Monday, July 31, 2023

Kayleigh Presenting Oregon

18,250 Year Old Evidence Human Occupation In Oregon, North America
History with Kayleigh, 31.VII.2023

A carbon date for 16,250 BC would be very close to the actual year 2800 BC, according to my tables. The ones on "New Tables"* which I will here give the entry from:

2800 B. Chr.
0.198337 pmC/100, so dated as 16 150 B. Chr.

By B. Chr. I mean BC, by 0.198337 pmC/100 I mean 19.8337 pmC, and I mean that is not what the thing was found with, but what it had, from the atmosphere back in 2800 BC, near 160 years after the Flood.

3:14 Wait, is the date actually an argon date?

If so, it's not very trustworthy.

Ah, no, wonderful. Actual carbon dates!

2:25 The carbon date 35 000 BC is less than 20 years after the Flood.

2957 B. Chr. (= Flood year)
0.012788 pmC/100, so dated as 38 957 B. Chr.
2935 B. Chr.
0.039541 pmC/100, so dated as 29 635 B. Chr.

Similar observations of what this means and where this is from apply.

I recall from the video that no human bones were found, at least at the carbon date 35 000 BC, which is how it should be. People weren't dying that soon after the Flood.

2:38 Whitesands, 23 000 years old = carbon dated 21 000 BC. Between 2890 and 2867 BC.

2890 B. Chr.
0.09274 pmC/100, so dated as 22 540 B. Chr.
2867 B. Chr.
0.119246 pmC/100, so dated as 20 467 B. Chr.

4:39 Paisley Cave coprolites, 14 200 YA = 12 200 BC, presumably carbon = c. 2700 BC.

2711 B. Chr.
0.302799 pmC/100, so dated as 12 611 B. Chr.
2688 B. Chr.
0.328739 pmC/100, so dated as 11 888 B. Chr.

5:05 Sloth bones, Brazil, 27 000 YA = 25 000 BC. And that's close to real 2900 BC, 57 years after the Flood. Those sloth bones, I presume, also involve no human bones, so do not show men dying 57 years after the Flood, if my carbon table is correct?

2912 B. Chr.
0.066161 pmC/100, so dated as 25 362 B. Chr.
2890 B. Chr.
0.09274 pmC/100, so dated as 22 540 B. Chr.

Can Dui
Bible thumping is unpopular on the internet.

Hans Georg Lundahl
@candui7278 Yeah, ok, stating there was a Flood can come off as "Bible thumping" to some, but is that all you can come up with when I have actual solutions regarding the carbon dates?

6:30 "extremely careful, due to the pushback they will receive when announcing such an old date ..."

You mean there is some kind of peer pressure in the scientific community?

That it even hampers willingness to speak up?

Hmmm ... would you say that the existing peer pressures, right now, would favour evolutionism or young earth creationism?

Veel bedankt!
Het was heel leuk!

* Creation vs. Evolution : New Tables

No comments: