Societal Change Out of Christendom, Started with Heliocentrism and Freemasonry

These Mysterious Figures REWROTE History in the West. I Can Prove It.
Answers in Genesis Canada | 13 June 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rlHEMK7Mn4Y

4:50 Case in point.

When a slave revolt in Louisiana was quenched very cruelly, with leaders tied to cannons and killed by the outgoing cannon balls, it was during La Régence. The son of a faggot (yes, homosexual men can marry and have children, and he was protected against legal consequences of his misdeeds) tried to make up for it by being ultra-macho and multiplying mistresses, and neglecting religion ... at least, that's the analyses that Warren H. Lewis, brother of a more famous author, made of his case.

In doing so, he flirted, very heavily, with freemasonry and enlightenment (misnomer, really) and that involved boosting racism.

Similar case in point, a few decades later. A real or purported descendant of Tupac Amaru, sometimes styled Tupac Amaru II, becomes the leader of a rising, "by the grace of God Inca" ... why was the rising necessary? I looked up the year, 1780. Yes, exactly, Carlos III was king of Spain, a lecher and adulterer who, when wounded by shrapnel by a male victim of cuckoldry took revenge on the Jesuits that he had confessed to.

Two royal governments totally opposed to Clovis' Baptism in Rheims and to the Reconquest of Spain.

Prior to these misrules, French had been fairly decent to Black Slaves, the Code des Noirs being meant as a protection against abuse, and Spain to the conquered peoples of the Americas.

Obviously, if you've seen Mission, you know the role of Pombal in making Portuguese colonies worse for the Guaraní. He had served as executing a whole family reacting against cuckoldry imposed by Joseph I of Portugal.

It may be noted, some feudal lords were pretty bad at respecting the chastity of peasant women, in Spain a revolt against this abuse had been successful, so the traditional norm wasn't to put up with it and then get a paycheck for it, it was that the culprit could be executed if put on trial. Similar point involved in El Alcalde de Zalamea.

The West’s Moral Collapse Isn’t Caused by What You Think
Answers in Genesis Canada | 19 June 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d7N6efJiZ9Y

Ideologically driven from its very conception.

True of Heliocentrism too.

They Planned the Destruction of Our Christian Values Hundreds of Years Ago
Answers in Genesis Canada | 26 June 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cwKzXCaUTd4

15:10 "Victorian" England?

Ew .... 20 June 1837 – 22 January 1901 = rule of Queen Victoria. 12 December 1731 – 18 April 1802 are the lifedates of Erasmus Darwin.

No, and in Victorian England, Atheism would not remain a totally distasteful accusation. I wonder how much you know of the last prince of Sachsen-Coburg Gotha. The dynastic origin of the Windsors, but not an actual possession of their monarchy as such since at least 1870. He was taking up the role, as he was pushed to, and despite growing up at Victoria's court, fought on the other side in WW-I. He's the grandpa of my King, as I'm a Swede.

What his childhood taught him is a bit the game that a recent Windsor dropout painted in "heir and spare" or sth like that. That court, where he grew up, had no fear of God. He was the first German noble to shake hands with Hitler. He did so over Hitler promoting things like Euthanasia. So, do you think the court where he spent the first fifteen years of his life was anything like Christian?

If anything, an Atheist in Victorian England would have been thought of as too blunt. But Darwin's Bulldog Huxley went close, preferring to be labelled as Agnostic. Now, that was the time of the grandson, Huxley dying in 1895. In the times of the grandfather, Erasmus, I think it may have depended on region and city. The first organised atheists had already appeared.

In Great Britain, William Hammon and physician Mathew Turner authored a pamphlet in response to Joseph Priestley's Letters to a Philosophical Unbeliever. Theirs was the first work in English to openly defend atheism, and implied that established sentiment of Christianity made speaking up in defense of atheism an act with a reasonable expectation of public punishment.

I look up the link in the wikipedian footnote and find: 1782.

So, in this era, the accusation was not distasteful, it was a criminal charge. Let's not conflate the two periods. By 1800, Atheism exists, and legally has to hide itself. By 1900, Atheism need not actually hide itself. But tries to camouflage itself as "agnostic" ... Huxley was vehemently anti-Catholic.

Erasmus was not just a member of Lunar Society, but also of freemasonry:

Darwin had been a Freemason throughout his life, in the Time Immemorial Lodge of Cannongate Kilwinning, No. 2, of Scotland. Later on, Sir Francis Darwin, one of his sons, was made a Mason in Tyrian Lodge, No. 253, at Derby, in 1807 or 1808. His son Reginald [wd] was made a Mason in Tyrian Lodge in 1804.

15:33 "general laws were quite enough to roll this planet around the sun" (Erasmus)

Oh, wait, reminds me of a thing I said somewhere ... while Heliocentrism and Theism can technically both be true, you cannot reason from one to the other (at least not on the level of precision called "Heliocentrism").

You can only reason in two directions: from Geocentrism to God, or from Atheism to Heliocentrism.

Because general laws are not quite enough to roll the visible universe around us each day.

What is God working with every Sabbath (John 5:17)? How are things visible from creation to all men (except the blind, meaning physically disabled by lack of eyesight) showing God's power inexhaustible or eternal (Romans 1)?

What did Riccioli analyse St. Thomas' Prima Via as saying?

Something other than general laws has to roll the universe around us, then the Sun on a yearly tour around the Zodiac, then Jupiter or Venus on quirky hypotrochoid tours around it, because they have the Sun as a moving epicentre ... God and angels will do. General laws won't.

17:04 "of the creator God" ... St. Paul didn't say Pagans could know God as having created at a single moment (or week) in the past. And Erasmus didn't deny God had created in the past. If Erasmus believed in some kind of God, he would have called him a watchmaker ... and not a blind one, but exactly the same watchmaker as Paley's. Or Voltaire's.

Here’s What Historians Will NEVER Tell You About Charles Darwin
Answers in Genesis Canada | 3 July 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MllWp0VXC9M

1:14 One could argue, the options do not require "origin" ...

Two options that don't:

• eternal steady state universe (what Epicure basically believed in)
• illusionism (if a diversity is illosory, it requires no origin prior to the mind prey to it).

Now, illusionism is an excellent explanation for a painless hole in my right hand when I hold it before one eye and a paper tube before the other eye. It's less useful to explain things that really affect us.

Most people outside Hinduism and Buddhism set it aside.

As to eternal steady state universe, that is by now ruled out bc H + H > D, D + D > He in stellar fusion. There is no reverse or indirect reverse or roundabout reversal of the process.

Jock Young

@jockyoung4491

We don't know if the universe had a beginning or not, so it is somewhat pointless to argue about. And it certainly doesn't matter to the study of astrophysics or evolution.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@hglundahl

@jockyoung4491 We do know fusion had a start, because H is limited amount and it is still not replaced by He.

Add to this that evolution is on some pretty clear issues, like abiogenesis and origin of the human language, totally out, you need a Creator.

Nathan Cook

@NathanCook-h5v

@hglundahl Nothing in the universe indicates we need a creator.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@NathanCook-h5v Reading my argument before answering it isn't exactly your forte, is it?

I already said what shows it, you try to show why it doesn't.

12:04 Unlike Erasmus Darwin, Chambers actually did write and publish in Victorian England.

Jock Young

Calvin* doesn't care if what he says is correct. He once did an entire video about Lyell when it was clear he was actually describing Huxley.

*Footnote

Calvin Smith, the man doing the video.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@jockyoung4491 I doubt that, but would you mind linking if it should be true?

12:53 "took the public by storm"

If you had read Selected Literary Essays by one C. S. Lewis, you would have known Atheism was somewhat popular as early as Byron and Shelley. CSL retained a taste for Shelley even after becoming a Christian, but this very popular Atheist was pre-Victorian:

4 August 1792 – 8 July 1822

So, under George III and IV. Like Lord Byron:

22 January 1788 – 19 April 1824

14:58 The guys who really want to lionise Darwin could have started out with a certain Marx. No, not Groucho or Harpo. Also not Adolf Bernhard. Karl.

One whose first work was pretending that Colossians 2:8 didn't (more or less) target Epicureanism, but Aristotelianism.

I think that was his dissertation in philosophy.

Karl Marx wanted to dedicate Das Kapital to Darwin, who, however declined.

YEC is Correct, Protestantism Isn't

Judaism Apostasised, Catholicism Didn't · Florence and Toledo I, Pope St. Celestine · YEC is Correct, Protestantism Isn't · Hollywood Genesis Bad, AiG Comment Not Fault Free

Someone answered below video like this:

Young earth creationism is based on a catalogue of lies and disinformation against science.

OK, saying a scientist is wrong is "disinformation" against him? If so, scientists are "disinforming" against each other all the time. Or, other possibility, "science" means your catalogue of "scientific" beliefs, and anyone contradicting them is doing "lies and disinformation" ... you can find the guy among commenters, I'll give him a link to the blog post here when it's published.

But here is the video, pretty good overall, I weighed in on two minor details, or minor in this context, but major in very many other ones (see below the video), and here is first the video:

Christians, NEVER Make These Bible Interpretation Mistakes
Answers in Genesis Canada | 22 May 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iATXJOroJeU

Dialogue I

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@hglundahl

4:36 Disagree on thirty-fold, sixty-fold and hundred-fold fruit.

They mean degrees of holiness. In chastity it goes like married, widow(er), lifelong virgin.

Jim Hughes

@jimhughes1070

😂 it doesn't...
really 🧐
But that is a perfect example of "a private interpretation" that has no scriptural foundation.

The blood of Christ cleanses us from all sin and unrighteousness

No one gets to the throne room without going through Jesus....

There are no degrees of "holiness" in the Bible.

"Therefore be ye holy, even as He is Holy."

There is no "1/4 of the way to God" concept in Scripture...
You are either 'in' , fighting against your flesh.... Or you're still on the outside.

Even "good works" are Fruit of the Spirit.
Some Christians seek all of the gifts of the Spirit... Some do not, but they can always be counted on to pray for others in need. Love Is Love.

Paul said whoever you give yourself over to obey, that is whose servant you are.

Of course I do understand that there are 49,000 different denominations.
Different doctrines. different creeds. Different ways of worshiping.

Lots and lots of
"Different"

One Bible telling us that we should all live by the same rule... The same Word.... In The same Spirit.

Isn't that a curious thing?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@jimhughes1070 "There are no degrees of "holiness" in the Bible."

Oh, there are.

Luke 18 depicts Jesus calling the rich young man to a higher degree of holiness than he had so far lived.

A parable about talents depicts the master giving more to the one who had won more and less to the one who had won less (only punishing the guy who had won nothing, because he buried the talent).

The one item of "equal" heavenly reward is the men who had arrived 1 h before the day ended and who got same pay.

But the point isn't all get absolutely the same heavenly reward, it's it isn't affected by seniority in service. The good robber began very late, perhaps an hour before he died ... and he's holier than most of us can hope to be.

It is also so not a private interpretation as it is an actual Catholic interpretation, namely St. Thomas Aquinas cites a Church Father for this one.

The connected doctrine is still taught and I learned it in Catechism preparing for conversion. The very opposite of private interpretation.

joe moricone

@tennis563

@hglundahl really go ahead and show me in scripture where one person, other than Jesus obviously, is holier than others. Holiness isn't earned by us it is what Jesus earned on the cross. Jesus didn't call the rich young ruler to a higher degree of holiness He made him realize his posesssions were his god.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@tennis563 "He made him realize his posesssions were his god."

Doesn't say that.

Now, loving Jesus is holiness, and here is one candidate for holier:

When therefore they had dined, Jesus saith to Simon Peter: Simon son of John, lovest thou me more than these? He saith to him: Yea, Lord, thou knowest that I love thee. He saith to him: Feed my lambs.
[John 21:15]

joe moricone

@hglundahl really then why did Jesus ask him to give up his posessions and He doesn't ask that of others? how does that show Peter is any holier than anyone else? You think holiness is earned ie a work?

Hebrews 10:10 (NIV): "And by that will, we have been made holy through the sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ once for all".

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@tennis563 "and He doesn't ask that of others?"

He also basically asked that of the Apostles.

Not sure if even their fishing boats are their own.

"how does that show Peter is any holier than anyone else?"

Because Jesus accepted Peter as loving Him more than the other apostles did.

Loving Jesus is holiness, and here Jesus is specifically grading it.

"You think holiness is earned ie a work?"

You think winning arguments is about strawmanning?

The beginning of holiness, known as justification, isn't earned by works, the increase in holiness is, see Ephesians 2:8 to 10.

Follow peace with all men, and holiness: without which no man shall see God.
[Hebrews 12:14]

Parallellish to:

And Jesus advanced in wisdom, and age, and grace with God and men
[Luke 2:52]

Again, "advanced" implies gradation.

joe moricone

@hglundahl you have to assume the fishing boats were their own and there is no indication they weren't. Peter loved Jesus more than the others? don't see where you get that in scripture. in fact if you look at the greed Jesus asked do you AGAPE me? Peter answered with PHILEO a brotherly love not the Godly love that AGAPE is.

Ephesians 2
10 For we are God’s handiwork, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do.

so nothing about those works increasing our holiness.

that was referring to Jesus growing up as a man. Jesus is God almighty from birth so He knew everything and needed no grace since He is sinless. you really have some odd ideas about scripture

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@tennis563 Fishing boats could, for two brother pairs, belong to the dads, so Jonas and Zebedee.

Then Peter answering, said to him: Behold we have left all things, and have followed thee: what therefore shall we have
[Matthew 19:27]

"Peter loved Jesus more than the others?"

It would seem that Jesus accepted this as being so, even if Peter didn't directly answer yes to that. The very least is, Jesus accepted this as being a possibility, or He wouldn't have asked.

Ephesians 2
10 For we are God’s handiwork, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do.

Good citation.

"so nothing about those works increasing our holiness."

False. Since our holiness is God's doing, not ours, and since these works are God's doing, insofar as we accept to actually do them, they precisely increase God's doing (and being) in us, which is the definition of holiness.

"that was referring to Jesus growing up as a man."

Precisely. And therefore it concerns us too, since we are to conform to Him. Obviously most directly to what He did as a Man, including growing in grace.

Dialogue II

Hans-Georg Lundahl

10:23 Note, St Paul plainly doesn't take knowledge of God and obedience to Christ as involving Scripture alone.

Subsection II a

James Krych

@jameskrych7767

The more noble Berean Jews would like a word or two.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@jameskrych7767 The Bereans were precisely not yet Christians while the one common ground they already had with St. Paul was OT Scripture.

Berea or Viria is still a parish in the diocese or metropoly (archdiocese) of Thessaloniki.

James Krych

@hglundahl "Note, St Paul plainly doesn't take knowledge of God and obedience to Christ as involving Scripture alone."

Which is why I brought up the example of the more noble Berean Jews.

They
Used
Scripture.

Remember, the Jews were entrusted with the very oracles of G-d.

You totally missed the reason that was listed.

Heed the warnings from Isaiah.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@jameskrych7767 The Berean Jews used Scripture and double checked St. Paul with it while deciding whether to take his message and submit to him, not after they did so.

"Remember, the Jews were entrusted with the very oracles of G-d."

Were.

The Catholic Church is the new Israel, and now the Church is entrusted with these oracles, not the Jewish Church that existed up to Caiaphas.

Subsection II b

T W

@tw2107-s7i

where does he say that?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@tw2107-s7i Yes, exactly, the quote doesn't mention sola scriptura, that's what I could be asking you.

T W

@hglundahl so you can't back up what you said.
2 Timothy 3

16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17 so that the servant of God[a] may be thoroughly equipped for every good work

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@tw2107-s7i You mean it's saying Scripture is ... sufficient (without anything else as rational faith input) for "every good work"?

Sorry, but "servant of God" is a technical term, doesn't mean every Christian, but those set aside, and these have already, usually before going to Scripture, received Catholic catechesis.

Here are two verses you didn't quote:

But continue thou in those things which thou hast learned, and which have been committed to thee: knowing of whom thou hast learned them And because from thy infancy thou hast known the holy scriptures, which can instruct thee to salvation, by the faith which is in Christ Jesus
[2 Timothy 3:14-15]

This makes it clear:

• OT Scripture is the point, it is only salvific through faith in Jesus Christ, which at this point even in your view was mainly accessible to St. Timothy in oral tradition;
• and this oral tradition is even stated, namely St. Paul reminds St. Timothy that St. Paul was the Catechist of St. Timothy.

Calvin Smith Paid me a Compliment

This CORROSIVE Lie Is Spreading FAST Among Christians
Answers in Genesis Canada | 17 Oct. 2025
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bBXP3N3IvuM

Given I've managed to avoid the tactical and worse errors of Stanley, since my teens, I take this video as a kind of compliment.

Next to God, you have lauded those believing His word, of which I am one.

6:00 You have misscited a verse of Hebrews perhaps in order to pretend the Bible "is the only source of true knowledge" ...

Here is the actual verse:
But without faith it is impossible to please God. For he that cometh to God, must believe that he is, and is a rewarder to them that seek him

Natural revelation can very well teach us the first part "that God is" ... a Hegelian who believes that God is, isn't wrong about what God is, he's just (as CSL once was) wrong about WHO God is.

That natural theology can teach us WHAT God is and that God isn't Hercules (whose powers were exhausted reputedly in the fight against Geryon and certainly at other times, like when he died and didn't rise again) is taught by St. Paul in Romans 1. He specifically mentions "inexhastible power" ... incidentally, this proves Hercules was an actual creature of God, and not a figment of human imagination. Why is St. Paul specifically referring to Hercules? Well, he mentions the punishment for idolatry, and in the Greco-Roman world, homosexuality, specifically male such, was especially associated with precisely Hercules.

So, before we get to FAITH, which goes beyond the evidence we can rationally analyse on our own, we must add of God, not just that He exists, but also that He is a rewarder of those that seek Him.

So, Biblically, Natural Theology, even apart from the Bible, actually does give true knowledge.

8:07 That guy started out copying a certain 16th to 17th C. erudite. Let's quote him:

Can an opinion be heretical and yet have no concern with the salvation of souls? Can the Holy Ghost be asserted not to have intended teaching us something that does concern our salvation? I would say here something that was heard from an ecclesiastic of the most eminent degree: "That the intention of the Holy Ghost is to teach us how one goes to heaven. not how heaven goes."*

The Catholic Inquisition held that a doctrine could be heretical if it contradicted the Bible, even on a topic not directly related to the process of our salvation, neither to what God did on the Cross, nor to what we need to do on our part. The Catholic Inquisition held that the Bible, all of it was useful for the salvation of souls.

In 1633, Galileo was lucky (or his former pretty close friend Pope Urban VIII had favoured him) that he was not asked about this view, only about one where he had applied it (and where he contradicts the most probable reading of Romans 1).

10:22 Jesus is where all our beliefs and doctrines come from.

Through NT books, certainly. But also through Apostolic tradition.

If you undermine the Bible or Apostolic tradition, you undermine the Christian faith.

For instance, we know there is a Christological exegesis of all of the OT (which doesn't take away from its literal historic truth, just shows why it is important), which Jesus gave, arguably on more occasions than once, but one particular time is in Luke 24:27. Some very few and highly important details of it are indeed in the NT texts, like St. John mentioning Jesus fulfills the law about the Paschal Lamb (because He is the lamb of God), John 19:36. But most of it, including cross-references between Luke 1, Genesis 3:15, Judges 5, book of Judith, are available through Tradition.

And because the allegoric meaning of the OT is directly related to Christ, so, the literal meaning of it, is indirectly but still actually related to Christ.

12:56 Stanley, on that clip, contradicted the Councils of Trent and the Vatican (1545 to 1563 and 1869 to 1870).

We hold to 73 books, with all of their content, and with the meaning that the Church hath held and now holdeth.

Geocentrism being part of that (Joshua 10 and parallels being part of the prooftexting).

* Modern History Sourcebook: Galileo Galilei: Letter to the Grand Duchess Christina of Tuscany, 1615
https://sourcebooks.fordham.edu/mod/galileo-tuscany.asp

Calvin Smith on Church Fathers and St. Augustine

Christians Who Believe This Are AGAINST the Ancient Church
Answers in Genesis Canada | 25 Aug. 2023
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xeBZdQQuQAE

18:14 sth First, he was perfectly right that Sirach is a canonic book.

You have none but the Christ-rejecting Jews from the time to oppose this. Or, marginally, as a personal sidenote, St. Jerome, but in a context showing he knew he was outnumbered by the bishops of the Church.

But second, the real flaw between St. Augustine and St. Jerome is this one.

St. Jerome had a very classical Latinity, and enjoyed giving a good rhetoric performance. St. Augustine forbade him to use it. He was obligatorily to use current vernacular Latin.

And Sirach in the Greek says: Ο ΖΩΝ εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα ἔκτισε τὰ πάντα κοινῇ. Now, κοινῇ could mean "in general" or could mean "together" .... St. Jerome took it to mean "together".

Here is the problem. Translate it to perfect classical flawless Ciceronian Latin, there is one word for "together" ... "iunctim" ... however, "iunctim" would have sounded like Shakespear to most. St. Augustine had severly told him to use totally commonplace words. He had even prayed for an angel to attack St. Jerome in the night in case he had disregarded this (and he had), so the angel beat him up and scolded him "Ciceronianis es, non Christianus!" ... St. Jerome complied. This is problematic with "together" ...

In some parts of the Latin world, "iunctim" was replaced with "insimul" (French ensemble, Italian insieme). In others with appropriate declinsion forms of "iunctus" (todas las cosas juntas in Spanish) ... "omnia creavit insimul" or "omnia creavit iuncta"? The fact is, St. Augustine was from the "iunctus" area, North African Latin is part influence on Spanish Latin, whereas St. Jerome was on the "insimul" area. Now "insimul" was very vulgar, so, one mollified it as "simul" ... which to St. Augustine simply meant "at one and the same time" ...

27:37 You know what certain "Catholics" actually like to quote from St. Augustine?

“Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of the world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion [quoting 1 Tim 1:7].”
― Augustine of Hippo, The Literal Meaning of Genesis, Vol 2
https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/737513-usually-even-a-non-christian-knows-something-about-the-earth-the

So, if in our days, "even a non-Christian" is supposed to know sth, even as false and absurd as long ages or Heliocentrism, somehow this must be what the exegete goes for. They think they agree with St. Augustine in principle, if not on the specific issue.

---

Webster is somewhat later than St. Augustine and Church Fathers, see here:

We Found the Historical Adam!
Answers in Genesis Canada | 23 Dec. 2022
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nxrprgFr9XU

Carbon's Not Refuted By Mount St. Helen's

Why Evolutionary Dating Methods Are a Complete LIE
Answers in Genesis Canada | 1 March 2024
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oxkhKF6L4eg

44,000 to 45,000 years old wood?

Sounds like my calibration is confirmed.

The wood was obviously pre-Flood, is obviously stuck on mud from the Flood. But in my calibration, back in 2958 BC, the year of the Flood, the carbon 14 level was a bit higher than 1.6 pmC, meaning the Flood year crops would date to 39 000 BP. So, I'm not suprised that the carbon date is a bit older than that.

1:06 Carbon 14 has a pretty good track record for recent centuries, like the last 3000 years and some more.

6:01 If I do believe carbon dating can be calibrated validly, it's because:

1) what we measure is different, it's a ratio, we never dealt with a lump of 100 % carbon 14 in the first place
2) the atmosphere being fluid tends to equalise the proportion over short time, meaning "the height of the candle" tends to be equal for samples from the same age
3) the exceptions to this (reservoir effect and bomb effect) need certain physical things to be present (diet of fish, water supply with old carbon in calceous rock, remains of whatever exploded in a radioactive way)
4) the uncertainties kind of cancel out.

Showing what the last means is like this. For 1179 BC, when Troy fell, excavations at Troy (Hisarlık) reveal a carbon date close enough to 1180 BC.

This is of course possible (my main theory) if C-14 decays at 5730 years' halflife and samples started out with 100 pmC. But supposing the halflife were 11 460 years instead, it would work out just fine, provided the initial amount was 80 pmC instead. However, I think there are recent samples that allow to exlude the idea of a halflife twice as long.

7:03 I don't think Nitrogen 14 atoms in samples are even used in carbon dating.

There are samples from 1950, they are accepted as dating as if 200 years old (due to fluctuation in Industrial Revolution, and the samples from two hundred years before that, from 1750, actually date as 1950, meaning the carbon 14 level was a bit high.

The measure is not of parent element to daughter element, but parent isotope to the non-radioactive isotope. So, carbon 14 to carbon 12.

Accelerator mass spectrometry (AMS) is a modern radiocarbon dating method that is considered to be the more efficient way to measure radiocarbon content of a sample. In this method, the carbon 14 content is directly measured relative to the carbon 12 and carbon 13 present. The method does not count beta particles but the number of carbon atoms present in the sample and the proportion of the isotopes.

This is from the presentation of Beta Analytic, who unlike me actually do carbon dating.

Since carbon 13 is also a small amount, this basically means carbon 14 to carbon 12. Now, I must admit, I do not know how carbon 13 enters the game. One reading would be:

Carbon 13 + Carbon 12 = Carbon non-14. One measures Carbon 14 in relation to Carbon non-14 (most of which is Carbon 12).

So, a daughter element of Nitrogen 14 (if that is the case, when small I heard or thought I heard Carbon 14 decayed to Carbon 12) is not measured. This is a unique feature among radiometric dating methods. I don't think it's a bug. Nitrogen 14 could (if that's the daughter element) come from atmospheric Nitrogen that never became Carbon 14. Most Carbon 12 (and vastly so, and if this is the actual daughter element) would be the Carbon 12 that God created probably at Genesis 1:1.

7:43 Does this refute my calibration?

Marlstone Rock Formation
Thickness 10 metres (33 ft)

A thickness of 10 metres could actually be accounted for by post-Flood landslides.

So, 20 000 years old, 18 000 BC, this would mean the real date is between 2725 BC and 2712 BC, respectively dated as 18,786 BC and as 17,081 BC. Around 240 years after the Flood.

No, I don't think this refutes my calibration.

8:40 No, the "impossible dates" don't show that C-14 is very unreliable, because they are only impossible to the Evolutionist.

The explanation of "bomb effect" / "contamination" is only needed by the Evolutionist.

To a YEC, the C-14 dates are perfectly possible and don't discredit the method as such, if one only makes a Biblical calibration for it. Which I did.

My interpretation of Biblical chronology isn't mine own, I simply use the chronology of the Christmas proclamation.

5199 after Creation, 2957 after the Flood, 2015 after the Birth of Abraham, 1511 after the Exodus, formerly also stated 1179 after the Fall of Troy, 1032 after the anointing of King David ... and a few more, Christ was born, angels greeted Him. This is what Catholic priests have been reciting up to Vatican II (or perhaps a bit longer) and what Traditional priests still recite, in the context of the Midnight Mass.

If we are 7200 + after Creation, the original amount of C-14 should be reduced to 41.855 % of the original amount. If we are 5000 + after the Flood, the original amount of C-14 should be reduced to 43.63 %, assuming the halflife of 5730 years is correct. Carbon 14 should be detectable, unless it was completely undetectable to start with.

So, if at the Flood, the carbon 14 level would have dated fresh things to 34 000 years old, most places in the world, the remaining level would date the things from the Flood to 39 000 years old.

9:28 My recalibration very much does NOT say that.

The starting ratio "1 in a trillion" (if that's the correct value) is technically also known as 100 pmC. This had never been the starting ratio for things prior to the Fall of Troy. That event is the first event for which we have archaeological evidence and historic evidence completely agreeing with the carbon dated archaeology. Prior to that, the Fall of Jericho is dated to 80 years before it really happened. If God used the Santorini or Thera eruption to provide some material for the Ten Plagues, the Exodus is dated to about a century before it happened.

Btw, sorry, 1510 after the Exodus, the Exodus was in 1511 BC, because Jesus is born in 1 BC, while 1 AD starts with His circumcision (provided that Denis the Short got the date correct).

So, the modern typical ratio, corrected for pre-Industrial values, is technically also known as 100 pmC.

At the Hallstatt plateau, when it starts in 750 BC, the carbon date is 550 BC (which has led archaeologists carbon dating too early to assume the founding of Rome was "mythical" in the popular sense). This means, the level was then higher than 100 pmC. That's outside my calibration, that's accepted standard calibration, which I just gratefully note. But it was not much higher than 100 pmC, 101 or 102 pmC or so. At the end of the Hallstatt plateau, when it ends in 450 BC, it still carbon dates to 550 BC. The level is about as low as at the Exodus. But these are vaccillations since the "100 pmC point" which I place at 1179 BC or Fall of Troy.

11:21 Two questions:

1) you showed a diagramme for Carbon 14, but was it included in the article?

It's partly behind a paywall, so I don't know.

2) His method involves a freezing to zero [0° K, not F or C) ... are there cases in which this could have massively happened to Carbon 14 during the actual history of Earth as opposed to his lab experiment?

13:19 A Biblical creationist need not say both weren't working, he's fine with saying the carbon date uses the wrong calibration.

Ask me. I'm a Biblical creationist, and I say the carbon date is working just fine once you recalibrate:

44 000 YA > 39 000 YA
45 000 YA > 39 000 YA
> 39 000 YA carbon =
> 5000 YA Biblical

so, some time before the Flood. If you bathe your babies, what happens when you throw out the bathwater?

15:06 None of the Carlsbad Cave dates were less than 70 000 years, so none of them was carbon 14.

Not a debunker of carbon 14. To paint a picture of a total carbon 14 debunking YEC or Biblical Creationist, there was an oil painting from a modern course in oil paintings that carbon dated to 10 000 years old. Obviously the painting was NOT that old, so the method is bogus ... not so fast, acrylic paint (which is used in oil paintings along genuine oil paint) actually does contain old carbon, mostly from the Flood, extracted in the form of petrol. So, that's not a debunking of the method. Certain white pigments would also involve old carbon.

15:47 I actually am trusting the Bible from Genesis 1:1 to Apocalypse 22:21. All 73 books, and Daniel 3 including the song of the 3 young men.

Most of my anchor points for calibration are from Biblical events in a specific Biblical chronology, not the most typical edition of the LXX, but still a Biblical text.

How Genesis 11:3 fits into Göbekli Tepe is a conundrum, since we don't find things that are obvious bricks and bitumen, but there are ways to solve that.

a) If they were rooftiles, and 2563. chomer has more translations than mortar, the roofs could have been destroyed in fires or in a fire, especially if 2564. chemar was actual bitumen for making the roof water tight, since that's inflammable
b) 3843. lebenah and 2564. chemar could refer to other substances than ceramic bricks and bitumen and involve for instance stomped clay with burned chalk skeleta (objects of chalk have been found in the Tashtepeler area)
c) the bricks could be missing for some other reason, or be partially found in the Jericho of the time (yes, they had pavements involving ceramic bricks in Neolithic Jericho). After all, the "bricks" decision was independent of the "city and tower" decision.

The "tower the top of which might reach to heaven" was a rocket project which never got even to take-off. God interrupted it so that Wernher von Braun could have a go 4500 years later with better technology and understanding than Nimrod had.

Notice, there is no "lest" in the verse 11:7. Unlike 3:22 which has 6435. pen. The only 6435. pen in Genesis 11 is in the words of the ones deciding.

And the story doesn't necessarily begin with 11:1, that could be the end of the Table of Nations, and even if it were, the 3rd masculine plural of bə·nā·sə·‘ām (11:2) does not obviously grammatically refer back to kol ha eretz — we have no direct affirmation that the Babel builders were all of humanity. I think they were a certain international élite. The "lest we be scattered" isn't about the spread of mankind, it's about each regional leader staying too much with his people and getting too few contacts with the other ones, which would led to them scattering away from each other and out among their subjects.
UPDATE, debate, starting with two comments by Micamex, one by myself to the second of them:

Micamex

@2killnspray9

American Protestants are a shame to all Christians...with their Young Earth creationist bullshit.

Micamex

Why protestants in this country are so often anti-science hardcore conspiracy theorists like this? And reading the Bible literally? Yes there are issues with carbon 14, but that's not eveen the only method used to mesure the age of something. And it is absolutely obvious that eart is way older than 6000 years old. How can someone believe this crap ??? Even the pyramids, the maya etc dates aat least from -4500 BCE that's already 6500 years old. Carbon 14 can measure until 55,000 years old with a 100 year precision and up to 100,000 before not being detectable. So we know that earth, even just with this method, is already minimum 100,000 years old.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@hglundahl

"conspiracy theorists"

I didn't see any conspiracy theory peddled in this video.

"Even the pyramids, the maya etc dates aat least from -4500 BCE"

Citing wiki:

The Maya are a people of southern Mexico and northern Central America (Guatemala, Belize, western Honduras, and El Salvador).[6] Archaeological evidence shows that by the Preclassic Maya (1000 B.C., approximately 3,000 years ago) they were building pyramidal-plaza ceremonial architecture.

I suppose you meant the pyramid like structures in Niger:

Preceded by assumed earlier sites in the Eastern Sahara, tumuli with megalithic monuments developed as early as 4700 BCE in the Saharan region of Niger.

Citing my tables:

2143 BC

72.688 pmC, dated as 4780 BC

2120 BC

73.82 pmC, dated as 4629 BC

So, the pyramids of Niger are in fact from between 2143 and 2120 BC, after Nahor was born but before Reu died.

Tiktaalik, Rifkin, Gilgamesh

Atheists LOVE to Boast This So-Called “Proof” of Evolution
Answers in Genesis Canada | 14 June 2024
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ESZNrDv1Xgo

9:09 "It's our creation now."*

This is obviously the implication of Darwinism, but it is also the implication of Deism, of Freemasonry, of calling God "great architect of the universe" ... implying the architect of a house need not be its denizen or lord.

When Evolution comes down as untenable, there will certainly be Theistic attempts at salvaging this set of values.

It's inherently collectivistic. If we have one lord, each can appeal to that one lord. If we haven't, who gets what becomes a question of power dynamics, like in late Protestant Prussia the philosophies of Bismarck, Roon and Moltke.

What else is collectivistic? Babylon.

The extant parts of Enuma Elish are perfectly compatible with mankind created by the gods as a collective, and the opening lines of Gilgamesh imply mankind was created with cities and bakeries from get-go.

* The one saying so is Jeremy Rifkin.