Monday, September 19, 2022

So Far Confirming my Theories

Before you watch this video, and read the few comments I put under it (replicated under the link to it), some of you already know, some don't, that my theory of the Neanderthal and Denisovan extinction was, like Sapiens, they occurred as pre-Flood races, and the survivors on the Ark were mainly Sapiens, but one way to explain the Neanderthal admixture is, Noah's daughters in law or one of them, had a Neanderthal father but a Sapiens mother.

As she had her mitochondrial DNA from a Sapiens, we have no Neanderthal mitochondrial DNA (there could be one counterexample from Italy). As she was a woman, she did not inherit her Neanderthal father's Y chromosome.

And the Flood arrived, when the atmosphere had 1.4 percent modern Carbon (pmC) giving 35 000 extra years beyond the actual age of organic things from then. The carbon date from Gorham cave on Gibraltar at 24 000 BP is charcoal, from a fire not made by Neanderthals, but by post-Flood surviving relatives : the Neanderthal half breed in Noah's daughters in law is showing her family the Mousterian technique.

Here is the video, and it makes mince meat of some ideas on he Neanderthals, enumerating one after another the ideas of Sapiens superiority, and then refuting them:

Neanderthal Apocalypse | Full Science Documentary - Part 1
12th Sept. 2022 | Get.factual

[To new finds on Gibraltar:]

5:32 I am noting, the cave where Neanderthal bones might be getting unearthed as we watch, a campfire is carbon dated 47 000 BP.

[To Neanderthal "murder victim," though it could have been self defense or war, carbon date and cut by sharp and narrow weapon:]

18:59 Noting, a certain Neanderthal bone is carbon dated 40 - 50 000 BP.

20:00 Noting, as a YEC, iron is not off limits for the pre-Flood world ...

[To resumé leading up to next part:]

49:40 In the wrong place at the wrong time ... like not on the Ark that saved eight, mainly Sapiens with some slighter Neanderthal and Denisovan admixture?

Next video? May be upcoming. I am now subscribed to the channel, if it comes within a week from the first, this will be made more complete before publication.

No, because "the Ark" is a fairytale!

Hans-Georg Lundahl
@GorillaGuerilla🇺🇦 Would you mind telling me what community of people are taking Rapunzel as history?

You are aware that the Ark was considered history by the earliest audience of which we know the assessments?

Ah, here it is, on time!

A Super Volcano Killed the Neanderthals | Full Science Documentary - Part 2
19th Sept. 2022 | Get.factual

18:23 "forty thousand years ago, the Neanderthal's world is rapidly disappearing"

In the radiocarbon dating. This is why I take radiocarbon date 40 000 BP / 38 000 BC as carbon date for the Flood.

zipper pillow
Dude, nobody cares.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
@zipper pillow which is obviously why you care to answer, as well as two or three others doing so ... within less than a day since my comment - and posting them on my blog too.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
sorry, and within less than a day from my posting the comment, and others like it on my blog too.

22:38 And the dating of Lake Toba, which I consider to be part of eruptions during the Flood, is not by radiocarbon, so the date does not need to be the same.

What flood?

Hans-Georg Lundahl
@Kublaicarl One described in the Bible in chapters 7 to 8, occurred in 2957 BC according to the Biblical Chronology of the Historia Scholastica, also incorporated into the Roman Martyrology for Christmas Day (read during Midnight Mass), and for which I cast the appropriate carbon date as 39000 Before Present.

The Supervolcanos (mostly, not the Santorini or 1815 AD eruptions) erupted that year, the one which is carbon dated matches the carbon date I predicted : 40 000 BP - sorry, just 39 000 BP. I had to change my carbon 14 level in the atmosphere from 1.4 pmC to 1.628 pmC.

32:26 Aha ... I wonder how many super volcano calderas are simply from the Flood, the one mentioned in the Bible.

It could be all of them were. As far as I know.

Mount Tambora was obviously one of the calderas. And that eruption was in 1815 AD. That one's out.

33:11 Unlike Toba, this was carbon dated.

39 000 BP - like my carbon date for the Flood.

Except it's 1000 years off.

39 000 BP - 2000 AD = 37 000 BC
37 000 BC - 2957 BC = 34043 extra carbon years.

According to an Earth Science from Australia provided Carbon 14 Calculator, 34 043 years = 1.628 pmC.

I had put my level at 1.4 pmC.

So, you personally did carbon date "the Flood"? Citation? What peer-reviewed papers did you produce on the subject?

Hans-Georg Lundahl
@tbitfiddler I did not personally carbon date anything.

When I speak about "my carbon date for the Flood" I mean this : Creationists tend to disagree on what kind of uniformitarian dating corresponds to the Flood and when the post-Flood era begins in palaeontology and archaeology. My take is: 1) geologic era assignments mean nothing per se, unless you can show Ice age and Younger Dryas both being post-Flood; 2) volcanic magma dated by K-Ar is often from the Flood, or even typically, even if the K-Ar dates vary quite a lot. Tautavel man under K-Ar dated lava "300 000 years old" = Flood; Lucy under K-Ar dated lava dated "1 or 2 million years old" = Flood ... exceptions would be historic eruptions (some of which do date to 1 mill in the parts where the lava got under sufficient cold water), and eruptions tied to Ice age or Younger Dryas; 3) carbon dates are the interesting lot, and quite a lot of carbon dates ending in 40 000 BP (notably carbon dated Neanderthals and Denisovans) seem to be remains of pre-Flood populations.


From others? Well, this video for one and the part 1, no Neanderthal bones as yet shown from after 40 000 BP (carbon dated). Significantly (to me) the expert from Gibraltar dug up bones in a cave (not the very famous Gorham cave) and they were dated to sth a bit earlier than 40 000 BP (47 000 BP?) (unlike the charcoals in the Gorham cave).

"What peer-reviewed papers did you produce on the subject?"

As internet content producer I have produced a post based on my comments here and on part 1, which you, as a peer, also internet content producer, are right now reviewing.

I had however taken 40 000 BP (now corrected to 39 000 BP as per this video) as my carbon date for the Flood earlier, it can be seen in my latest update on my Biblical carbon 14 calibration, search "New Tables" + "creavsevolu" (with or without citation marks, whichever works best), and you get a post from 2020, after the confinement. This carbon date for real year 2957 BC (Flood year) is however also available on earlier calibration tables. Feel free to peer review that one too!

@Hans-Georg Lundahl Ah, some confusing choice of words then (the "my" part) - a suggestion is to be a bit more clear about that. In any case, I'm still in want of peer-reviewed papers about carbon-dated events related to "the Flood" - and by peer I don't mean people such as myself, I mean scientifically produced papers and research which have been re-tested and re-evaluated by other experts in the field.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
@tbitfiddler "a suggestion is to be a bit more clear about that."

I don't have to explain and double-explain and triple-explain every term that just possibly could be misunderstood, thanks to your intervention the post with these comments now contains the kind of clarification that you are asking for.

"I'm still in want of peer-reviewed papers about carbon-dated events related to 'the Flood' "

Did you miss the video this is under?

The other video?

They are about "last Neanderthals" and it so happens that "last Neanderthals" are people which I associate with the Flood.

They are also about a supervolcano, as mentioned I think nearly all of them actually went off at the same time, namely precisely the Flood. Now, this supervolcano was through the volcanic ash carbon dated to 39000 BP The other ones aren't carbon dated, so give no contradicting carbon date for the Flood.

That the Neanderthals in La Ferrassie and El Sidrón have carbon dates 40 000 BP is also from what you call peer reviewed papers.

Is your point everyone outside those publishing such (as contributors, peer reviewers and editors of magazines) should stop thinking at this point, think no further, draw no own conclusions? If so, you have basically made it.

37:28 Not precluding the possibility, the blasts for Mount Samsari (not carbon dated, therefore could be contemporaneos, as far as carbon dates are concerned) or for for Štiavnica Mountains could have same chemical profile if also from the Flood (which I think they would be), the 4 feet of ash in Romania 700 miles from Campi Flegrei would show a power to the eruption, which if multiplied during the Flood would be one explanation of why "the fountains of the deep" gave up their water.

Nathan Barber
The Flood? You mean the one from the Bible for which there is no geologic evidence?

Hans-Georg Lundahl
@Nathan Barber For which there is geologic evidence sorted into categories like Jurassic (like the Pterosaur at Anckerschlag in Tyrol) or Miocene (like the whale at Lienz, Upper Austria).

That being geologic evidence for the effects. And I didn't even mention the sediments, just the fossils, so far.

We have a geologic evidence in regards to the causes in most Supervolcanos.

The ones outside Campi Flegrei are not carbon dated, we cannot preclude that if carbon dated they would also date 39 000 BP, and they make great sense during the Flood, which was my point in the original comment.

Nathan Barber
@Hans-Georg Lundahl “The Flood” never happened, which is the point of my reply. It is a myth.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
@Nathan Barber 1) prove your allegation; 2) define "myth" - it's a word with more than one meaning.

Nathan Barber
@Hans-Georg Lundahl you’re the one claiming there was a Biblical flood. I think the burden of proof is on you, chap. My proof is that there is no geologic evidence of such an event. If it supposedly happened a few thousand years ago, why didn’t it kill all the people living in the Americas, Africa, Europe, Asia, and Australia at that time? Why don’t the myths from other religions describe the same event at the same time? Why don’t they tell the story of Noah?

Because it’s a myth. Grow up.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
@Nathan Barber "My proof is that there is no geologic evidence of such an event."

You skipped my answer to that one.

Evidence in fossils as effects, evidence in rock layers as effect, evidence in supervolcanos as causes, of which the only carbon dated one fits what's my carbon age for the Flood anyway.

"If it supposedly happened a few thousand years ago, why didn’t it kill all the people living in the Americas, Africa, Europe, Asia, and Australia at that time?"

It arguably did kill quite a lot of people living in Europe and Asia at the time : Neanderthals, Denisovans-Heidelbergians-Antecessors (the Denisovan and Neanderthal additions to our genome arguably came from Spain where both Antecessors in Atapuerca and Neanderthals in Gibraltar, but not Gorham cave have been found).

Australia and Americas had no people in carbon dated 39 000 BP.

"Why don’t the myths from other religions describe the same event at the same time? Why don’t they tell the story of Noah?"

They do with more or less variation in detail (Hindus have placed it 10 000 years before the death of Krishna which was actually a pre-Flood event, along with Rama's recovering his wife, which was an early post-Flood one, to give an illusion of continuity between their own society and Krishna's). And for the record, the one area where many variations are to be expected is chronology. German legend has one battle of Ravenna, with Theoderic of Verona against Ermaneric. There were two battles of Ravenna, and the one with Ermaneric was in the century previous to the one with Theoderic.

@Nathan Barber PS, once again you appealed to the word "myth" without duly defining it!

Danny Brown
@Hans-Georg Lundahl you DON'T Carbon date a volcanic rock...rockhead

Hans-Georg Lundahl
@Danny Brown It appears, some Volcanic ash contains some kind of carbon datable material.

Not lava. Ash.

Danny Brown
@Hans-Georg Lundahl prove...a negative...come on

Danny Brown
@Nathan Barber you loose can't reason with faith. It is not logical. If you show PROOF then you destroy foundation

Hans-Georg Lundahl
@Danny Brown You are wrong on the definition of faith.

You are also wrong on the distinction between lava and volcanic ash, thinking there isn't any.

Lava is what came from when it was magma in the innards of the earth, or at least of the mantle, and it does not contain organic material and cannot be carbon dated.

Ash is what things - including organic things - burn down to when a lava flow burns them to ashes.

[Saving my comments under 42:11 and 43:29 for last, since they are part of my case, in proving my point, or allowing others to disprove it.]

45:39 Obviously, the eruption of Yellowstone at another date than carbon dated 39 000 BP (or historically dated 2957 BC) is potentially due to the dating method not being carbon dates.

LauraJane LuvsBeauty
Yes, that has bothered me in this series because they keep saying they carbon dated things that just can’t be carbon dated! Only things that were living can be carbon dated

Hans-Georg Lundahl
@LauraJane LuvsBeauty Volcanic ash and lava are two different things. When a lava flow burns up lots and lots of living things, that gives volcanic ash, and volcanic ash can be carbon dated.

42:11 Have any Neanderthal skeleta from the region (anything in Neanderthal country outside Pyrenees or Central Asia) been found with traces of fluorine poisoning?

Because, if I am right, and this was in the Flood, they would all drown well before having time to get fluorine into their system, even by the air they breathe.

43:29 As said - on Gibraltar, how many Neanderthal skeleta or parts of such or teeth have been:
a) found?
b) dated to more recent than 39 000 BP in carbon dates?

The carbon date for Goreham Cave 24 000 BP is from a fire. It is the carbon of firewood, not of human bones.

So, if a Neanderthal were found in a cave of Gibraltar and carbon dated to 25 000 BP, that would refute my theory - unless it were a fraud. But so far, I don't know of any that did so date.

Case in point. A skeleton dated to "31,000 BP" when found (before carbon dating) and now redated to "Aurignacian, part of the Upper Paleolithic period (roughly 43,000 to 26,000 years ago)" is qualified as "one of the oldest Homo sapiens found in Europe." - Story on LiveScience, here. And the wiki states: "Direct AMS dating of the human fossils from Mladeč yielded uncalibrated dates of around 31,190 BP for Mladeč 1, 31,320 BP for Mladeč 2, 30,680 BP for Mladeč 8 and 26,330 BP for Mladeč 25c." - The reference is: Wild, Eva M.; et al. (2006). "Chapter 7: 14C dating of early Upper Palaeolithic human and faunal remains from Mladecˇ". In Teschler-Nicola, Maria (ed.). Early Modern Humans at the Moravian Gate: The Mladecˇ Caves and their Remains. Springer-Verlag. ISBN 978-3-211-23588-1.

No comments: