Wednesday, January 18, 2017

... side notes with Charles A. Coulombe

Off the Menu: Episode 14
Tumblar House

"Ajoutée le 16 déc. 2016

Charles takes questions on Saul Alinsky, the French Revolution, Catholicism in France, separation of church and state, and the Syllabus of Errors."

Charles A. Coulombe is a man I unfriended (FB-wise) over this question:

New blog on the kid : The Ideology Behind Wallström's Words Is One Reason I Left Sweden

He had joined and I refused to join a cause called "international fight against pedophilia", because I felt the INTERNATIONAL aspect of it would introduce lands who were wrong about the thing that essay is about. Apart from that, I consider him as a decent guy.

2:07 Lucifer/Satan "first Radical"? C'mon, he was the first WHIG! "Radical" is too unspecific. Besides, creating as opposed to not creating might be seen as somewhat more radical as a measure than rebelling against one's own and everyone else's Creator.

[At a description of Adam and Eve's fall as first democratic act:]

Adam and Eve could not outvote Father, Son and Holy Ghost.

5:44 Evangelistas also talk about Paradise and Fall.

Neo-Catholics or Cathomodernists don't.

[Just because I said that, I saw a video where Robert Barron does! Saw as in saw in the sidebar, have not seen it yet.]

Creation vs. Evolution : Catholicism is Creationist - even if Hekatolykism isn't

Creation vs. Evolution : Two Clarifications on Good and Bad Liturgy

25:52 [About liberal French clergy going sth like:] "it doesn't really matter what you believe, as long as you are nice"

Do you think that has sth to do with Lustiger being dedicated to saying Jews can be saved without conversion, for certain reasons?

27:50 [On his observation that every state has a state church, not necessarily the right one:]

Do you think France has Evolutionism as State Church?

Speaking of which:

Creation vs. Evolution : Science vs Pseudo-Science?

31:29 Apostolic, Nicene-Constantinopolitan, St Athanasius' Creed, and Trentine Creed, which is Nicene-Constantinopolitan with additions.

Some dioceses also enjoy the Creed of First Council of Toledo?


Credimus in unum verum Deum Patrem et Filium et Spiritum Sanctum, visibilium et invisibilium factorem, per quem creata sunt omnia in caelo et in terra. Hunc: unum Deum et hanc unam esse divinae substantiae Trinitatem. Patrem autem non esse ipsum Filium, sed habere Filium qui Pater non sit. Filium non esse Patrem sed Filium Dei de Patris esse natura. Spiritum quoque Paraclitum esse, qui nec Pater sit ipse nec Filius, sed a Patre Filioque procedens. Est ergo ingenitus Pater, genitus Filius, non genitus Paraclitus sed a Patre Filioque procedens. Pater est cui vox haec est audita de caelis: Hic est Filius meus in quo bene conplacui; ipsum audite. Filius est qui ait: Ego a Patre exivi et a Deo veni in hunc mundum. Paraclitus Spiritus est de quo Filius ait: Nisi abiero ego ad Patrem, Paraclitus non veniet ad vos. Hanc Trinitatem personis distinctam, substantiam unitam virtute et potestate et maiestate indivisibilem, indeferentem. Praeter hanc nullam credimus divinam esse naturam, vel angeli vel spiritus, vel virtutis alicuius quae Deus esse credatur. Hunc igitur Filium Dei Deum natum a Patre ante omne omnino principium sanctificasse uterum Mariae virginis, atque ex ea verum hominem sine virili generatum semine suscepisse, duabus dumtaxat naturis, id est deitatis et carnis, in unam convenientibus omnino personam, id est dominum nostrum lesum Christum; nec imaginarium corpus aut fantasmatis alicuius in eo fuisse, sed solidum atque verum; hunc et esurisse et sitisse et doluisse et flevisse et omnis corporis iniurias pertulisse. Postremo a iudaeis crucifixum et sepultum et tertia die resurrexisse. Conversatum postmodum cum discipulis suis quadragesima post resurrectionem die ad caelum ascendisse. Hunc filium hominis etiam Dei filium dici; filium autem Dei Deum hominis filium appellari. Resurrectionem vero futuram humanae credimus carni; animan autem hominis non divinam esse substantiam aut Dei partem, sed creaturam dicimus divina voluntate creatam.

An English translation available here:

Trento - Philaret (Catechisms) : Filioque far older than III Council of Toledo

Which also has a Spanish one taken from:

Concilio de Toledo I (año 397-400)

34:56 If a Pope contradicts prior infallible teaching ... he might have made a slip of the tongue or pen (and be correcting it as soon as someone points it out as some saint did with John XXII)? Or ... he might be a non-Catholic, hence a non-Pope?

Thursday, January 12, 2017

Where Tolland Proves Himself a Jerk

1) [comments on] Testing Geocentrism, Part 2 · 2) Debate under one of my comments to previous · 3) Debate under three other of my remarks on previous to previous, part a · part b · part c · 4) Where Bel-Shamharoth Says Hello to kathleen - and Good Bye to me · 5) Where Booth the Grey Continues the Debate · 6) Where Tolland Proves Himself a Jerk

My original remark
3:08 "is the same as for earth" - except that in earth's case, earth is standing still and sun adapting to her. In the case of Mars or Jupiter, the planets are by their angels moved so as to adapt to the sun. The great artists are also producing the beautiful or horrifying (depending on taste) Tychonic orbits.

Please remove any possibility of you ever reproducing.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Are you mad or did you intend to be a jerk of National Socialist and Margaret Sangerite approximate type?

+Hans-Georg Lundahl You're the insane one.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
I have a cosmology most modern people don't share, since they have been taught another one in school. You have a morality which decent people don't share. I was giving you benefit of the doubt on having momentarily gone insane and not knowing what you were saying.

A sane man prefers being decent over being modern.

+Hans-Georg Lundahl You know nothing about me or my "morality," so stop pretending. I'm pretty sure your "cosmology" starts with "Let there be light."

Hans-Georg Lundahl
I know one thing about your morality, either you think stupid people should be stopped from reproducing, or you find such a nasty thing a not too inappropriate bad joke.

I am perhaps not the best detector of humour without smileys, so I took it in the former sense. Which means you do not have a decent morality.

If it was however just a joke, how about saying so?

As to my cosmology, no, it does not start with Let there be light, it starts a few verses earlier with In the beginning God created Heaven and Earth.

[In case you have a low level of humour detection, the correction was a joke, in practise a cosmology "starting" with one would be "starting" with the other too.]

+Hans-Georg Lundahl No, I wasn't joking. If people like you want to spawn, you should be held to the same standard applied to getting a driver's license: proving that you are sensible enough, sane enough, and responsible enough. Your comments have demonstrated that you are woefully inadequate. Stupid people should not be allowed to reproduce, because it just creates more stupid people. And if I have learned anything in 37 years about religion, it is that it has been the single greatest source of misery and death in human history. Religion should be left to philosophical questions, not used to explain the universe. The last time I checked, the God of Christianity expects you to believe in Him based on faith, not evidence. He's left everything else perfectly open to reasoned science.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
"If people like you want to spawn, you should be held to the same standard applied to getting a driver's license: proving that you are sensible enough, sane enough, and responsible enough. + Stupid people should not be allowed to reproduce, because it just creates more stupid people."

You just proved yourself as being an evil person.

"Your comments have demonstrated that you are woefully inadequate."

Your comment proves one way in which your proposed system would be very easily abused. Ideological "cleansing".

"And if I have learned anything in 37 years about religion, it is that it has been the single greatest source of misery and death in human history."

People with your outlook have done most of the misery the last century.

Which was arguably one of the most miserably and deadly centuries.

"Religion should be left to philosophical questions, not used to explain the universe."

Explaining the universe IS a philosophical question.

"The last time I checked, the God of Christianity expects you to believe in Him based on faith, not evidence."

Faith usually is reasonable such, that is has some good evidence for it.

As long as Geocentrism / Geostationary was not discounted as an optical and other sensory illusion (equilibrial sense), the movements of Heaven were one prime evidence for God. And in the Bible actually taken as being so.

"He's left everything else perfectly open to reasoned science."

Your way of dealing with Geocentric propositions is at least NOT reasoned science, it is an attempt of bullying.

I am perfectly both willing and (most upcoming points at least) capable of reasoning for Geocentrism.

But so far you have done one huge ad hominem, because I said a thing you did not like.

On End Times

First, listen to the excellent sermons by a priest who is resuming St Robert Bellarmine!

Then only get on to read my comments, which are given below the both videos.

End Times Part 1
Sensus Fidelium

End Times Part 2
Sensus Fidelium

Now, to my comments, in chronological order as I listen through the two videos:

6:59 "all the gods of the gentiles are devils"

I suppose this is true even when the concept of a gentile attaches to sth else which really exists, such as the mortal men Siddharta, Odin, Caesar, such as the spirits guiding sun, moon and stars.

As to motive of idolatry of the latter, St Thomas, in his sermon on the Creed, said they were like poor men approaching the palace of the king, and taking the first lackey they meet for the king, just because they are impressed by his clothes.

Nevertheless, that lackey of the king probably took more pleasure in dancing over Fatima than in any Gentile dancing for him, and the ones who do take pleasure in Gentiles worshipping the Sun are ... devils.

If you go to Vincennes and worship the ashes of Siddharta (not suggesting you should do so!!!), the ashes are not ashes of a demon, Siddharta will rise on the last day, probably to shame, but it is not Siddharta's soul who hears you, it is some demon.

If a man stands and lets people worship him as a god without reacting, we can be sure that demons are not just dominating his worshippers, but, if he is at all aware of what is going on, him too.

But what if a man's photograph is being abused in his absence?

Will the demons only cluster to where his photograph is being worshipped, or will he himself also be their prey?

When St Anthony the Great went to visit St Paul the First Hermit (who had fled during the persecution of Decius), he met a faun who was crying and who explained that he was crying because he would be damned because the Egyptian pagans worshipped him. But the faun was in the wilderness with St Anthony who did not worship him.

Was his fear correct and was he damned, or is there a chance for people worshipped despite their disinclination and in their absence?

Can Thor (if he was a Hebrew man) have repentend, returned from Sweden to Holy Land and been forgiven while Swedes continued to worship him? I am not saying his stepbrother Yngwe Frey who enjoyed false godhead to his death and left a kind of "god kingship" to his son Fjolner can have been saved - but can Thor have been saved, poor man?

10:00 Would you consider Roman Empire ended by these facts:

  • 1) Karl the Last overthrown
  • 2) Czar Nicholas II overthrown
  • 3) Vatican State founded with implications of it being a NEW state, unlike the Donation of Constantine, so to speak the Donatio Mussolini replacing it
  • 4) Antipope Roncalli in his Pontifical has no more the liturgy for crowning of a Roman Emperor?

Or would you say Rome lived on to the death of Cardinal Stickler, who was born a subject of Francis Jospeh or Charles the Last?

[The priest later answered by saying modern Western Democracies are still in a sense Rome]

11:20 "there must first come a revolt"

The word can also mean religious apostasy, right?

Can we better look at Lenin in 1917 et seq or at Wojtyla in 1986?

[He later answered with referring to The Great Apostasy.]

14:09 Note that in St Robert's day, limit between Asia and Europe was not Ural, but the river Don.

[He later said that Scythia - the land of Magog - extended to the Danube in the West ... I hope Alsergrund where I am born in Vienna is West of the Danube. Checked : yes. It is possible he was confusing two German names, that of Don - ancient Tanaïs - with that of Donau - Danube, ancient Ister. Anyway, I am not just West of Tanaïs, but even West of Ister.]

17:38 "not guess his name from his number" - that does NOT mean not to look for the number in names already known and suspected.

Do use ASCII on names of both contemporary and historical persons.

Continue. Should Bergoglio and Vladimir not take up the roles of false prophet and antichrist, be prepared to decipher the next attempts of the devil.

[Also note that Hebrew and Greek alphabets still have numeric values. Though these being relevant is less likely, due to if so Antichrist could have been chosen through his parents for the role.]

On to part 2:

20:27 - Looked up Chiliasm and 1944.

Two points,

  • 1) in 1944 we are concerned with "mild chiliasm".

    This can be defined as per Catholic Encyclopedia, from I think 1913:

    Some Catholic theologians of the nineteenth century championed a moderate, modified millenarianism, especially in connection with their explanations of the Apocalypse; as Pagani (The End of the World, 1856)*, Schneider (Die chiliastische Doktrin, 1859)*, Rohling (Erklärung der Apokalypse des hl. Iohannes, 1895; Auf nach Sion, 1901)**, Rougeyron Chabauty (Avenir de l'Église catholique selon le Plan Divin, 1890)***.

    Catholic Encyclopedia > M > Millennium and Millenarianism

    Notes on Index references or lack thereof:

    * Pagani and Schneider are not on the Index.

    ** Rohling could be the August Rohling of whom another work is on the Index:

    Rohling, August Der Zukunftsstaat; ein Trostbüchlein. 1897

    *** Of Rougeyron and Chabauty, the former is not on the index, nor is their common work, but after 1890 Chabauty seems to have written more than one work which eventually reached the index:

    Chabauty, E A Résumé du système de la rénovation. 1894
    Chabauty, E A Etudés scripturales, patristiques, théologiques et philosophiques sur l'avenir de l'église catholique, selon le plan divin, ou la régéneration de l'humanité et la rénovation de l'univers. 1896
    Chabauty, E A Le système de la rénovation n'a pas été condamné en lui-même par l'église. 1896
    Chabauty, E A Etat de la question eschatologique ou des choses finales au XIXe siècle, et le système de la rénovation. L'encyclique sur les études bibliques et ce système. 1896
    Chabauty, E A Discussion du système de la rénovation; revue mensuelle. 1896

    With the latter, we deal with Emmanuel-Augustin Chabauty - a canon of the dioceses of Poitiers and Angoulême, 1827 - 1914. He was also known for writing in L'Anti-Sémite. He was not destituted from priesthood, but it is possible that from 1896 to his death he was obeying an order to write no more, and it is also possible that his double diocesan loyalty means he was transferred from one to another of the two.

  • 2) while it was in a sense condemned, it was not condemned as a heresy, but as sth which "tute doceri non potest".

    Footnote one to this next link reads:

    Available online at, accessed April 4, 2002. The pronouncement by the Holy Office referred to therein occurred in July of 1944 in answer to the following question: “Quid sentiendum de systemate Millenarismi mitigati, docentis scilicet Christum Dominum ante finale iudicium, sive praevia sive non praevia plurium iustorum resurrectione, visibiliter in hanc terram regnandi causa esse venturum?” The response to the question, confirmed by Pope Pius XII, was short and direct: “Systema Millenarismi mitigati tuto doceri non posse,” i.e., “A mild millennial system is not able to be taught safely” (Henricus Denzinger, ed., Enchiridion Symbolorum: Definitionum et Declarationum de Rebus Fidei et Morum, 36th emended ed., ed. Adolfus Schönmetzer [Freiburg: Herder, 1976], 759). What is meant by “mitigated” or “mild” millennialism and by the qualifier “safely” renders the official answer ambiguous.

    Bible dot org : The Phantom Heresy: Did the Council of Ephesus (431) Condemn Chiliasm?

  • 3) The preceding two points mean that, though Tolkien in confessing mild chiliasm was perhaps wrong, this does not mean he was a heretic.

    Mentioning Tolkien because I am myself known as a Tolkien fan, and because around me some Catholics have tended to demonise Tolkien in dishonest ways, which would also demonise me, as a known avid reader of this author.

21:30 "the man who prays will get saved"

Are you aware that people who have so to speak blacklisted writings and compositions by me have driven me to such a lack of sleep, such a striving for chastity by sheer wrath (since unmarried), that I am not sure of praying the three Hail Marys each day, and I am certainly not praying the Rosary every day?

Tuesday, January 10, 2017

On Flood with AronRa Referring to Soroka and Nelson

Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : 1) On Flood with AronRa Referring to Soroka and Nelson · Correspondence de / of / van Hans Georg Lundahl : 2) With Alan Whistler / Alan the Atheist on AronRa's Video

How Meteorology Disproves Noah's Flood

Where description links to:

Journal of Geological Education, 1983, v. 31, p. 139

I had not looked at this link before commenting, may do so in the following.

3:03 (referring, missed exact numbers) They examined rain as being an impossible source for water of Flood, since estimating water in Oceans at x million cubic kilometers covering all the highest mountains in water would require an additional y million cubic kilometers ... (from following it appears we were dealing with billions)

AronRa, are you aware that your source being from 1983 has already been answered on that account?

Perhaps not as normal rain being enough (I don't know any creationists today who refer to rain as sole main source of Flood water), but as to the requirements.

The thing is, a creationist today is generally saying that where the water went after the Flood is a matter of Oceans sinking and tectonic plates rising.

Meaning, Oceans before the Flood were more shallow and mountains before the Flood were less high.

In fact, in order for Noah to have any idea how many cubits over the highest mountains the water was at a given time, it need not have been maximal time, he would have needed to measure water depth about take off from where the Ark was built, and so he would have needed to build it on one of the highest mountains (knowing from "geography class" it was such) in order to be where he could measure the water depth. Of course, theoretically he could have built the Ark in the valley beside, then seen it float over the mountain, then know if the water line was ... 15 cubits? mid height of Ark? ... and he floated over the mountain, then the water was at least 15 cubits deep. But it would have been a lot safer if the Ark was built on the mountain itself.

Which means it can't have been as pointed a peak as Mount Everest, Mount Everest has to be post-Flood.

And this means it must have been lower, in other words, the FIRST parameter of requirements is disrupted for the paper you cite.

[Next about AronRa's dismissal of pre-Flood Earth being flatter in both mountain height and ocean depth]

"The Bible says otherwise."

Well, there were high mountains all over the earth, before the Flood, but then they were high by pre-Flood standards.

This means they don't need to have been anything close to Mt Everest height.

So, your refutation of the by now standard creationist view on this is not valid.

3:52 "Let's not forget that Noah is supposed to have landed on Mt Ararat which is over three miles high ..."

OK, peak is today 5 165 meter above sea level. Or 16,854 feet.

That is greater Ararat. Lesser Ararat is 3,896 m or 12,782 ft.

One thing, both are volcanic cones. This means that they could have reached their height during the Flood (after the verse about highest mountains), got cooled down by Flood waters, so Noah could land there.

AND even just after Flood, this need not have been the height above centre of the Earth they are today, it can be that the general ground did rise under them too, so they are higher now than when Noah landed there.

5:55 [After showing clip from heated argument with Eric Hovind, and I try to resolve the discrepancy he tried to foist on Eric in that clip]

  • 1) Waters cover highest pre-Flood mountains to 15 cubits (last measure Noah took) and continue to rise.

  • 2) Ararat forms under water, and as Flood water comes from all around the Earth it cools quicker than normal.

  • 3) Waters start receding.

  • 4) After five months Ararat starts to appear.

  • 5) Both Ararat and Mount Everest, both Alps and Andes rise way higher after the Flood than at that moment, while at same time Oceans sink deeper than ever before.

Any specific problem with this one?


"60 Bible verses describing a flat Earth inside a dome"

I have no problem with the "inside a dome" part, since one can reasonably call sphere of fix stars a dome.

But as to "flat Earth" that is simply not true.

Any "circle" passage is as true if Earth is a globe.

Any 4 corners passage can refer to land part of the globe as opposed to water part.

Any pillars of Earth or roots of mountains passage can refer to crust in relation to mantle. I e, crust not just being flat over mantle, but having parts protruding down into it.

8:22 [He is speaking of a great rain volume, and of the precipitation releasing lots of energy:]

"The Oceans would boil and the Ark would burn"

Assuming the additional joules came in the form of temperature.

If instead they came in the form of turbulence, that would explain quite a lot about the turbulence of Flood, assuming this to be the source of most fossils we dig up. NOTE : a really wonderful thing is that the Ark was supposed to float, not navigate.

[In the following, he first deals with hydroplate theory, then with meteors from space]

8:48 "meaning it would have broken anyway even if the people of the Earth hadn't pissed of God"

God could have made a miracle preventing it, had they done better.

8:53 "so did He know in advance when He made people the first time, that He would be so disappointed with them, He would have to kill them all?"

Yes. God is omniscient.

9:41 "It would steam cook everthing before boiling it alive."

Depends on how far down and how hot it got.

Also, remember that a sudden release of anything through very narrow openings may cool it down quite a lot, that is the principle used in refrigerators - probably since Michael Faraday and Jacob Perkins.

9:47 "only other source is that it came from outer space"

My favourite version is actially that "waters above firmament" refer to Hydrogen molecules, "gates of heaven" refer to a magnetic field which in preflood times shielded off atmospheric Oxygen from supra-atmospheric Hydrogen and their opening to this magnetic field turning off so as to form Brown's gas. Each little spark of lightning then caused an explosion which turned Brown's gas to water at a very great height.

Note, the rain of forty days and forty nights depleted uppermost oxygen and lowermost hydrogen so that God made literally sure it could never happen again.

[And in all this he is following Soroka and Nelson]

12:07 I think the conclusion of Soroka and Nelson is flawed, because their initial calculation of requirements is flawed.

That crust was a lot flatter and smoother before than after Flood was simply not taken into account.

A combination of hydroplate + rain augmented by Brown's gas + a smoother, flatter crust would considerably change the issue.

On credits, now.

I note that a very high percent have Scandinavian herigate, at least first three groups*. Germans are next "over represented" group.

* There were only three groups.


Some of them
seem a bit cookish, witness one whom I notified of this reply via FB

He's anonymised and said
I'm not quite sure why you suddenly enter my private life with your nonsense. That's a bit rude. Are you desperate? You must be.

[and some more which I leave out]

I answered
Your private life?

We must be having different attitudes to FB, then.

[and some more which I leave out]

He's anonymised and said
The only thing you've gained is more proof of how you people operate, how you relentlessly invade other peoples life trying to indogtrinate your fantasies.

So, he sponsored AronRa
but he does not care if AronRa is refuted or gets even an attempt of refutation. I wonder how much money he wasted for sth which did not really interest him? But if I asked, he would call it an "invasion of his private life" no doubt.

Monday, January 2, 2017

... updating Kent Hovind on C14, part 2

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

the wild carbon 14 dates, well, they were Egyptologists, and in early dynastic/predynastic times in Egypt, carbon 14 was still rising - which gives an "inconsistent half life" or, by a consistent halflife being assumed, inconsistent datings of earlier and later material, the inconsistent halflife being a mathematical impression given by the rise in C14 : while level is c. 45% of stable, but is mistaken for stable, you can take objects from a range of 2000 years, and earliest will give dates that are wildly off the medium as well as later ones doing so.

Also, the half life impression given if mistaking 45% of stable in rising for 100% of a stable level will be about half as long as the real halflife of C14 - assuming you get your impression from dating historically known objects, which we can do for last 2000 years.

That is what the last of these tables is about, see post:

New blog on the kid : Examinons une hypothèse qui se trouve contrefactuelle un peu de près

First of the tables says that starting with:

2957 (avant Jésus-Christ) 3/64 (du taux présent de C14)

And adding normals amounts of C14 each year (you said 21 pounds a year), you arrive in 2013 at:

2013 0.4572193977407785684036364330248471874682057649283872118718611542

Or 45.7% of stable level. Supposing the 45.7% of stable level were reinterpreted as 100% of stable level, but we still stuck with 5730 years' half life, you get NEXT table.

El Alamein gets dated as Ghettysburg and a lot of other funny stuff before that. That is the ultralong table. When abstracting the fun of it and just leaving percentages, reinterpreting consistently 457:1000, we would have had - third, shorter table - in 227 BC or 2242 BP:


BUT the last table (which has no bold text and doesn't look like one) shows that attempts to date each date with appropriate half life for its known historic date gives the impression of a half life fluctuating, so that if you took a half life obtained from an object from ... I might want to look over the last table, it seems entries were garbled when copying from notepad to post. Or a hacker did sth.

Anyway, using the halflife obtained from oldest objects, I would date one from 2242 years ago to 2832 years ago.

And using the half life from a historically known object 2242 years ago, I would date the oldest one as younger than it was.

According to what Egyptologists said in your source*, that would mean Pre-Dynastic and early Dynastic Egypt was in such a situation. And this would mean not just that C14 was still rising, but that it was far below stable - so start of Early Kingdom is later than dated.

"Anyway, using the halflife obtained from oldest objects, I would date one from 2242 years ago to 2832 years ago."

Correction, after extracting the most relevant parts, of this last table, I am left with following:

177 158 164 158 161 158 155 153 152 151 147 146 146 145 140

354 317 328 316 323 316 311 307 304 301 293 292 291 290 280

531 476 492 474 484 473 466 460 456 452 440 438 437 435 420

708 634 656 632 646 631 621 613 608 603 586 584 582 580 560

885 792 820 790 807 789 776 767 759 754 733 730 728 725 701

1062 951 984 948 968 947 932 920 911 904 879 876 873 871 841

XV ? 1110 1148 1106 1130 1105 1087 1074 1063 1055 1026 1022 1019 1016 980

1416 1268 1312 1264 1291 1263 1242 1227 1215 1206 1172 1168 1164 1161 1121

1593 1426 1476 1422 1453 1420 1398 1380 1367 1356 1319 1314 1310 1306 1261

1770 1585 1640 1580 1614 1578 1553 1534 1519 1507 1465 1460 1455 1451 1401

1947 1744 1804 1738 1775 1736 1708 1687 1671 1658 1612 1606 1601 1596 1541

2124 1902 1968 1896 1937 1894 1863 1840 1823 1808 1759 1752 1746 1741 1681

2301 2060 2132 2054 2098 2052 2019 1994 1975 1959 1905 1898 1892 1887 1822

2478 2219 2296 2212 2260 2210 2174 2147 2126 2109 2052 2044 2038 2032 1962

2655 2378 2460 2370 2421 2367 2329 2301 2278 2260 2198 2190 2183 2177 2102

2242 [227 av.J.C., daté comme min. 227, maxim 817 av. J.C., Âge Moyen 436 av. J.C.]
2832 2536 2624 2528 2582 2525 2485 2454 2430 2411 2345 2336 2329 2322 2242

In other words, since "dated age" right under real age to the left is using half life from latest dated age (177=177), and since last of "dated ages" is using half life from last of these (2242=2242 years ago), this means that of we were now just 45.7% of stable, any half life obtained by more recent datings would be giving us too old datings for less recent datings, and any half life from older datings will give the more recent datings too young an age.

Could this be what was happening to the Egyptologist? 

"how can you use RD as a resource"

Now, it is true that RD has less pre-publishing peer review than NG or sth, but it is also true that RD tends to have a flair on what are acceptable and non-acceptable bets for quoting from well known magazines like NG.

When it comes to wikipedia, it has more post-publishing review per article than either of above. And it is post-publishing peer review which tends to correct the mistakes.

Let's not be fooled by socially accepted "value stamps" on certain media.

J. P. Dawson - phone number, I can't test. Testing mail takes some time. The sites and are down. There may be back ups for principal pages on wayback machine, but there is no back up I could find to content in articles.

Potassium Argon dating is a pure joke.**

Some of the facts you mentioned before were not carbon and perhaps not even Ka-Ar, like Moon Rocks. Some which were carbon could be explained either by reservoir effect (imagine you consistently ate wheat which was several thousand years old, from Harappa or Jericho - your C14 would sink after a while), which accounts for mollusks, penguins eating such, snail living in similar vicinity to much calcium carbonate with much old carbon. Or, other option which I forgot before finishing the sentence, by rising C14 levels and mathematic appearance of inconsistent half life.

But in closer range, and even in long range once you make allowance for rising levels, you can make some sence (outside forgeries) of carbo dates, including by systematic squeezing as per my table or Tas Walker's.

For potassium argon dating, no such making sense seems even possible.

The problems with potassium argon - and there come lots of late millions or hundred thousands of years - are immensely huger than with C14.

* T. Säve-Söderbergh & I. U. Olsson "C-14 dating and Egyptian chronology in Radiocarbon Variations and Absolute Chronology" Proceedings of the twelfth Nobel Symposium, New York 1970, p.35

** For those not knowing why I agree with Kent Hovind here, I refer to CMI

CMI : How do you date a New Zealand volcano?
by Robert Doolan

and CMI : ‘I got excited at Mount St Helens!’
by Ken Ham