More on Anthropology

... on Anthropology concurring with Noah's Flood (a refutation of AronRa) · More on Anthropology

Remember this video?

How Anthropology Disproves Noah's Flood
AronRa
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BitwnxiPH34

Well, I got some debate under one of my comments there! It will also involve commenting on another video.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

9:14 "none of these should exist"

Not the young Earth creationist view of them.

Lucy, Arti = apes. [I meant Ardi, sorry!]

Homo erectus (or most of, Peking man and Java man dubious), Heidelbergensis, Neanderthalensis, Denisovan and Sapiens Sapiens = human, descended from Adam.

But you might be coming to a defense of the implication, waiting ...

9:27 When exactly did we Creationists say that Homo erectus cannot exist?

Especially all of us?

Velo Ciraptor

You should check out another video he did regarding the classification of different human species with regards to evolutionary ancestry. It seems that the actual science does not imply such a hard and fast division as your comment implies:

(https://www.youtube .com/watch?v=IzuKlZf1qXU)

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Will see.

About 5:22 in it.

I have seen:

• 1) generalities and an explanation, not specifics about how it applies between Australopithecus and Homo even according to evolutionists and no proof it does so apply;
• 2) beginning an application on Homo Sapiens and Homo Neanderthalensis or Homo Sapiens Sapiens and Homo Sapiens Neanderthalensis, as others have claimed, when most YEC anyway, including me, at least those I know of, think that Neaderthals were anyway human, were anyway descending from Adam.

Speaking of Neanderthals, the last Neanderthals disappearing c. 40 000 BP or 39 000 BP fits Noah's Flood very well, if carbon content was low enough back in 2957 BC or 3358 BC when the Flood was (St Jerome's or George Syncellus' Biblical chronologies). No Neanderthal mitochondrial DNA and no Neanderthal chromosome Y DNA surviving would suggest that for instance the wife of Japheth had Neanderthal heritage on her father's side. Since she was a she, no transmitting of chromosome Y through her, since her Neanderthal parent was not her mother, no transmitting of mitochondrial DNA of Neaderthal type through her either.

About 9:28 into it, Leakey has written to say YECs are quote miners, and Homo florensis shows traits not found in Homo erectus, but in australopithecus.

The former is not to the subject.

The latter, well, those traits could be because Homo florensis is ... sorry, floresiensis! ... is exactly one individual who could have a bone disease.

Velo Ciraptor

+Hans-Georg Lundahl So I am not entirely sure what it is you are objecting too because you seem to just be throwing out bald ass assertions. In speaking of Young Earth Creationism you are simply wrong. The entire argument is that if God created human beings in their current form then we should not see any evolutionary lineage of non-human primates or hominids developing into homo sapiens. If you are willing to grant the concession that populations of organisms neither chimpanzee nor human diverged over "time" into what we see today as two distinct species of ape (with of course a large number of transitional species in between) then I can agree with you. But it is not clear that you actually understand the science that is being discussed.

For instance when you say "generalities and an explanation, not specifics about how it applies between Australopithecus and Homo" I cannot believe that you actually watched this video. Maybe you just could not wait to actually see what he has to say because at the 10:24 mark he clearly explains what he is talking about with regards to Australopithecus afarensis having hands, teeth, feet and brain capacity (not to mention many other traits) halfway between chimpanzee and human. Specifically just to look at brain capacity you can draw a strait line between the brain capacity of Australopithecus and that of modern humans.

(http://darwiniana.org/hominid.htm)

But putting aside the strange assertions you made about what would or would not be compatible with your interpretation of an impossible story you also seem to simply be not aware of the facts in science. When you say "Homo florensis is ... sorry, floresiensis! ... is exactly one individual who could have a bone disease" that is simply false. Full stop. Not only does the chart in the video that AronRa made show this to be false (it lists 8 individuals at the time) but we currently have found bones and teeth from 12 individuals including nearly complete skeletons. So all I can say is where are you getting your information, because it seems to be completely incorrect?

(http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/human-fossils/species/homo-floresiensis)

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"So I am not entirely sure what it is you are objecting too because you seem to just be throwing out bald ass assertions."

I don't know where you get that impression from.

Maybe because there were nine hobbits? Well, ok, first check I found one, then I found another saying nine.

Or because I said the non-human traits could be due to a bone disease? That is not an assertion, it is a suggestion.

"In speaking of Young Earth Creationism you are simply wrong."

I think someone was speaking about bold assertions?

"The entire argument is that if God created human beings in their current form then we should not see any evolutionary lineage of non-human primates or hominids developing into homo sapiens."

• 1) But we do not see an evolutionary lineage developing into Homo sapiens! That mirage is due to mistaken datings. Carbon dates can be squeezed, but K-Ar dates should be just discarded. In layers which seem to be from before the Flood, we do see both Neaderthals and Cro-Magnon carbon dated to c. 40 000 BP. We cannot by carbon dates say which is earlier. If we presume the lineage of Noah was pure, Adam was probably closer to Cro-Magnon than to Neanderthal, but Neanderthals can't have been too badly tainted by Nephelim either.
• 2) What is true is that you say we should not see an evolutionary lineage, and discarding the K-Ar dates, we don't. What remains untrue is what AronRa said that the skeleta found should not have been found. You are attributing to AronRa a clarity of thought and expression which is your own, not his.

"If you are willing to grant the concession that populations of organisms neither chimpanzee nor human diverged over "time" into what we see today as two distinct species of ape (with of course a large number of transitional species in between) then I can agree with you."

I disagree.

I understand what diverging groups mean, but I disagree on man and chimp being two such from common ancestor.

"But it is not clear that you actually understand the science that is being discussed."

Meaning I disagree with your pseudo-science, of course.

"For instance when you say "generalities and an explanation, not specifics about how it applies between Australopithecus and Homo" I cannot believe that you actually watched this video. Maybe you just could not wait to actually see what he has to say because at the 10:24 mark ..."

I actually marked my comment with 5:22 for a reason. On that video, I commented about his allegation. For instance, if we had Australipetheci afarenses with feet, why is "their" bipedalism being investigated by Laetoli footprints, which analyse as from larger individuals than Lucy and which don't tie to any skeleta? On my view, the Laetoli footprints could be from flood and from a man not remotely like an A. afarensis. And obviously the main argument against this being a dating of them to "before H. sapiens", this dating is however K-Ar, i e fairly bogus.

"he clearly explains what he is talking about with regards to Australopithecus afarensis having hands, teeth, feet and brain capacity (not to mention many other traits) halfway between chimpanzee and human. Specifically just to look at brain capacity you can draw a strait line between the brain capacity of Australopithecus and that of modern humans."

Brain capacity is hardly an argument for evolution by itself, and the "straight line" is only such one if you accept the dates.

"But putting aside the strange assertions you made about what would or would not be compatible with your interpretation of an impossible story you also seem to simply be not aware of the facts in science. When you say "Homo florensis is ... sorry, floresiensis! ... is exactly one individual who could have a bone disease" that is simply false. Full stop. Not only does the chart in the video that AronRa made show this to be false (it lists 8 individuals at the time) but we currently have found bones and teeth from 12 individuals including nearly complete skeletons. So all I can say is where are you getting your information, because it seems to be completely incorrect?"

I took first link I found when answering, since answering in haste.

I then corrected it in a comment under that video, though I had not yet found 12 individuals, just 9.

Will look up links, though.

Looking at first link, I verified for A. africanus and afarensis.

I found Laetoli footprints, as expected.

I also found for "early afarensis" a postcranial skeleton of a child. That would imply, with feet. However, post-cranial would also imply there was no Lucy-like skull. You would supply that due to "millions of years" before any H. sapientes or even Neanderathelenses, erecti or antecessores. As per K-Ar dating. As I reject that dating, I find this argument spurious and consider the Laetoli child could have been a human child, pre-Flood, perhaps decapitated in a cannibalistic rite ("all flesh had corrputed its way over earth", Genesis 6:12).

In africanus, the bipedalism was only "proven" by bones other than feet. I wonder how many of them have clearly Australopithecus skulls attached.

Here are the sublinks I looked at, take a look if I overlooked anything:

http://archaeologyinfo.com/australopithecus-afarensis/

http://archaeologyinfo.com/australopithecus-africanus/

Your second link actually only links to one fossil of H. floresiensis, and this may be responsible for some other sites being run by someone on impression we only have one.

And now

over to the other video:

Clarifying the various Human Species
AronRa
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IzuKlZf1qXU

1:23

Raquel Welch ... One Million B.C., right?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_Million_Years_B.C.

Forgot the word "Years" in the newer title.

9:00

Leakey : "There are some things best ignored and the stupidity of these so called religious fanatics continues to astonish me."

Could this have given Leakey a motive to suppress the PBS documentary?

Leakey: "My list of publications is attached."

I suppose it did not include that documentary?

[Leakey cited as per typed letter in picture 2 below, confer the citation in picture 1, which AronRa set out to verify with him:]

9:40

You claim that A. Afarensis has been found 100's of individuals of ...

Here is a French site which seems to ignore that:

http://www.hominides.com/html/ancetres/ancetres_australo.php

And it's not creationist.

You also claim some of them have feet.

Well, news for you, perhaps, but "David Raichlen (Université de l'Arizona, département d'anthropologie)" based his study of A. Afarensis bipedalism on Laetoli footprints :

http://www.hominides.com/html/actualites/bipedie-comparaison-traces-laetoli-0290.php

On which a creationist would disagree with dating of, obviously, and say they are from the Flood. As I do here:

http://creavsevolu.blogspot.fr/2016/12/human-ancestor-or-human-during-flood.html

If you know of one or more definite skeleta attributed to A. Afarensis and found with all or sufficient footbones, how about sharing a link, instead of just saying so, no offense!

Updates

Continuing the dialogue with Velo Ciraptor.

Velo Ciraptor

+Hans-Georg Lundahl So first I want to thank you for this conversation. All to often these exchanges devolve into "You're an Asshole! No, you're an Asshole..." so it is pleasant to have a respectful back and forth. I am also pleased that you are not above correcting yourself (nor should anyone be) and I hope that I can help present information that may change your perspective. Either way I am enjoying this conversation so let us continue.

To begin I would say that you may want to spend a little more time researching information before you form a conclusion. It is my perception from our conversation so far that you have been very ill informed on these subjects. I would guess that this may be the result from your relying upon the writings of creationist apologetics or creationist websites. As an actual scientist (I have a lab coat and everything, lol) who spent seven years studying biology in college including three studying evolution at the graduate level I can say that such sources of information are uniformly terrible. Many such people actively lie to others and they do not seem to care how many times such lies are refuted. This leads to honest people being exposed to information that they believe to be accurate and therefor making them unintentional liars (because repeating a lie is still lying).

Now I am not trying to suggest that you are being intentionally dishonest but your reply was a little confusing because it seems that you stopped midway and checked the citations that I provided. So just to clear things up real quick when you previously said "Homo florensis is ... sorry, floresiensis! ... is exactly one individual who could have a bone disease" you seem to understand that this is false. Simply to be factual we have found the remains of 12 individuals but now you are hedging by saying in your last replies:

"Your second link actually only links to one fossil of H. floresiensis, and this may be responsible for some other sites being run by someone on impression we only have one."

Again, I do not care that "other sites being run by someone" may have misunderstood the science. You are the one making definitive claims based upon "other sites being run by someone" so maybe you should take more care in coming to a conclusion. But I deny your implication because you added the qualifier "who could have a bone disease". Why did you think that? Why did you think that it was a possibility? The truth is that some creationist apologist told you that and you repeated it without understanding the actual evidence available. Simply put it could not be that any individual "who could have a bone disease" is the result of our classification of H. floresiensis because that would mean 12 individuals had the same presentation of the same bone disease. But you might say How can I claim such a thing? Well, the truth is that particular argument was first presented against Homo neanderthalensis where some creationist apologists still claim that Neanderthal is just one old human with arthritis (despite the fact that we have found over 300 Neanderthal individuals including 3 year old children).

So you made a mistake with H. floresiensis and you admitted as much so I must say first "thank you" and that I respect you for admitting that you were misled. But your errors do not seem to be limited to H. floresiensis because you are making other claims about our hominid ancestors including:

"if we had Australipetheci afarenses with feet, why is "their" bipedalism being investigated by Laetoli footprints"
and
"In africanus, the bipedalism was only "proven" by bones other than feet"

Now to quickly answer the question about the "Laetoli footprints" Australopithecus afarensis fossils were found in the same sediment layer (no dating needed) so it is an inference that they made the footprints and more importantly there is a difference between looking at bones and seeing actual footprints. Data is always useful so I do not really understand why you would object to a conclusion merely because it is indirect or circumstantial evidence. That would be like saying "Yeah, the accused criminals fingerprints were on the murder weapon, but no one saw the murder happen so why are you bringing it up at trial"?

Secondly why do you think that bipedalism need only be investigated using foot bones? Do you think that the only bones affected by walking upright? For instance why would not the leg, knee, or pelvis bones not also be useful in determining bipedalism? But merely again to factually correct you we do in fact have foot bones from both Australopithecus africanus and Australopithecus afarensis. The famous Lucy skeleton did have two toe bones but other skeletons of Australopithecus have been found including nearly complete skeletons from both lineages. So not only is your argument not correct with regards to how we determine bipedalism but it is factually incorrect as well. It seems you may want to do a little more research on this...

(http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/human-fossils/species/australopithecus-africanus)
(http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/human-fossils/species/australopithecus-afarensis)

+Hans-Georg Lundahl Second reply to address your actual comment.

I think it is clear that we have a fundamental disagreement about the efficacy of radiometric dating and more importantly the concept of Deep Time in geology. I want to address this and another point you raised but I do not want to seem insincere. For the first part of my reply I am going to simply cede the issue for the purpose of addressing a comment you made. I do not want you to think that I am talking out of both sides of my mouth because there will be a clear switch in the scope of my discussion. So just to be clear in my argumentation:

• 1) You said in your comment "But we do not see an evolutionary lineage developing into Homo sapiens!" and I really do not understand how you can say such a thing. It seems that you are deeply ignorant of science or relying upon some very bad sources of information. Part of my questioning in this conversation has been to ask where you are getting this false information. We already established that you were under dome false pretenses regarding the number of certain hominid fossil specimens. I am not trying to suggest that you can't have an opinion without being a PhD anthropologist (my educational background is in Evolutionary Ecology) but it seems that you are making claims contrary to the facts of science.
  
  So as I mentioned in my prologue (lol) let's just throw out the radiometric dating for this part of the discussion. Let's take a box of old bones, shake them up and say we do not know from what time they came. You still would not have an argument. We still would have an array of fossils from organisms with different sets of characteristics. We would see obvious human specimens and those that were nearly humans of today (like archaic homo sapiens) but then we would have other apes that we could not call humans. We would have an array of organisms that as I mentioned before could be laid out on a table by eyesight along to match what we propose as an evolutionary lineage.
  
  As i mentioned from brain capacity alone we can draw a strait line from the supposedly more ancient hominids to humans. And when you say "Brain capacity is hardly an argument for evolution by itself..." that makes no sense because I did not offer only brain capacity. I specifically said:
  
  "...at the 10:24 mark he clearly explains what he is talking about with regards to Australopithecus afarensis having hands, teeth, feet and brain capacity (not to mention many other traits) halfway between chimpanzee and human."
  
  So when you say that this is tied to dating you are again simply wrong. All we need is to examine extant chimpanzees and extant humans and compare them to Australopithecus afarensis and see an intermediate in all those listed characteristics. All this is without any date or time assumed or asserted. We would still have more than enough evidence to confirm human evolutionary lineage from the simple existence of the fossils alone. But then we can add to that bio-geography. When you say "we do see both Neaderthals and Cro-Magnon carbon dated to c. 40 000 BP" why is that a problem? Not only did we humans live at the same time as Neanderthals but many of the hominid species lived together. We can actually find fossils of different hominid species in the same layers of rocks (compared by chemical tests alone, no time asserted).
  
  In fact we can see a branching development from simply the fossil finds and the key problem with your proposed solution is that there are no humans anywhere. You seem to be asserted without saying it that humans are just in hiding. We can find H. neanderthalensis and H. erectus together in the same geological layers. We can find Au. afarensis and Ar. ramidus in the same geological time frame again from only the chemical layering. But oddly enough we never find Neanderthals with Ar. ramidus or Homo sapiens anywhere besides where we would expect to find them in the geological column with regards to an evolutionary lineage. So are they just missing? Is there just an impossibly precise set of conditions that preserved all there hominids (many of whom were nearly human in their traits) but somehow magically failed to preserve any human remains at all? I mean 100% no evidence at all?
  
  And then to this we add the genetic evidence that clearly and without any doubt confirms what the fossil evidence, comparative anatomy, and bio-geography indicates. From multiple independent lines of evidence all without even going near radiometric dating we have overwhelming evidence that human beings, chimpanzees, and all other hominid species share an evolutionary lineage. So where exactly is the point where any of this becomes as you suggested "pseudo-science"?
  
  
• 2) On this point I want to address the issue you have with dating and probably the concept of deep time. Again and again you simply throw in a reference to the "flood" or the adam and eve mythology. I do not understand why you think any of these concepts are even remotely possible with regards to the scientific evidence we have today. Why are you so quick to throw out all different methods of radiometric dating? You dismiss K-Ar dating but you do not say why it should be thrown out? What about the myriad other methods of radiometric dating that independently confirm the timescales that science purposes?
  
  (http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD010.html)
  
  More importantly I want to take this back to a question I have raised a few times and so far I do not think you have answered. Why do you think these things about scientific understandings of nature? What has led you to reject what over 99% of all geologists accept about the earth and over 99% of physicists accept about the fundamental nature of radioactive isotopes? Perhaps more to the point is this question (and please also address the second part):
  
  What do you think is the age of the earth and how did you arrive at this answer?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Starting :

"It is my perception from our conversation so far that you have been very ill informed on these subjects. I would guess that this may be the result from your relying upon the writings of creationist apologetics or creationist websites."

I was actually reading a book on anthropology ahead of my age before going creationist at ten, and try to keep up with new fossils and skeleta.

"As an actual scientist (I have a lab coat and everything, lol) who spent seven years studying biology in college including three studying evolution at the graduate level I can say that such sources of information are uniformly terrible."

As an avid reader of them, I can tell you some of your seven years of biology were misspent in your listening to your professor's resumé of some creationist argument or other and his irony and not looking into if your professor might be the misinformed one.

"Many such people actively lie to others and they do not seem to care how many times such lies are refuted."

When it comes to carbon dating, I think quite a lot on your side are lying too.

In 2015, on campus ground at Nanterre University after library closed, I had a conversation in which it was claimed the rise in carbon 14 levels needed to explain the carbon datings as resulting from real dates within a Biblical chronology would be a nuclear disaster blowing off vertebrate life off earth.

I did tables about the rise, and concluded on my best table that if C14 production mainly results from cosmic and not background radiation, if cosmic radiation is now 0.34 or sth annual milliSieverts, even a twenty times higher cosmic radiation, (more than I'd need for my latest tables, which leave more room for the rise between Flood and Babel), would still not be as great a radiation as the highest total backgroud radiations now registered on earth. Check out total background at Princeton!

I did 10 essays on a blog involving these tables, I even did print outs to make self printed books of them, and up to now I am just being ignored.

So, lying and repeating a lie after being refuted is certainly done on your side too.

"Simply to be factual we have found the remains of 12 individuals but now you are hedging by saying in your last replies:"

It was not hedging in, simply explaining that the mistake about one individual was from earlier than myself in the line of information.

"But I deny your implication because you added the qualifier "who could have a bone disease". Why did you think that? Why did you think that it was a possibility? The truth is that some creationist apologist told you that and you repeated it without understanding the actual evidence available. Simply put it could not be that any individual "who could have a bone disease" is the result of our classification of H. floresiensis because that would mean 12 individuals had the same presentation of the same bone disease."

Indeed, bone disease is one explanation I found on creation.com when looking Flores Hobbit up there.

If hereditary, even 12 individuals, i e a population starting with it, leading to those 12 and more besides, is possible.

"Well, the truth is that particular argument was first presented against Homo neanderthalensis where some creationist apologists still claim that Neanderthal is just one old human with arthritis (despite the fact that we have found over 300 Neanderthal individuals including 3 year old children)."

It seems the original Neanderthal may have had arthritis, though.

Neanderthals are now depicted otherwise than before, less hunchbacked.

BBL

"Now to quickly answer the question about the "Laetoli footprints" Australopithecus afarensis fossils were found in the same sediment layer (no dating needed) so it is an inference that they made the footprints and more importantly there is a difference between looking at bones and seeing actual footprints. Data is always useful so I do not really understand why you would object to a conclusion merely because it is indirect or circumstantial evidence. That would be like saying "Yeah, the accused criminals fingerprints were on the murder weapon, but no one saw the murder happen so why are you bringing it up at trial"?"

In my view, both foot prints and Australopithecus fossils could have been from same period (Flood, 2957 BC or 3358 BC) without being from same creature.

Unless I see upcoming one fossil with human feet and australopithecus head, in which case I will modify and go back to my teen theory, these were original trolls or orcs, some nephelim brood.

"But merely again to factually correct you we do in fact have foot bones from both Australopithecus africanus and Australopithecus afarensis."

A link with one clearly Australopithecus head and one clearly whole human or near human foot would be great.

Will look up the two links later.

"We would have an array of organisms that as I mentioned before could be laid out on a table by eyesight along to match what we propose as an evolutionary lineage."

I am actually going through, one by one, the skulls on photo on Smithsonian site.

Not yet done.

An apparent series with no time involves no proof of a lineage going one way or the other.

"When you say "we do see both Neanderthals and Cro-Magnon carbon dated to c. 40 000 BP" why is that a problem?"

I am not saying this is a problem. It is an asset for my theory, and last carbon dated Neanderthals give a carbon date for the time of the Flood (40 000 BP, corresponding to historic 2957 BC or 3358 BC).

Cro-Magnon would be Sethite line, same lineage as between Adam and Noah, Neanderthals would be related to probably Japheth's wife.

I take it up because it is an asset to my own theory. Not a problem for your theory, but perhaps for your line of proof.

BBL

Back again:

"Not only did we humans live at the same time as Neanderthals but many of the hominid species lived together. We can actually find fossils of different hominid species in the same layers of rocks (compared by chemical tests alone, no time asserted)."

With chemical, I presume you mean radioactive dating.

K-Ar is fairly worthless on my view (the one thing I did understand of creationist argumentation very well is : you can't really exclude excess argon, as you claim yourself when confronted with Mt St Helen's).

Carbon 14 is another story. I'd love to have carbon dates for all H. erectus and heidelbergenses, which I am sure are (most samples) men, but they are routinely not carbon dated, like dinosaurs are routinely not carbon dated.

My main hunch is that heidelbergensis, erectus and antecessor were pre-Flood races and therefore last of them (with different K-Ar dates depending on different amounts on excess argon, depending presumably on peripeties of lava flows) coming from Flood of Noah.

But if you showed me an erectus or antecessor getting a c a r b o n date of 20 000 BP, to me that would prove he was post-Flood, and so I might have to reassess parts of my pre- vs post-Flood distinctions in physical or anatomical anthropology. Again, if they had genetics tested to see if mitochondriae or Y-chromosomes are like ours (post-Flood) or like those of Neanderthals (presumably pre-Flood) or third (presumably also pre-Flood), I'd like to know.

"In fact we can see a branching development from simply the fossil finds and the key problem with your proposed solution is that there are no humans anywhere."

I take it a Homo habilis, whether human or not, argon dated to 1.8 million BP could very easily be contemporary to a Cro-Magnon carbon dated to 50 000 BP, since these are different methods leading to different types of error. A carbon date of 50 000 BP to me means either pre-Flood or survived to Flood, at latest. But an argon date of 1.8 million years would tell me more (once the experiments are done, next eruption) of lava flow than of time lapsed since eruptions. So it does not per se even tell me if it is a pre- or a post-Flood man.

You on your hand would take these as both being reliable methods, and as giving clearly diverse times and of the fossils as thereby being marked as non-contemporary. I don't buy that. To me the Laetoli footprints could easily have been made by a man looking Cro-Magnonish even if found close to an ape looking Austrolopithecish. Or, if Australopitheci could be proven to have had human feet, an orc looking Australopithecish.

"Again and again you simply throw in a reference to the "flood" or the adam and eve mythology. I do not understand why you think any of these concepts are even remotely possible with regards to the scientific evidence we have today."

I take history as a superior way of knowing the past over reconstruction.

"Why are you so quick to throw out all different methods of radiometric dating?"

I am not, with carbon 14 I am not throwing out, I am recalibrating.

"You dismiss K-Ar dating but you do not say why it should be thrown out?"

• 1) excess argon ("only an issue with recent eruptions", but first prove the eruptions you are "measuring" age of at Laetoli were not recent)
• 2) difficulty of assessing so slow a half life by lab tests.

For carbon 14 we can predict from a halflife of 5730 years that an object 2000 years old should have 78.511 % remaining carbon as compared to present proportion of C14 to C12 in atmosphere. But you have objects that are historically reliably dated to 2000 years ago, and they do show carbon content around 78.511 pmc. This confirms BOTH halflife AND the carbon content being comparable to present one as early as 2000 years ago, so, a YEC would have to set most of carbon rise between Flood and a few centuries before Christ.

But how "long ago" is an eruption if 78.511 % of the potassium is left and 21.5 % (c.) has turned to argon? Presumably on your (=mainstream scientific) view "pre-historic" = not confirmable by history. Even if excess argon were no issue.

"What do you think is the age of the earth and how did you arrive at this answer?"

• 1) Creation 5199 BC or 5500 BC or 5508 BC (St Jerome/Liturgy of Rome, Syncellus, Liturgy of Constantinople), Flood 2242 years later.
• 2) They arrived at it Ussher method, but using LXX text (St Jerome would have also had some other clue).
• 3) I think history is more reliable than reconstruction.

"What has led you to reject what over 99% of all geologists accept about the earth"

Back in the day of Steno, 100 % of geologists were YECs.

99% today, if even an accurate estimate, is due to fashions in methodology, like accepting reconstruction more than history, esp. if it involves miracles.

" and over 99% of physicists accept about the fundamental nature of radioactive isotopes?"

I am NOT rejecting what they accept about fundamental nature of radioactive isotopes!

If there is truly no lying on your side, if your professor did not lie to you about YECs, why are you the umpteenth or umpteen hundredth person bringing up this strawman?

I accept what they say about c14 isotope, but only add that c14 content has risen. I accept basics of what they say on potassium 40 (not sure about their halflife, as said), but there is the issue of excess argon.