have a close Christian brother who was here in Tulsa and is from Germany. So we called him "Gay-org" for the German pronunciation.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

You can pronounce Georg as Gay-orc or as Yay-ory (German or Swedish pronunciation).

You can also say "Hans" or "Hans-Georg" whichever suits you, in my family it varied.

"Just two lies are that the earth was created 6,000 years ago, and that the behavior of the earth's magnetic field is evidence that it is less than 10,000 years."

The former would be somewhat inexact, it was created 7200 years ago. I'd agree on the magnetic field, since my YEC calibration for C-14 presupposes that the pmC was added to way faster from Flood to Fall of Troy than it is these days. In other words, if the magnetic field was involved, it is stronger now.

" When a person has earned a PhD in one of the quantitative sciences, they have the capacity to search the literature and learn the reality of the earth's magnetic field."

Ouch ... you pretend that dismissing an ideology is lack of searching the literature?

"The whole modern movement was initiated by one engineer who did just that, left the body of Christ."

W a i t ... you have two problems.
1) You claim that Henry Morris WAS in the body of Christ while he was a Protestant;
2) You claim that he LEFT the body of Christ by becoming with John Whitcomb founder of the modern YEC movement.

In other words, you claim that Luther doesn't split you from Christ, but Moses and the Church Fathers do.

"In the US, polls estimate that 30–40% of the population believes the earth is 6,000 years old."

Good for them, approximatively. A LXX reading for 7200 or 7500 years (without or with II Cainan, and some other different choices of reading) would be better.

"There is no body of scientific evidence for this claim."

No, but there is historic evidence for it. Genesis 5 and Genesis 11. There is also theological evidence for Adam being created not long after Heaven and Earth overall (so shortly that it's insignificant), in Mark 10:6.

"30% is about 100 million people."

Yes, and then you have the 70 % who don't believe that, where increasing numbers are going Nones. And then you have Europe where far fewer than 30 % are YEC, and where YEC is marginalised.

"For your last question of why there is a "stumbling block", I draw straight from Scripture in 2 Corinthians 6:3, "We put no stumbling block in anyone's path, so that our ministry will not be discredited." "

Here is the DRB text:
Giving no offence to any man, that our ministry be not blamed
[2 Corinthians 6:3]

It's about behaviour, not about tenets.

"Every YEC ministry and individual is indeed a stumbling block to the Gospel of Jesus Christ, if they choose to pass off the junk science as evidence for a young earth. It is analogous to walking around with a sandwich board promoting the view that the earth is flat."

Not the least. Earth can in the here and now be proven to be a globe. Not by science, but simply by travel.

For Deep Time, or for Heliocentrism and Deep Space, you need very roundabout "science" to get to the conclusions, they are absolutely not testable in the here and now.

"Hans-Georg, please note that anyone can have a persuasion of a religious view that the earth is 6,000 years old from their view of God's Word. But they should not participate in spreading the lies of counterfeit science concocted by the YEC ministries."

Precisely as with the moniker "sect" or "cult", this seems suspiciously like what Russian and formerly Soviet propaganda would tell.

Guy Berthault doesn't seem like a counterfeit scientist to me, he has proven rapid lamination is a real possibility when rapidly flowing mud-water is over-saturated, a condition reminiscent of any YEC present day view of the Flood.

When it comes to K-Ar dating, the one who comes off as counterfeit scientist is you, since you shout "inapplicable" to present day test cases, but can't prove (either scientifically or let alone historically) the "applicable" for 300 00 years old (supposedly) lava over the Tautavel man.

"When they witness the fabulous, overwhelming Good News of salvation by accepting Jesus Christ, do so. Do not talk about YECism."

Oh, the only valid Evangelisation is emotionally overwhelming such? Facing fridge logic about "wait, what about Adam ?" and answering in cool logic "yes, he existed, we know it historically and no science proves the contrary" is somehow not pure enough?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Ken Wolgemuth Just a brief thing more, the video does not feature any errors about the magnetic field.

However, there seems to be a different video which involves a decaying magnetic field actually observed:

3 Signs the Solar System is Young
Creation Ministries International | 4 Dec. 2024
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UrCpTBsgxhk

I was unaware of these facts ...