Forrest Valkai to the Rescue of Radiometric Dating (Or Not?) ·
L M and Comparative Religion to the Rescue of Forrest Valkai? ·
subductionzone to the rescue of Forrest Valkai? Or Keith Levkoff? Deus-Stein? ·
How Carbon Dating is Done, Why My Calibration is Possible
Scientist Reacts to "Debunking Radiometric Dating" Video | Reacteria
30th Sept. 2021 | Forrest Valkai
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3L2L7JDyI5U
Forrest Valkai did not respond under the profile bearing this name, one Shane Wilson did respond, so did one XraynPR who could be Shane, could even more be Forrest, since sometimes channel owners answer under another pseudonym, and also, obviously, could be genuinely a third person apart from them. The dialogues with these are inserted visibly and therefore you can skip them at a first reading, if you just want my comments on the video, text going all the way out to the left.
5:33 Biostratigraphic dating, stay tuned for
their debunking of this one too.
My own, however, comes here. You have marine fossile sites or aquatic at least, in Grand Canyon and in lots of drill holes.
If a trilobite lies below a whale or a plesiosaur, perhaps it's not because there were millions of years from trilobite to whale or trilobite to plesiosaur, perhaps it's because trilobites are lower in the water than whales. Now, if plesiosaurs consistently lay lower (in single sites, not in layers mapped over different parts of the geography, but like in a single rock wall like GC or a single drill hole), that would be suggestive, because we know both creatures swam more or less near the surface, since they need to breath. However, I don't think there is one single spot on earth where a whale and a plesiosaur are found together, let alone hundreds where they come in the same order.
Now, let's get on to land vertebrates. Here we find big boneyards from same time, with same type of creature, but we do not find one layer of this type of bones (say Ceratopsians, safe bet "Cretaceous") over another layer of that type of bones (say Moschops capensis, safe bet it is classified "Permian" and probably is found near or in Karoo). As I mentioned Karoo, I actually wrote them. I knew their different types of bones come in different assemblage zones. In Tapanocephalus assemblage zone, you find, for instance, surprise surprise, Tapanocephalus, and also critters supposed to be contemporary with it. And in another assemblage zone another series of remains. So, what I asked them was, did they take a deeper dig anywhere in the Triassic layers to find out if there were Permian fossils below them. The answer was no. They didn't. They are perfectly content with finding Triassic fossils where the Triassic layer is on top, and also perfectly content with finding Permian ones where there are no Triassic or Jurassic layers above them, where Permian layer is on top.
I went over something like 40 - 80 different lagerstätten or fossil finds, with help of wikipedia, and this impression was systematically confirmed when I thought all of the site palaeocritti was going down, so, with permission of Tamura, I tried to copy it to a blog, when the timeout came, 2016, it turns out the google site still remains, and the thing that ceased was the handy short links.
6:00 Now, when it comes to absolute dating, we have only three actors in the play. History, dendro (with Greenland ice wharves etc), radiometric.
I'd count thermoluminous
along with radiometric, and same with fission track.
7:07 Given that I just debunked (see my comment back at 5:33) biostratigraphic dating, fairly thoroughly, and given that fission track is more or less same thing as radiometric, what would you then bolster your age of the universe or age of earth with, as "clearly" past Biblical chronology?
7:11
"Evolution is still something we can directly see, right before our very eyes"
If you count things like Indian Long-Eared Hedgehogs getting (or keeping) longer ears than European hedgehogs, or beetles loosing their wings on windy islands .... but when was last time you observed:
- monocellular creatures evolve into multicellular ones with organs? (adding last precision to avoid equivocation on large colonies hanging together)
- any creature develop a new cell type?
- any mammal develop a new pair of chromosomes (or if you prefer, a new chromosome, new pair of chromatids, I am no expert, don't claim to know the present jargon, but when I was small, it was "pairs of chromosomes")?
Or for that matter, reason, morality or language arise from non-reason, amorality (not immorality, amorality), non-language?
7:13 "both in the fossil record and in laboratory experiments"
You spoke of sweating, perhaps you need another coffee too after too little sleep? I'll take one before I go on to answer this one.
[after first sips of a coffee:]
In order for the fossil record to show anything like evolution, it needs to be a record of millions of years, and not of one year with a very huge flood.
In order for lab experiments to show evolution, you need to count creation of new species with lowered functionality to directly dysfunctional individuals as evolution. Or for that matter, hybridising a rubus species with 4n with one with 8n to get a new variety with 6n - here the functionality is same for the rubus plant and enhanced for the external view point of the taste in the raspberries (done in Uppsala back the year I was born).
7:21 Ah, mutation and natural selection. Shown to produce for instance beetles with no wings that survive better on windy islands.
And erosion and weather ... sounds like a reference to "fossil record" and like you were prepared to debunk the idea of Flood geoogy from them ...see my point back at 5:33 on that one!
- Shane Wilson
- @Hans-Georg Lundahl and sorry, dude, if you think there was one flood for all of the fossils, then you are deluded. We can predict a lot of flood markers from such a flood like that, and guess what, we don't get them.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- @Shane Wilson How about naming one?
Btw, if you meant "a layer of fossils all over the earth" I have already answered that in my debunking of biostratigraphy, see my comment on time signature 5:33.
7:25 It seems you have missed out on the French scientist who did experiments on rapid depisition from saturated quick flowing mud waters ... different grain sizes (verifiable if you colour sand grains size .5 mm black and such .75 mm are uncoloured, or whatever the grain sizes were) sort out spontaneously into different layers.
8:50 "Meteorites
would have formed same time as the earth did ..."
That is, may I really nit pick about logic, please? an assumption.
Another one is, the lead we find in them comes from Uranium like the one we find in them.
10:24 "where would that have possibly come from?"
You are
assuming either that lead doesn't occur on its own, or that that particular isotope of lead doesn't occur on its own. Or that the fact of both being together proves this is not the case right in this case.
To take your rhetoric question as a real one, God created the meteorite material like that or God allowed an already fallen Satan to mix U and Pb in the suggestive proportions in order to prepare for the end times delusion, that is at least two possibilities outside your assumption.
10:26 "these things have a set rate of decay"
- 1) This answer just once again states the assumption all of the Pb came from U;
- 2) and also implies one can actually test the decay rate of U into Pb.
We can historically test the decay rate of C14 into whatever it decays to (I have heard into C12 when I was smaller, now I hear into N14, not sure what that would do to the compounds the C14 is usually in). At least, there is some possibility the C14 levels could still be rising, and the actual decay rate be longer than we measure, since there is less left from when it was less in the atmosphere, but mainly, I think one can historically defend the idea C14 has been roughly same level since the Trojan War ... but was not yet that level in the time of Genesis 14.
Now, take the smallest amount of time measured with C14. You cannot go below 5 years. Then take the ratio of that from the whole of the halflife of 5730 years, and then apply the ratio to the halflives of U-Pb and K-Ar ... exactly, the same ratio won't be testable as humanly recorded history.
10:40 "several samples"
My alternatives both involve that the original, pre-decay, U-Pb ratio was roughly as today in
all of a certain meteorite. Not a side contamination of extra Pb just in one part.
10:50 And no, I was not talking of accidental contamination by the geologist handling the sample either.
10:58 Er ... no. The rate of decay can in fact be rattled according to current laws of physics. In Atomic bombs and Nuke Reactors, U decays faster than it normally does.
WITH the present laws of physics, thank you.
And it seems volcanism does in part get its fuel from nuclear reactions in the subterranean, and it seems there was a lot of volcanism in the Deluge, this means, there was a definite occasion at which decays of many isotopes could have gone much faster.
Now, would this also work for C14, as some on the RATE project suggested? No. The C14 atoms would arguably decay under those conditions, but this would not lower the overall level, since the C12 would massively get contaminated with the extra neutrons into lots of more C14 at the same time. But with U -> Pb or with K -> Ar this is not an issue.
11:09 "we know what the current ratio is and we know what the rate of decay is"
As mentioned earlier, no you don't know what the rate of decay is. Outside C14 that is. C14 can be tested for roughly staying at 100 pmC in atmosphere and if so decaying at 100 -> 50 in 5730 years back to the Trojan War. But the - see my comment on 10:26 posted as technically a "reply" to that on 8:50 - splinter 5 / 5730 = 0.00087260035.
Now, what is 0.00087260035 * 4.47 billion years or 0.00087260035 * 710 million years or 0.00087260035 * 1.278 billion years? I skip Uranium series taken first and Potassium-Argon taken last and go for the shortest one, Actinium, in the middle.
0.00087260035 * 710,000,000 = 619,546 years. You can check that with what historic fact? None.
And "current ratio" is not a single unchanging fact, unless you mean within the sample and material you test. When things have more of an isotope, you state that is bc of decay already having happened.
In fact, it is actually dumb to say "we know the original ratio because we know the current ratio and the rate of decay" if by current you mean within what you test. One knows time only in so far as one knows BOTH original AND current ratio as well as rate of decay (aka half-life, since usually given in that unit).
B- on your logic for this one!
And no, stating you can deduct third variable of a three part equation is not generally true, unless there is a known ratio between this variable and the other two, which there isn't if the only known ratio is itself one of the variables. You are bluffing on the math issue.
- Shane Wilson
- And if you talk to actual paleontologists, you'll realize how they can test to get the original ratios.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- @Shane Wilson Well, why didn't Forrest Valkai bring on an actual paleontologist, then? He could have told us, and prefuted this comment of mine!
And if you are an actual paleontologist, why don't you proceed? And if you aren't, why don't you bring on one?
- Shane Wilson
- @Hans-Georg Lundahl because you aren't exactly worth the effort and time. But how about you get your crap published in a peer review geological journal and overturn not only a major part of modern physics, but geology.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- @Shane Wilson "because you aren't exactly worth the effort and time."
Theirs, that is. There are a lot of hecklers like you whose time I have been consistently worth, few weeks I have languished for debate with one.
"But how about you get your crap published in a peer review geological journal"
I get my things peer reviewed post my publishing them, whether as comments under a youtube or on blogs. In the case of the blogs, usually in the form of someone recommending me another video on the topic next time I go to youtube. I am more peer reviewed than most who do publish their crap in peer reviewed journals.
"and overturn not only a major part of modern physics, but geology."
Entirely gratuitous. The pre-publishing peer review is meant to prevent for instance Creationist materials to shine forth in the post-publishing review. p l u s ... I don't know what part of modern physics I am supposed to be overthrowing. Certainly not what is known of radioactivity here on earth if that is what you meant - as is apparent from your total lack of engagement with my actual argument above. As for Geology, you have missed my words on the actual state of paleo-finds since you didn't comment under my comment on time signature 5:33 where Forrest Valkai took up that.
+ @Shane Wilson Second time I mention my comment on 5:33, you have had more than a day to look it up ... and it is still there.
- a
- Shane Wilson
- @Hans-Georg Lundahl and my point still stands, you aren't actually a credible person here.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- @Shane Wilson This is what in logic is considered an ad hominem.
- b
- Shane Wilson
- @Hans-Georg Lundahl So thank you for showing you don't actually submit to peer review.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- @Shane Wilson I submit all my publications on the blogs to whatever "post-publication" review (peer, inferior or superior) you want.
- Shane Wilson
- @Hans-Georg Lundahl and a blog isn't a peer review publication. Sorry Hans, you've got jack.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- @Shane Wilson It's obviously not pre-publication reviewed. You are free, as is anyone else to review it post-publication.
If you meant the guys at CMI and ICR, they have their peer review to compensate for the anti-Creationist bias at Springer concern; Elsevier and similar.
- Shane Wilson
- @Hans-Georg Lundahl so you have the same problem as ICR. You bypass actual peer review by making your own BS system of it (or try) when it isn't remotely equivalent.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- @Shane Wilson Peer review is no guarantee for truth. Good logic is. And you have better chances of good logic with post-publishing review than when more than half, more than 3/4 can be swept under the carpet with pre-publishing review. Sure, there are uses for pre-publishing review as well, when you get to one that's friendly on your take on things, like, they can say "I think you forgot this and that, would you like to add such a consideration and then come back" ... but when you have a pre-publishing review set on banning all and anything creationist, a creationist would be a fool to rely on it for publication.
- Shane Wilson
- @Hans-Georg Lundahl yes, peer review isn't perfect, but its better than the crap you do. '
And do you know why creationist stuff doesn't get published? Because you guys can't actually follow science. You guys can't back up your claims. You get push back and you whine about it rather than showing why you're correct.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- @Shane Wilson A review committee from Nature that decides to publish nothing and say nothing doesn't count as pushback.
Your theory of "pushback + whining" is moonshine. You dream.
We show time after time why we are correct, it gets ignored time after time by those doing pre-publication review for certain papers. In the case of people on CMI, IRC and AiG this is only true for their creationist material, since material neutral to the issue does get published.
This means the peer reviewers at these organisations do have experience of the peer review you talk about. Myself I am only amateur in natural sciences, a bit more than that in linguistics (I haven't taken as Masters of Arts, but my study length could have sufficed for it, I didn't take those final exams for the degree though, and you can consider Latin my major).
+ @Shane Wilson btw, as you spelled "pushback" as "push back" - are you really a native English speaker or from somewhere else faking it? Many composite nouns are spelled as two words, but pushback isn't one of them, since "push back" looks too much like the verbal phrase.
- Shane Wilson
- @Hans-Georg Lundahl wah, I misspelled something. Were you able to still clearly understand what I meant by it? If so, then get over it. You look like a child when you do stuff like that.
+ @Hans-Georg Lundahl Dude, you aren't even an armature. You're a joke. You don't grasp the basics of science. You make excuses for why nobody takes your crap seriously rather than admitting the truth, because you can't back it up with evidence.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- @Shane Wilson If by "basics of science" you mean materialism, believing anything resembling sth non-material is ultimately matter, that's basics of materialism, not of science.
I have given the evidence you keep ignoring by actually arguing about the mathematics of the datin techniques - and the geography of "biostratigraphy" (see comment to time signature 5:33). Not even adressing a thing remotely doesn't look like "not taking seriously" - and as a linguist, the kind of spelling mistakes that are called "hypercorrection" are typical for foreigners. I've seen East Europeans under English names before, though way clumsier than you, if I'm correct.
- Shane Wilson
- @Hans-Georg Lundahl It is you dodging, and guess what Hans, typos happen. What matters is whether or not the point can be gotten across clearly, even with one or two. And it is pretty clear that it is.
But thanks for pointing out that you reject science.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- @Shane Wilson I reject your school of science. Evolutionism. I know the history of ideas sufficiently well to know science has never been just one school.
+ @Shane Wilson Btw, would you mind getting a bit on the topic of my initial comment?
In 100 years, carbon 14 descends to 98.798 % of initial ratio. 100 / 5730 = 0.01745200698.
0.01745200698 * 4 470 000 000 = 78 010 471 years, unlike 100 years not historically testable. So why do you think the halflife of U-Pb is known?
In 10 years, carbon 14 goes down to 99.879 % of initial ratio. Even 7 801 047 years is beyond historic identification of real age.
Before you think "well, we can look in a lab how fast it decays" - no. 0.99879 to the power of (1 / 780 105) is not measurably different from 1. But even apart from that, Libby tried to go by a lab value and got the halflife of C14 to 5568 years, when it is 5730 years. That is, historic checking is paramount for knowing the real halflife of anything.
- Shane Wilson
- @Hans-Georg Lundahl and you can't actually put up even a remotely good argument against evolution.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- @Shane Wilson Evolution would be off topic here. Forrest Valkai's video (this one, the one we comment under) is called // Scientist Reacts to "Debunking Radiometric Dating" Video | Reacteria // and Evolution is not mentioned in it. Or if it is, then just very briefly.
So, what I argue against under this one is ... radiometric dating. With an excursion, prompted by Forrest Valkai's dito, at time signature 5:33 and this excursion is about biostratigraphic relative dating.
+ So? What about my argument made at 11:09 (the time signature we are now arguing under) that the half lives for most methods (including U-Pb, both series, and K-Ar) is too long to be testable against history?
12:25 No, I don't think that C14 (range < 100,000 years) overlaps with any of the three larger "clocks" just mentioned.
As said, the smallest measurable time span with C14 decay is 5 years. And 5 / 5730 is a ratio which even for Actinium series gives a shortest range of over 600,000 years, if the decay rate is correctly assumed.
13:07 You simply haven't read the news.
You have missed every news Creationists leak out on diverging ages, and missing the news doesn't give you a right to say there isn't any.
I previously said thermoluminiscence is a bit like radiometric. Now, its range is closeish to C14.
Then we have the Mungo Man or perhaps more properly the Mungo Woman. One part dated a bit younger than the other (different types of tissue) but around 20 000 BP. But TL dated 40 000 BP. That is how we arrive at "Australia was peopled 40 000 BP".
Tas Walker - a Creationist, a Geologist and an Australian, on CMI, from whom I have this, dismissed the C14 dates as equally irrelevant. I don't.
20 000 BP = 18 000 BC. What real year and original C14 level correspond to that?
- 2845 B. Chr.
- 0.145681 pmC/100, so dated as 18 745 B. Chr.
- 2823 B. Chr.
- 0.172045 pmC/100, so dated as 17 373 B. Chr.
Or, to make it neater:
- 2845 BC
- 14.5681 pmC, so dated as 18 745 BC
- 2823 BC
- 17.2045 pmC, so dated as 17 373 BC
So, Mungo "Man" was on Oz c. 2834 BC, 123 years after the Flood, before Babel, and so spoke Hebrew, not a post-Babelic lingo.
At present youtube doesn't allow me to post links, but check
"Creation vs. Evolution" + "New Tables"
Previous to 15:00 c. Yes, a lot of aberrant dates (million years old worth of argon after eruptions historically known, tens of thousand years old fossils in layers supposed to be millions of years)
do get published by YEC.
But you
don't find a lot of Evolution believing (or Forrest might prefer "real") scientists who double check and get for instance "not much argon" or "indetectable C14" in similar cases.
And you do find lots of people stating it is a waste of time ... because it was a creationist who brought it up ... "we know the earth is old anyway, see biostratigraphy" on which I commented already at 5:33 in this video.
- Shane Wilson
- @Hans-Georg Lundahl Where are they publishing? Because obviously not in any type of reputable journal
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- @Shane Wilson How about reading all of the two comments I made?
Evolution believers are NOT showing the Creationist tests fake in their "reputable" journals, and I don't think a journal is reputable (at least on this issue with any topics too much touching it) as long as it systematically censors out the creationist pov.
You are playing the "authority" game because you lack arguments. Forrest Valkai did so when stating aberrant dates are published in Creationist publications and not showing how "reputable" journals repeat the same tests and show Creationists wrong on them.
15:14 Here I would for once disagree with the Creationists on the video.
It is certainly very improbable you could contaminate a diamond with younger carbon but not with more and more recent neutrons - as I already mentioned, speed up radioactivity (like an U bomb) next to C12 with some fraction of C14 and the net result is, you get more C14 - without any more carbon added.
15:32 (also relevant for the tirade previous to 15:00)
"learn how peer review works!"
Like, evolutionists peer review evolutionists = peer review, but creationist peer reviews creationist =/= peer review?
Sounds lop-sided ... and why is post-publication review on the internet totally irrelevant, while pre-publication review on newspaper redactions has a right to decide what the public gets to see? Even more lopsided.
- Random
- It must suck to not be able to think more than one step at a time.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- @Random You mean you feel sorry for Forrest Valkai?
While I didn't thought him all that good, I didn't put him in that class either.
You know, one can consider contamination by neutrons possible without considering that all the C14 dates for things purported to be "millions of years" are meaningless, just in case you meant me.
+ How about you take a look at how I deal with his "peer review" superstition, also in my comments above!
- Random
- Actually, I'm curious. What's the real reason that you take creationism so seriously?
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- @Random
I'm a creationist grosso modo since age 9. I am young earth creationist strictly Biblical chronology since reading St. Augustine at age ... 31? 32? ... namely City of God. As a Catholic, I am bound to Church Fathers in Bible exegesis. I had heard this urban legend, they were against literalism in Biblical chronology, after reading City of God ... not so fast! That's just for the six days, which he actually shortened to one moment!
- Random
- That explains a lot. I had a feeling you weren't saying these things because you actually thought they were convincing.
I won't try to change your mind, because it's been made up for too long, and your sense of identity and probably community are wrapped up in this worldview. At best this would be pointless, and at worst it would be harmful.
A word of advice though: you can't convert atheists, especially scientifically-minded ones. It's not the same as moving people from one religion to another. We literally just don't think like you. Never in my life have I had a sense of a higher power, nor a feeling of free will. I am incapable of faith. I'd bet pretty much everyone here is the same. When you argue in favour of any religious belief, you're appealing to instincts that simply don't exist for us. You'd be wasting less time talking to people in other religious spaces instead of here.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- @Random I'm not appealing to instincts, but to reason.
- Random
- Never encountered a good reason to believe, and even if I did, I'd probably stop believing the moment I found a good reason to stop. If Yahweh wants my acknowledgement, he can ask me himself.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- @Random A good reason to believe : Jesus rose from the dead. A good reason to believe that as fact : the Church wrote it down as its history, very early on. Note, history, facts observed by human observers, not prophetic revelation in the sense of information given to one man only and then witnessed by him. And the reason to believe the Church on that : I believe any community about its history. Again, this word taken as about visible facts witnessed by many, not as analysis or prophecy.
16:06 Yes. Adam lived to 930, Noah to 950, generations one and ten from creation and the latter is more than halfway to Abraham in time (same number of generations, shrinking life spans).
16:20 "he could fit on his little boat"
I actually assumed water line at 14 cubits up, assumed both extreme versions of a cubit 18 and 24 for liminary calculations, assumed either full cubit or half cubit thickness of the wood in the walls of the Ark, and assumed wood densities from pine at 0.352 to rose wood at 0.88. The smallest weight available for animals and even more food (animals do tend to eat more than their own weight over a year) was on that calculation series 13,371.669 mt and the largest was 44,369.913 mt.
Even the smallest tonnage - 13 thousand 371 metric tons and 669 kilograms - is sufficient for more than the couples you would need if a baramin is typically the species tally of hedgehogs.
Did you say "little boat"? You really do need a coffee.
16:46 Between Flood and birth of Abraham, there are 942 - 1070 years, unless you consider Nachor was 170 not 70, in that case you could get up to 1170 years.
From Abraham's vocation (at 75) to the Exodus there are 430 years.
Now do some maths with annual population growth in a place in Africa - say Nigeria.
942 + 75 + 430 = 1447 years.
6 % annual population growth, means a factor of 1.06 to the power of 1447 years and that then applied to an original head tally of 8.
I think you know better than I how to read this result from a calculator:
3.316477269813986e+37 - I think it involves 37 digits or sth ...?
Actually, it is easier to get a readable result when we go just to Babel ... 401 after the Flood.
112,393,697,345 More than the present world population.
And 1447 - 401 = 1046 years more to go.
Try 3 % annual population growth, the medium for all of Black Africa ...
Just three percent you get, by the Exodus:
30,099,143,352,554,193,000
- XraynPR
- @Hans-Georg Lundahl there was no Global Flood as described in the bible and no human lives 900+ years ..
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- @XraynPR It so happens ...
At 5:33 Valkai was speaking about biostratigraphy, and the comment of mine starting "there" states that I have gone over the finds of land vertebrates and they don't overlap, they could extremely well all be from one single flood.
No man lives for 900 + years now, our lifespans have shrunk.
- XraynPR
- @Hans-Georg Lundahl nope, humans never lived that long. That age comes from an incorrect translation afaik.
There was no global flood. Multiple civilisations lived through the proposed time without any issues or recordings.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- @XraynPR "nope, humans never lived that long."
A universal negative is a fairly big claim.
- You weren't there;
- drastic variations of lifespan are possible, like Lipitza horses living twice as long as normal ones
"That age comes from an incorrect translation afaik."
I don't think so, but argue it out if you like.
"There was no global flood."
A universal negative is a fairly big claim. This time you try to argue, so ...
"Multiple civilisations lived through the proposed time without any issues or recordings."
Only if our dates for them are correct.
We have very good dates for Rome and even Neo-Assyrian Empire. We don't have any similarily good dates for how to place III dynasty of Ur absolutely.
Btw, my "proposed time" is c. 3000 BC - like 2957.
Then again, you can refer to carbon dated things (bones or artefacts) not matching the Biblical chronology, and my answer is re-calibrating C14.
- XraynPR
- @Hans-Georg Lundahl yeah, they don't only use carbon dating ...
You cannot disprove that Odin created the world, you were not there
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- @XraynPR " yeah, they don't only use carbon dating ..."
When it comes to Sumerian and Egyptian, there are basically two methods : texts from them, plus carbon. I've stated texts are inadequate for a good chronology from these and I have also stated carbon 14 buildup is possible in ways compatible with Biblical chronology for the Flood.
Which of these two parts didn't you understand, and why, or are you proposing a third method of knowing when?
"You cannot disprove that Odin created the world, you were not there"
Since he was son of a giantess, his existence presupposes some kind of world already being there.
But I guess you mean the buildup from Muspelheim and Niflheim and Ginnungagap preceding him? Well, sparks from Muspelheim creating life by landing in Niflheim and melting so the melt water gets into the Gap, that sounds like a very impossible version of Abiogenesis - like the Miller Urey version as well.
- XraynPR
- @Hans-Georg Lundahl What do you even think Miller-Urey tried to do?
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- @XraynPR They tried to show that under certain conditions - note that well, certain conditions and not other ones - abiotic molecules combine to small strands of biological building blocks. Well, not all of them .... membranes have phospholipids and they don't form under Miller-Urey conditions.
Now, I spoke of the "Miller Urey version" namely of "Abiogenesis" (already mentioned), and the Miller-Urey version of Abiogenesis involves several major problems that Miller-Urey conditions (those replicated in experiment) totally won't solve, and for which the building blocks as produced are totally not an adequate start, as in the Miller-Urey conditions that produced them, they also soon dissolve. So, while the Miller-Urey experiment is a validated experiment that others have repeated, the Miller-Urey version of Abiogenesis is as mythological or mythomaniac as sparks on ice producing (immediately) more or less intelligent life.
- XraynPR
- @Hans-Georg Lundahl so you know it wasn't about creating life, good.
Then you should have a look at the rest of OOL research, since Urey Miller is not the only thing that's been done.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- @XraynPR I did.
That is exactly the reason why what you call "OOL research" and I called "Miller Urey version of Abiogenesis" (as distinct from Norse myth or Babylonian myth versions of Abiogenesis, probably Greek myth as well) simply isn't a viable explanation for getting life.
Phospholipid problem, ordered but not symmetric information production problem, chirality problem, "sth other before phospholipids" proposals ... I've been there.
- XraynPR
- @Hans-Georg Lundahl there is much more to OOL than Urey-Miller though
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- @XraynPR Yes, and these other things don't work.
For instance, NASA had an idea and then took it down on earliest life having membranes of some detergent like substance before there were phospholipids. A very bad prequel to phospholipids, right?
If you have massive amounts of teeming one celled life with detergent like membranes, these would be very likely to destroy the first attempts at phospholipid membranes later.
Or, phospholipids formed on Montmorillonite clays ... but since these clays are fossil, how do we know their composition isn't determined by life, it more probably is that?
- XraynPR
- @Hans-Georg Lundahl you mean this?
"Fatty Acid/Phospholipid Blended Membranes: A Potential Intermediate State in Protocellular Evolution"
How was that taken down?
Also, since bilayers of lipids do form spontaneously iirc, why would that be an issue?
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- @XraynPR No, I don't mean that one.
Bilayers of lipids form spontaneously only under the condition the lipids exist in the first place. They are not elements of Mendeleyev's table, and they are - as mentioned - NOT formed under the Miller-Urey conditions.
The one you mentioned, I haven't looked at yet.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- @XraynPR I found it, it was not on NASA but on pubmed. I have no access to its entire text, here is from abstract:
"Prior to the evolution of membrane proteins, intrinsic membrane stability and permeability to polar solutes are essential features of a primitive cell membrane. These features are difficult to achieve simultaneously in model protocells made of either pure fatty acid or phospholipid membranes, raising the intriguing question of how the transition from fatty acid to phospholipid membranes might have occurred while continuously supporting encapsulated reactions required for genomic replication."
It seems the article talks of a transition from an already existing membrane which already involves some kind of lipids, either phospholipids or fatty acids.
As both phospholipids and fatty acids are produced in living organisms, this is not a viable first step from primordial soup (formed by Miller Urey conditions) to living cells.
"Here, the properties of a blended membrane system composed of both oleic acid (OA), a monoacyl fatty acid, and 1-palmitoyl-2-oleoyl-sn-glycero-3-phosphocholine (POPC), a diacyl phospholipid are described."
How nice .... none of these form in Miller Urey conditions, and all of these are made by already living things! In organisms, or in labs (using other experiment conditions than the Miller Urey setup).
17:25 No, there were not
eight generations between Noah and Moses.
On the Ark, there were not just four males, but eight people overall.
17:37 With 3 % annual population growth, by the time of the Exodus you get way more than we are now.
30,099,143,352,554,193,000, with a chronology like Roman Martyrology.
10 million people is a piece of cake, when an original family of 8 (or 2 in one and 6 in next generation) can expand all over the earth and find new land just for the digging and have no frontiers or rivals to worry about.
PLUS, have you even tried to ask any relevant question on how US Census or UNO Census can have any reasonable idea on the world population when the Pyramids were built?
- XraynPR
- @Hans-Georg Lundahl yes because humans just reproduce like mathematical statistics.
Can you get less silly arguments please?
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- @XraynPR I actually gave real life statistics and I mentioned the result drawn out as showing the actual result (much lower) is well within possibilities.
Can you get less silly objections, please?
- XraynPR
- @Hans-Georg Lundahl one family of 8 spreading over the entire globe? Ever heard of incest? Come on ...
You didn't give real life statistics, you give exponential growth and that's it - populations don't work like that.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- @XraynPR I gave exponential growth from a certain real life statistic.
The reason populations don't work like that now is, we are more or less cramped among other people. The 8 from the Ark weren't, so you can predict the possibility of not strictly exponential growth at least approaching for some while after the Flood.
As to "incest" I think you confuse that word for a sin and a crime with "inbreeding" - I also think you have somewhat prejudiced, outdated and c. 1900 AD ideas about what inbreeding will actually do.
- Update
- prior to L M, off topic, see "interesting update" below, XraynPR had answered on topic, here comes his answer and my response on that one:
- XraynPR
- @Hans-Georg Lundahl yeah it will mess up your genes, which is one of the many reasons the Flood is impossible. Even today we can see a bottleneck of a human extinction event, where we barely survived with a few ten thousand humans left.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- @XraynPR No, it will not mess up your genes. It will combine in two examples some chromosomes which, due to previously messed up genes, would have been better in only one example.
This is a fairly good reason why the lowered lifespans after the Flood are possible : inbreeding.
But the long lifespans before the Flood mean, this inbreeding would not have blasted all and everyone with tens of bad conditions that kills one off rapidly, since the inbreeding started out with genes not too messed up.
19:01 Two reasonable identification of Job's unicorns:
- one type of Rhinocerus
- Triceratops, if the nose horn grew quicker than the two top horns (and men saw live ceratopsians).
- Shane Wilson
- Triceratops isn't a reasonable identification, they were extinct for millions of years.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- @Shane Wilson That's the precise issue at stake with the dating game ... can you test the claim "millions of years" or can't you?
If the dating game is bad, the claim triceratopsians were extinct is not a factual objection, as long as it is dubious, it is not a valid refutation.
- Shane Wilson
- @Hans-Georg Lundahl yes, we can test "millions of years." I know you reject it, but its called radiometric dating. But your ignorance and refusal to accept reality doesn't make your claims any better.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- @Shane Wilson I have commented, with appropriate time signature, on every single test Forrest Valkai in this video purported to support millions of years with (ok, not much detail on thermoluminiscence).
You have studiously avoided getting into clinch on any one of them and attribute to me very flat commonplaces like knowing I "reject" it. Sure, I reject it as well as I also refute what it is supposed to be argued from, and you support it but shy away from all detailed argument.
+ @Shane Wilson "your ignorance"
Projecting, since if you weren't ignorant, you'd have argued scientific detail.
"and refusal to accept reality"
Psychoanalysing, what a very convenient trick to give Forrest Valkai a break on the actual business of refuting me.
"your claims"
Why speak of claims when you absolutely daren't even look any of my arguments in the face?
19:29 Have you noticed, blood clots are one result of antibodies, and some vaccines around for Covid 19 cause quite a lot of these.
You know, Covid 19 is not totally good for your health, but neither are blood clots!
- Shane Wilson
- Blood clots from the vaccine are very rare. Do you know what is more common? Blood clots from Covid-19.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- @Shane Wilson Oh, probably.
But blood clots from Covid 19 falls under "act of God" while blood clots from vaccine falls under human mismanagement. Something one may want not to be part of.
Btw, blood clots from some vaccines are so not rare that Swedish immunologists or whatever have proposed to forbid Pfizer's vaccine.
A l s o ... Corona virus being a virus and not a bacterium requires some type of living cells to get cultivated through, a nutrition solution is not enough. Do you know what living cells are usually used? Cell lines from human abortions, specifically from one human abortion in the Netherlands in the 70's.
Make that human abortion victim, by the way!
- Shane Wilson
- @Hans-Georg Lundahl wah? So what fetal lines are used for some vaccines. Guess what, that single fetal line has saved hundreds of thousands of lives.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- @Shane Wilson Saving a life can certainly add to your chances of eternity if you do it before you die, but your corpse saving lives (whether by a cell line or by people eating you on the raft Medusa) can't.
19:55 Yes, as I noted at 5:33, you pretend biostratigraphy would be enough to bolster evolution, so I'd like to see them take a go at biostratography, you already saw mine (under my note 5:33).
I suppose their video on fossils may be relevant?
- Game Over
- Seek help. Your ego is bleeding through the comments and it reeks
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- @Game Over I'm sorry, but your comment is not argument, it is ad hominem and after Shane Wilson and another guy already were heavy on those, this extra instance of ad hominem reeks of harrassment.
How about asking Forrest Valkai to deal with the arguments? His ego seems to be somewhat bleeding through his silence!
- Game Over
- @Hans-Georg Lundahl and your narcissistic, yikes. Seek help. Posting dozens of comments on a youtube section isn’t going to breathe life into your pseudoscience.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- @Game Over "and your narcissistic, yikes. Seek help."
I don't believe in the pseudo-science called psychology.
"Posting dozens of comments on a youtube section"
You perhaps did not notice that Forrest Valkai's own video was dozens of comments on a youtube by John and Jane, if that was their names?
"isn’t going to breathe life into your pseudoscience."
Come on! I am being told to confront myself to opposite viewpoints, that's what I'm doing here. Forrest Valkai, unlike you, actually didn't start from "the scientists are so bright, anyone who opposes them is a narcissist" but he was on a fairly basic level trying to actually grasp with their actual arguments. When I'm taking it to what I consider a level higher, for some reason, he's not in the game. But, for some reason, you are.
Is smearing me as a "narcissist" who doesn't know what he's talking about and who therefore isn't worth checking out your last hope of supporting Forrest Valkai's position?? If not, why did you check this out in the first place?
- Game Over
- @Hans-Georg Lundahl to a higher level? Your in a comment section my guy
Maybe start with a source that corroborates what you are saying. I can claim the bible says 2+2=5 so there is no god. You are chasing your own tail spouting all this babble into the air with no ground to stand on
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- @Game Over " to a higher level? Your in a comment section my guy"
Yes, and he is in a video ... wait, you mean the comment section is in each screen on levels below the actual video?
"Maybe start with a source that corroborates what you are saying."
I'm so sad you cannot see the difference between an argument and a fact claim. Fact claims need sourcing, arguments about the sources already presented don't need that.
"I can claim the bible says 2+2=5 so there is no god."
I find it tragic that you have no sense of logic proportion when offering such a parallel!
"You are chasing your own tail spouting all this babble into the air with no ground to stand on"
And positively appelling that you come with such ad hominems ... know what? I'll block you!
[Done.]
Interesting update : when I connected today, I found the post published, but I also found a very long comment, promising a debate that merits a post of its own. No, that long comment was not after, but before this was published, I checked./HGL
Update II : exchange with "Game Over" above./HGL
Update III, just after : It is six days since I placed my last comment under the video. I get comments back, and I am fine with that, but unto this day, all of these days, I have not had one of the commenters even try to get to grip with the arguments I made on actually carbon dating or other dating methods of the radiometric type, and my comment at
5:33 - actually seven days ago - still has no response./HGL
