Saturday, December 31, 2016

... updating Hovind on C14

... updating Hovind on C14 · ... updating Kent Hovind on C14, part 2

Carbon Dating Flaws
Truth In Genesis

After seing first half of video.

1:07 did they say in 1830 the Earth was billions of years old?

I thought they were staying in the range of 20 million up to c. 1900?

2:04 Carbon dating is actually used for things "so young" that geological column is irrelevant.

If a thing is dated by geologic column, like a ceratopsian fossil, routinely it is not carbon dated. When exceptioonally it is, you get surprising results, like a Triceratops horridus c. 40 000 - not 40 000 000 just 40 000 - years old.

2:53 Derek Ager is obviously speaking of radiocarbon dated things as being "really archaeology".

The radiometric datings related to "geologic column" is the wordthless K-Ar method, mainly, which was proven worthless at Mt St Helens.


If now 21 pounds of C 14 each year is produced, in order to account for the rise back when history started, it must have been 420 pounds in the year of the Flood (that is 20 times more than now in a year) with the speed declining, and probably stabilising around the time of Cyrus or of taking of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar.

I am now speaking of a Flood in 2957 BC. If it was 2400 BC, you would need to have somewhat more carbon 14 than 420 pounds produced in the year of the Flood, to account for present level being stable last 2000 - 2500 years, unless you have a steeper rise for longer, which means some history is radically shorter.

I see an Exodus in 1510 BC carbon datable to 1700 BC - you might need to have it carbon datable to 2000 BC or 2400 BC (Pepi I or II).

420 pounds instead of 21 pounds means 20 times as much radiation, which gives a level of cosmic radiation close to total background radiation at Princeton.

12:31 "it would take 30 000 years to reach equilibrium"

Well, that means they were talking of only 21 pounds a year.

Somehow, since we have been in equilibrium last two millennia, unless history is falsified in chronology, we already have equilibrium, and if 30 000 years would be the time required with 21 pounds a year, and if 21 pounds a year is what we have now, well, since Earth is NOT 30 000 years old, it started rising (after Flood) at a level of roughly 420 pounds C14 added to atmosphere each year. Add some, if you assume KJV rather than LXX chronology!

Radiocarbon is still forming 28%-37% faster than it is decaying?

The source you give* is not a study of how it forms and decays now, but an attempt of explaining a discrepancy in North American Human Skeletons.

One which does not take into account perhaps that last tw thousand years we have a well dated history where carbon 14 datings match history rather well.

* R. E. Taylor et al., "Major Revisions in the Pleistocene Age Assignments for North American Skeletons by C-14 Accelerator Mass Spectrometry," American Antiquity, Vol. 50, No. 1 1985 pp. 136-140.

13:18 "you'd have to know when it lived so you could calculate when it lived"

We know when Tiberius lived (most of us assume), and some of the coins with his image has datable blood, sweat, tears from when it was used - matching carbon dates with history. And therefore also validating a carbon dating of 78.511% of modern carbon as implying 2000 years (unlike exceptional circumstances, like shellfish from polar regions or generally shell fish).


Half the carbon of today's atmosphere left ... half original would mean 5730 years ago. If original was 84.421% modern carbon, it would only mean 3/4 of that time (84.421% to the power of 4 is 50%, roughly). If it was instead 70.711% modern carbon*, it was alive half a halflife ago.

For a thing having half modern carbon, I think history (including Biblical) make 3/4 of a hlf life from originally 84.421% modern carbon a more reasonable guess. By 2865 years ago, carbon would be more evenly rising if not yet quite stable.

14:57 "how much was in it when it lived"

Well, it seems that carbon level in the year of the Flood and just previous was around 3% of present level - since consistently carbon datings from Flood fossils give 20 000 to 50 000 years ago.

That means it rose from c. 3% in say 2957 BC to c. 100% in c. 500 BC (when carbon dates can be well verified by history).

This is why starting with 420 pounds a year and levelling out to 21 pounds as per present rate is the good option.

If Flood was only 2400 BC, you need either a higher initial addition rate than 420 pounds per year, or a faster and steeper rise - which might make for conflict with historically well dated archaeology.

15:36 No, the initial level as per pre-Flood C14 is lower than 25% of present level. Much lower.

Otherwise, a Triceratops horridus from Flood would date to 11 450 BP or 9450 BC.

It dates to 40 000 BP. So Carbon level was lots lower than 25% modern carbon.

* All relations % modern carbon 14 to age, HT:

Wednesday, December 21, 2016

On Bergoglio in Lund back a month ago (two videos)


0:37 You are not familiar with Sweden, are you?

The Swedish Church is not burying Protestantism, it is only burying all remains of Christianity within their Protestantism.

Protestantism is not one doctrine, in fact Western Atheism is one of the Protestant doctrines, historically - BUT the Swedish Church is about as far from Catholicism and Bible Truth as you can get.

[I have not heard the video further, I have no sound on the library and in this cyber I am also on a post with no headphones.]

See also:

The Lutheran Pope: Ecu-Maniacs in Sweden

[Not yet seen.]

One can add, to both videos, that there is a faction of Swedish Lutherans who are fairly pro-Catholic, like the Puseyites among Anglicans.

But they are organised in non-communion with the female "clergy" which "Pope" Bergoglio visited.

I was sympathising with them, while "practising" in a "normal" Swedish Church parish, up to when they announced they were getting female clergy.

But the guys who Bergoglio visited were not the "Swedo-Catholics" of Free Synod or Laurentii Trust./HGL

Wednesday, December 14, 2016

... on Barry Cunliffe's St Patrick Day's Lecture on Celts

Barry Cunliffe: Who Were the Celts?
BYU Department of Anthropology

Up to 1:06:26, that is before the Q/A session, after that I have not yet watched it. Yet.

Re intro,
wonder what Barry Cunliffe would think of this, here:

HGL's F.B. writings : Discussion of Celtic Inis (Welsh Ynys) with Latin Insula, perhaps Greek Nesos

Ravens being "Celtic Walkyries" might add weight to the Gaulish Druid theory of Odin's identity?

Just before 38:28
"they pass the wine as through a sieve".

I am reminded to Sigmund's words to his son Sinfjotle about the poison ... were there "poisons" which could be eliminated that way?

This argument on glossochronology, you should be less sure of.

Someone did a similar thing with IndoEuropean and Russian emerged VERY late in that model (they refrained from calibrating the program by inserting known dates).

The great megalithic tombs ...

4500 BC
3500 BC

According to my Fibonacci modelling of C14 rise, this looks like this:

2420 av. J.-Chr. 76,66562 % + 2200 ans, 4620 av. J.-Chr.
2241 av. J.-Chr. 86,26541 % + 1200 ans, 3441 av. J.-Chr.

New blog on the kid : Avec un peu d'aide de Fibonacci ... j'ai une table, presque correcte

So, 2420 BC to 2241 BC is the period you are talking about, and I wonder, does that affect your model significantly?

You mentioned 6000 BC.

Here is my recalibration for c. 6500:

2599 av. J.-Chr. 62,75068 % + 3850 ans, 6449 av. J.-Chr.

(same link)