Gutsick on Radiometric and Heat - My Initial Comments with Answers · Continuing with Edelwise, and later Sumo
Have These Young Earth Creationists Debunked Radiometric Dating and Solved the Heat Problem?
Gutsick Gibbon | 28 Dec. 2022
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SgZptvRipvU
- I
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- 4:30 How do you even test a halflife like 4.5 billion years?
5730 is easy. Half of it is 2865. Quarter of it is 1432 (.5). Eighth of it is 716 (.25). Sixteenth of it is 358 (.125).
We can take carbon positive samples known from 716 or 358 or 1432 years ago. We can, despite wiggles in atmospheric C14 content, see that these years (at least roughly) correspond to eighth or sixteenth or fourth root of 1/2. 91.7 pmC, 95.76 pmC, or 84.09 pmC are expected sample values.
If enough samples correspond to that with the known dates, as known from history, that means we have successfully tested the halflife of C14 to be 5730 years.
- Anon Ymous
- Why do we need to test what we understand functions on a mathematical relationship? You don't need to sit there and observe it decaying for billions of years. You can watch it decay and count how many atoms decay per unit time.
Easy does not mean true.
- Michael Eco
- You've answered your own question. You do basic math.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- @Anon Ymous "Why do we need to test what we understand functions on a mathematical relationship?"
The problem is, do we?
"You can watch it decay and count how many atoms decay per unit time."
Seeing one billionth of a curve over 4 and a half years may give a very wrong idea of the whole curve. With carbon 14, we can verify significant parts of the decay curve.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- @Michael Eco I have answered that it is impossible for U-Pb. For carbon 14, it is easy, but for U-Pb it is impossible.
If you know anything about graphs, you know that one billionth of a curve is inadequate for accurately plotting the whole of it. One sixteenth isn't.
- Anon Ymous
- @Hans-Georg Lundahl So you missed the part of the video where GG explained how we know, confidently, that these decay rates are consistent?
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- @Anon Ymous Is it after 4:30? If I comment under the video at time signature 4:30, this proves I have seen the video up to 4:30, not all of it.
I refuse to watch a video twice, first all through and then once again when commenting.
Now, you may not have noted, but I did not attack the idea of "constant decay known" but (for decay rates far slower than carbon 14) "known decay rate" - you see, the decay rate for an isotope is not obtained from the law of radioactive decay, it is a value you have to insert into it. For a decay rate like 4.5 billion years, you don't.
- Michael Eco
- @Hans-Georg Lundahl "If you know anything about graphs, you know that one billionth of a curve is inadequate for accurately plotting the whole of it. One sixteenth isn't.'
It's literally the exact same process. Are you trolling me? Are you only pretending to be this stupid as some kind of joke? Do you really think some science lab was sitting around for 358 years to measure the 1/16th life of carbon 13?
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- @Michael Eco "It's literally the exact same process."
Except whether it's doable or not.
You can measure a door with a twelve inch ruler, but you cannot measure a mountain with it.
@Michael Eco "Do you really think some science lab was sitting around for 358 years to measure the 1/16th life of carbon 13?"
We have samples guaranteed 358 years old by historic facts.
And I'm dealing with the halflife of carbon 14, not carbon 13.
- Michael Eco
- @Hans-Georg Lundahl lol, no, that' snot how it works.
@Hans-Georg Lundahl "You can measure a tree with triangulation but you can't measure a mountain with triangulation."
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- @Michael Eco "lol, no, that' snot how it works."
You tell me how ...
And the reason you cannot measure a mountain with triangulation (using an inchstick and shadows) is that you cannot measure how far in the base of the mountain is right under the tip.
Even if you instead used the kind of triangulation kit that surveyors use, you can measure a mountain with it, but not space.
For every measuring device, there is a limit beyond which it cannot go.
- Michael Eco
- @Hans-Georg Lundahl You can measure things in space from triangulation. It's how we measure the distances to stars.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- @Michael Eco I was for a very specific reason saying the triangulation equipment used by surveyors.
As for the triangulation used to get the distance to the Moon or the Sun - it doesn't involve triangulating a tree by a small inchruler. You need places on earth somewhat distant from each other to do that.
My point being, the original value and the long accepted value on C14 decay rate have been corrected by reference to historic objects. An object 360 years old can be dated by associated documents. So can an object 716 or 1432 years old. And these are significant parts of the overall halflife.
What we can date historically isn't that in relation to a halflife 4.5 billion years long.
- Michael Eco
- @Hans-Georg Lundahl Sure. You specified that because you're trying to weasel out of the point.
"What we can date historically isn't that in relation to a halflife 4.5 billion years long."
Yes, we can. Any given sample of uranium.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- @Michael Eco We cannot date any sample to 281,250,000 years ago by history.
That's what corresponds to 358 years in carbon dating if the halflife is really 4.5 billion years old.
- Michael Eco
- @Hans-Georg Lundahl "We cannot date any sample to 281,250,000 years ago by history."
Good thing we don't need to.
"That's what corresponds to 358 years in carbon dating if the halflife is really 4.5 billion years old."
Fortunatly fractions can go smaller than 1/16th.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- @Michael Eco Yes, but smaller fractions are lots less useful.
That's why the original "lab time fraction" studied by Libby got corrected to 5730 years, in one or two goes.
I have two stories about it.
A) Libby got closer, but then corrected by using larger fractions from archaeology to 5568 years, and this was presented as the Libby haflife, and further use of larger fractions got the halflife corrected (back a bit) to 5730 years, the Cambridge halflife;
B) Libby's method, whichever it was, directly led to 5568 years, and it needed to be corrected from the very start.
Whichever it is, those using carbon have found it useful to correct any expectations from purely lab observations of decay to adher more closely to data from historically known samples.
One more. 5 years is margin error for carbon 14.
That's 0.0008726003490401.
That fraction is 3,926,702 years for a 4.5 billion year decay.
- Michael Eco
- @Hans-Georg Lundahl "That fraction is 3,926,702 years for a 4.5 billion year decay."
Which fine. Because that's a tiny fraction.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- @Michael Eco Well, it's such a tiny fraction, that for the same fraction carbon 14 says "margin error" - and even that tiny fraction is too big to verify historically.
- Michael Eco
- @Hans-Georg Lundahl And it's the same margin of error for U-Th. And no, it's prehistoric so there's no verifying it historically. That's what we have radiometric dating for.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- @Michael Eco Well, the exact problem is, radiometric dating is worthless when even the halflife cannot be verified by historically dated samples.
- Antik Sur
- @Hans-Georg Lundahl Um, you do know that we can derive that half-lives are constant from current quantum mechanical theories, right? So, what exactly is your proposal, huh? That the laws of physics themselves were somehow different in the past, because they do not agree with my religious belief? Even though we don't see any signs at all that they may have changed, nor do we see them changing right now, even though we have instruments with the required degree of accuracy to measure such things?
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- @Antik Sur I think you are bad at reading - or pretending to be.
The proposition is still not that they aren't constant. It's that those longer than carbon 14 aren't known.
- Aaron Polichar
- @Hans-Georg Lundahl "With carbon 14, we can verify significant parts of the decay curve." What is the cutoff for whether a part of it is significant or not, and on what basis?
@Hans-Georg Lundahl It's called inductive reasoning. That's how science works. Those half-lifes very precisely predict rates of decay that are used in industry. Experimental results agree with them, theory agrees with them, and there is no evidence contradicting them. That's good enough for science. You don't have to have corroboration with historically known quantities going back hundreds or thousands of years. And why is 1/16 better than 1/1024, or even less, if you have precise enough measurements? Half-life is just a mathematical expression. There's nothing special about waiting until half of the amount has decayed, or any other fraction.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- @Aaron Polichar Take a look at carbon 14 dating.
5 years is margin error for a date. 5/5730 = the cutoff.
That precise ratio is 3 million years for U-Pb.
@Aaron Polichar "It's called inductive reasoning."
I'm not the least sure you know how to detect the process of inductive reasoning here.
"That's how science works. Those half-lifes very precisely predict rates of decay that are used in industry."
The halflives used in industry are shorter than C14. Those that are longer are not used in industry.
I was thinking, isn't C14 used in medicine? Yes, but only because it emits radioactivity and is a tracer, not by the precise half life.
So, no, the halflives used for putting earth at 4.5 billion years are not used in industry.
"Experimental results agree with them, theory agrees with them, and there is no evidence contradicting them."
For as long half lives as that, there are no experimental results that don't agree with anything else.
"That's good enough for science."
Perhaps for Science as practised today, but not for a correct philosophy of science.
"You don't have to have corroboration with historically known quantities going back hundreds or thousands of years."
The quantity is not historically known. The remaining quantity measured now gives a date that can be checked with real historical dates. Both C14 and dendro-chronology were early on checked to each other and confirmed each other in late pre-Columbian samples from Arizona. Pueblo Indians in Arizona.
"And why is 1/16 better than 1/1024, or even less, if you have precise enough measurements? Half-life is just a mathematical expression. There's nothing special about waiting until half of the amount has decayed, or any other fraction."
The minute detail of decay is stochastic. If the fraction is too small, the small irregularities in the decay can come through.
- Aaron Polichar
- @Hans-Georg Lundahl so why are you talking about 358 years?
@Hans-Georg Lundahl You're mixing a bunch of things up. I wasn't talking about determining the age of the earth. All sorts of radiocative decays are used in industry, just maybe not what you're thinking of. I'm not just talking about dating things. A half life is just an expression of a rate of decay, which is measurable.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- @Aaron Polichar "358 years" - because they are above the indicated limit of too small a ratio and can be dated historically.
"You're mixing a bunch of things up." - You wish.
"I wasn't talking about determining the age of the earth" - I got that.
"All sorts of radiocative decays are used in industry," like that of rubidium or something used in smoke detectors, to determine how long it can last, I suppose.
"a rate of decay, which is measurable." - As already indicated, measuring a rate of decay, to my mind, is impossible with sufficient exactitude unless you have a significant fraction of the halflife. Not at 5/5730 of it. The decay rate may still be sufficiently clear for industry, but that doesn't prove the halflife is correct.
Plus, where does the decay rate for U to Pb come into play in industry, at all?
- Benkai
- @Hans-Georg Lundahl the earth is old kid move on
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- @Benkai 7200 years is kind of old, so there you have a point.
I am not your kid, actually not an adult goat either, and I'm pretty fine in this chair.
- Benkai
- @Hans-Georg Lundahl the earth is billions of years old scientists would love to have a talk but fairy tales have rotted your Brain kid move on
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- @Benkai Fairy tales don't rot brains.
Prejudices like yours do.
Get lost!
- After this
- I tried to block Benkai, could only signal him, and did so for harrassment or intimidation concerning me.
- II
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- 6:22 You are here correctly resuming the idea of Setterfield.
I do not subscribe to it, I believe radiometric decay was mostly constant, possible smaller samples accelerating hard melt style being excepted, and that could account for the argon in volcanic samples from the Flood being argon 40 rather than 39.
For the main problems, my answer is "the quantity of original parent isotope is directly speaking unknown and reconstructed in the wrong manner" - plus for decay rates slower than carbon, exact decay rate would tend to be unknown.
I agree that Setterfield's idea would give you a heat problem. But I am not buying it, and I've said so.
- ADvorak
- So where exactly is the reconstruction being wrong? Please give me more than “I don’t like the results” …
You do not doubt the reconstruction is correct, you claim it is wrong, therefore you get to show the proof it is wrong.
Never mind that we often talk about parent/daughter ratios, not absolute values …
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- @ADvorak The problem can absolutely be restated as what was the initial parent/daughter ratio? Assuming it was 100 % parent equals assuming the daughter isotope only exists as daughter isotope, which is more than we know.
"So where exactly is the reconstruction being wrong?"
It collides with other known facts, like the chronology of the Bible.
If you don't think Biblical history is factual, you do you. In a debate, you should be ok with me doing me.
Where is the reconstruction wrong? = You are a heretic for not thinking us able to get it right. Well, by your standards I am.
- Antik Sur
- @Hans-Georg Lundahl Since when is the chronology of the Bible known to be true? In a comment below, you express your disbelief in half-lives being constant due to lack of direct records, and yet the Bible is true, when it has infinitely less empirical evidence for it and lots against it, and further we know was written decades after the incidents described?
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- @Antik Sur "Since when is the chronology of the Bible known to be true?"
Since history was a thing?
Or if you mean known beyond the shadow of a doubt, since Christ rose from the dead.
"you express your disbelief in half-lives being constant"
No. Read again.
"due to lack of direct records, and yet the Bible is true,"
Because it is precisely a direct record.
"when it has infinitely less empirical evidence for it"
Historic records aren't empirical evidence for history?
"and lots against it,"
Such as?
"and further we know was written decades after the incidents described?"
You have pretty much disqualified yourself from discussing history. The Exodus (around which time Moses wrote Genesis) was 1447 years after the Flood we are discussing here.
- Antik Sur
- @Hans-Georg Lundahl History was a thing before the Bible, dear. In fact, historical records show us ancient civilizations comfortably surviving through Noah's flood. But, of course, hypocrites like you ignore history when it's inconvenient for your narrative. Also, it's the very same history that shows us how the Bible derives a lot of its myths from previous stories like Mesopotamian legends and the Tanakh. And, when you say foolish things like "Jesus definitely rose from the dead because a book said so," don't wonder why people laugh at you.
Oh, really? How is it a direct record? Did God himself write Genesis? He must have, since only he could have witnessed Creation. What about Noah's flood? Did Noah write it, since no other humans survived it? Do you know what the word "direct" means?
Evidently you don't know what the word "empirical" means. A big part of empirical evidence is reproducibility, i.e. you can repeat the experiment in some way to verify if you get the same results. Since you can't do that for historical events, there is no "empirical evidence" for it, as we use such a term in a scientific context. And, writing in a book is definitely not empirical evidence in the least.
Oh, so it was not written decades after, just hundreds of years after. That makes your argument so much stronger, doesn't it? What's hilarious is that you pretend that the entirety of the Bible is made of direct records, yet you undermine that very point here.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- @Antik Sur "History was a thing before the Bible, dear."
Sure, Adam was writing chapters before Moses wrote Genesis. Moses wrote Genesis before John wrote the Gospel. All books were written before their final collection was decided on in mid to late 4th C in Carthage and Rome. By then history certainly was a thing all over the place and structured around the same principles as the Bible.
"In fact, historical records show us ancient civilizations comfortably surviving through Noah's flood."
No, they don't. Historical records from Egypt and Sumeria don't fit into a coherent chronology that's hard to find chinks in. It is well known that Sumerian ideologues serialised parallel kingships, because only one city at a time could have hegemony over all Sumeria. I suspect something similar went on in Egypt. If you want to bolster an anti-Flood chronology from carbon dated objects surrounding clay tablets and papyri, this poses the question how we know that the original carbon content was 100 pmC - unlike the decay rate, 100 pmC is not a natural constant.
"But, of course, hypocrites like you"
Are you trying to flirt with me? If you are male or above thirty, forget it!
"ignore history when it's inconvenient for your narrative."
Or refuse to confuse historic record with archaeologic dating.
"Also, it's the very same history that shows us how the Bible derives a lot of its myths from previous stories like Mesopotamian legends and the Tanakh."
In case you didn't know, Tanakh is simply the Old Testament of the Bible - with some copying mistakes and without some of the books. And no, it's not a historic fact recorded in records that Moses copied Mesopotamian myth, it's reconstruction.
"And, when you say foolish things like "Jesus definitely rose from the dead because a book said so," don't wonder why people laugh at you."
I rather said "a book definitely got the history right, because He who rose from the dead said so." And "He rose, because the Church says so" - which is a different thing from your parody.
"How is it a direct record? Did God himself write Genesis? He must have, since only he could have witnessed Creation."
If you mean God wrote 1:1 to 2:4, fair enough, He gave that to Moses on Sinai.
" What about Noah's flood? Did Noah write it, since no other humans survived it?"
Noah or his sons or even their wives, yes. Recorded in written or oral form. And preserved pre-Flood records from Creation of Eve to Genesis 6 and the building of the Ark. Whether the direct record was written or oral, it was transmitted orally to Abraham, who after presirving that started keeping better record of the remaining 78 % of the chapters. That bulk of Genesis was written by five generations from Abraham to sons of Joseph and finally put together with beginning and his own vision of creation by Moses.
"Do you know what the word "direct" means?"
I use direct record in opposition to inference from indirectly connected facts.
Some of above was inference on my part, Genesis wasn't.
" A big part of empirical evidence is reproducibility, i.e. you can repeat the experiment ..."
History is empirical and NOT reproducible. You are confusing empirical history with empirical sciences.
"Since you can't do that for historical events, there is no "empirical evidence" for it, as we use such a term in a scientific context."
Science is not my religion, I was using empirical evidence in a non-scientific but historic context.
"That makes your argument so much stronger, doesn't it?"
No. It makes it weaker, as you would suggest. I only say it remains sufficiently strong.
"you pretend that the entirety of the Bible is made of direct records, yet you undermine that very point here."
I think I said Genesis was written millennia after the earliest events in it. I did very much not say that each part of Genesis was redacted only then. Each part of Genesis remains direct record. Redacted orally or in writing on the spot. The first 11 chapters consist of pieces that are easy to learn by heart.
- Antik Sur
- @Hans-Georg Lundahl "All books were written before their final collection was decided on in mid to late 4th century C in Carthage and Rome."
Except you pulled that right out of your ass. Oh no, sorry, "that must be the case because it doesn't fit my narrative otherwise!"
You suspect that's the same with Egypt? I don't care about your suspicion. Prove it. Provide incontrovertible evidence that proves the vast majority of historians wrong. And what about China? Chinese proto-writing existed back then. So did Indian for that matter. All of these can be hand-waved away too, am I right? No need to provide conclusive proof of anything. Just give a vague suggestion as to how they're wrong but don't give anything conclusive.
Also, the question you asked about radiocarbon dating just shows your painful lack of knowledge. We can know how much C-14 (conc) existed at any place and date in the past because C-14 is generated only through cosmic rays in the atmosphere, and hence a record or a calibration curve is preserved in tree rings of trees which lived during that time. That's why Dendrochronology is used hand-in-hand with radiocarbon dating.
It's amusing to me how you can definitively assert that the Tanakh, which came before the Bible has "copying mistakes". The sheer arrogance is astounding. Also, yeah, it's totally a coincidence that the Mesopotamian flood myths are quite similar to the Biblical Flood Myth. Perhaps to you, who has literally rejected such a possibility point blank, but for us rational people, it's much more compelling.
How do you know He who rose from the dead said such a thing? Or, where did the Church come to know such a thing? Oh, that's right. It's the Bible that said it.
It's very easy to show that the form of "empirical evidence" you hold in esteem is much weaker than empirical evidence in science. Which is what I meant. Same as what you mean by "direct record". Which is why scientific evidence trumps historical evidence, i.e. a book every time. And that's why direct records are only direct when they come straight from primary witnesses. Also, "science is not my religion." How much more blatant can you get?
You don't get to decide what "sufficiently strong" is. To anyone who is not blinded by religious fervor, it's easy to see how pathetic this part of your argument is.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- @Antik Sur "Except you pulled that right out of your ass. Oh no, sorry, 'that must be the case because it doesn't fit my narrative otherwise!' "
In so far it was an admission to your argument, what's your point in contesting it?
Why would a council in 382 AD (the one in Rome) list books that weren't written yet?
Or why the heck would history not be a thing well before 382 AD?
"You suspect that's the same with Egypt? I don't care about your suspicion. Prove it. Provide incontrovertible evidence that proves the vast majority of historians wrong."
We certainly do have periods of Egypt with parallel dynasties, we certainly do have ynasties missing from burial places between extant ones, and we certainly do have an ideology considering the Pharao king of "upper and lower Egypt" - i e denying the possibility of division. It stands to reason that they would be tempted to see past divisions, say "this won't do" and pretend the contemporary pharaos were successive ones.
This is not incontrovertible evidence, but neither is "the vast majority of historians" in an age when Academics raise people like you to utter suspicion against the Bible.
Tell you one more thing. This would be near impossible with people dating Anno Domini. Suppose a land in Europe was divided in the 8th C, for 100 years, it would be impossible to claim the one set or rulers ruled 700 to 800 AD, and the other set of rulers, instead of ruling another part of the country, ruled all of it in 800 to 900 AD. Not just because Europe was several fairly interconnected countries, but also because they were dating Anno Domini and before that ab Urbe condita or Anno Mundi. The Egyptians had no such epoch - a year could easily be designated as "13th year of Ramses" or whatever, but there was no equivalent to the long term epoch.
"And what about China? Chinese proto-writing existed back then. So did Indian for that matter."
Proto-writing is not historical record. Once a writing involves deciphered narrative, and that's what historical record means, it is no longer proto-writing.
This means, you have no historical evidence from when proto-writing is from.
"All of these can be hand-waved away too, am I right? No need to provide conclusive proof of anything. Just give a vague suggestion as to how they're wrong but don't give anything conclusive."
You were the one saying there was conclusive evidence against the Flood, and that means you are the one required to give conclusive evidence. I'm not required to do more than show why yours isn't conclusive.
"We can know how much C-14 (conc) existed at any place and date in the past because C-14 is generated only through cosmic rays in the atmosphere,"
Basically only, radioactivity on the ground can also cause it. A place with a nuke experiment suddenly had carbon dates 3000 years into the future. However, we do not have total certainty on how much C14 is generated in the atmosphere at a given time, except from calibrating historic evidence.
"and hence a record or a calibration curve is preserved in tree rings of trees which lived during that time. That's why Dendrochronology is used hand-in-hand with radiocarbon dating."
Works pretty well for the last 3000 years. Someone pretended it was valid for last 6000 years, and made a calibration curve - Minze Stuiver and Bernd Bekker. I think they are overoptimistic for the previous 3000 years.
"It's amusing to me how you can definitively assert that the Tanakh, which came before the Bible has "copying mistakes"."
The Tanakh we have now is from c. 1000 AD, earliest manuscript.
"The sheer arrogance is astounding."
From the perspective of a Jew who believes the text of 1000 AD is strictly identic letter for letter (except vocalisation) to one in 1000 BC for octoteuch and books of Samuel and Job .... it is more realistic to compare to translations for which we have evidence before the earliest complete Hebrew text. Like LXX and Vulgate. Of these the LXX is older than the Vulgate.
Also, yeah, it's totally a coincidence that the Mesopotamian flood myths are quite similar to the Biblical Flood Myth. Perhaps to you, who has literally rejected such a possibility point blank, but for us rational people, it's much more compelling.
"How do you know He who rose from the dead said such a thing? Or, where did the Church come to know such a thing? Oh, that's right. It's the Bible that said it."
A community usually has a pretty correct memory of its past. The Church goes back to the man who rose from the dead. The NT, in relation to this, is basically the notepad of the Church.
"It's very easy to show that the form of "empirical evidence" you hold in esteem is much weaker than empirical evidence in science. Which is what I meant. Same as what you mean by "direct record". Which is why scientific evidence trumps historical evidence, i.e. a book every time."
Why haven't you shown it?
"And that's why direct records are only direct when they come straight from primary witnesses. Also, "science is not my religion." How much more blatant can you get?"
If you read a letter by Abraham Lincoln in a text book, is it a direct record, because the letter is identic to the one written by Abraham Lincoln? Or is it only indirect record, because the letter was copied into a text book that wasn't written in Abraham Lincoln's time? I would say, unlike surrounding explanatory text, it was direct record. The difference with Genesis is, Moses didn't add tons of paragraphs of surrounding explanatory text.
"You don't get to decide what "sufficiently strong" is. To anyone who is not blinded by religious fervor, it's easy to see how pathetic this part of your argument is."
I certainly do get to do so for my part, and I feel no need to bow down to those blinded by anti-religious fervour (which is also religious, but somehow doesn't count its idol "Science TM" as a religion).
- III
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- 7:23 The solution to tectonic plates is, the original positions were so much less Pangaea and so much more like our continents than what AiG or CMI propose.
- Edelwise
- That's not a solution, there's a reason how we know what continents were like before Pangea. You'd be once again facing a deceptive god problem, kind of a problem for YECs when no matter how they twist it, their model is always incompatible with their faith.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- @Edelwise The thing is, we YECs do not have the least reason to suppose there ever was a Pangaea. We can afford having, and I as amateur do have a very different model for where the continents were before the Flood. Pretty much where they are now, except Australia and Antarctic got squeezed out, India squeezed in, and Himalayas being part of a squeeze that also affected Alps and Andes - over the centuries after the Flood.
- Edelwise
- @Hans-Georg Lundahl They do need to accept Pangea because it's the necessary logical implication of observable data.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- @Edelwise I do not think these data necessarily imply Pangaea.
If you think otherwise, you go and fetch me a link to an observation proving it existed.
And quote the most relevant passage.
- Edelwise
- @Hans-Georg Lundahl You'll do fine making a simple search yourself.
Pangea is necessitated by geology and the fossil record.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- @Edelwise Neither the one nor the other.
If you cannot even resume the argument from one of the sites you read, you didn't understand it, and are in no position to assess the logical claims of the proof.
By the way, one part of Pangaea theorem coincides with the Bible, and that is single pre-Flood continent - from, on my view, Americas in the West to Australia and East Asia in the East. With the Atlantic even post-Flood still partly filled by the Atlantic.
This is sufficient for landways for certain fossil species to have moved. Plus human agency to move them in vehicles was available.
- Edelwise
- @Hans-Georg Lundahl The "sites I read" is textbook geography class from high-school.
@Hans-Georg Lundahl Humans with Vehicles were available on Pangea??? Now how about you find hundreds of millions year old evidence for that claim
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- @Edelwise There are no hundreds of millions of years anyway.
The claim is not based on archaeology, but on an assessment of the pre-Flood world.
Noah had reduced technology use, I would say, but even he built an ark, in size equal to what has only been since reached in the XXth C. Other people made the pre-Flood world so connected that there was basically no haven. That's why God provided eight people with one, plus some relatives who died before the Flood, plus perhaps occasional hired workers who didn't appreciate and stay.
You cannot make the world interconnected without vehicles. And you cannot destroy human lives over an entire world without connexions.
- Edelwise
- @Hans-Georg Lundahl You would destroy a species by going down to 8 people. Such a genetic bottleneck causes extinction
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- @Edelwise That is not what the population of Pitcairn island suggests.
- Edelwise
- @Hans-Georg Lundahl Also no evidence of any human activity or even presence in the layers of what's understood to be pangean fossils.
@Hans-Georg Lundahl the population of what.
For someone who cries about "not getting sources" for most basic facts about geology and history of the earth you make the absolute most outlandish claims with not even a basic explanation.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- @Edelwise For one, there is no evidence that the pre-Flood fauna of the year in the Flood did exclusively include "pangaean" fossils.
I take it, that corresponds to one or more eras or epochs, things like Cretaceous and Palaeogene, like Maastrichtian and Danian. But these are labels that say more about local fauna than about times.
Pitcairn Island has a wikipedia article. Its population is very well known from within a few decades from the Mutiny of the Bounty to the present day.
By the way, the article you should read is Pitcairn Islanders.
"Pitcairn Islanders, also referred to as Pitkerners and Pitcairnese, are the inhabitants or citizens of the Pitcairn Islands. The Pitcairn Islands are a British Overseas Territory, mainly inhabited by Euronesians of British and Tahitian descent."
"There is also a Pitcairn diaspora particularly in Norfolk Island, New Zealand and mainland Australia. Fearing overcrowding, in 1856 all 194 Pitkerners immigrated to Norfolk Island aboard the Morayshire (including a baby born en route) but 16 of them returned to Pitcairn on the Mary Ann in 1858, followed by a further four families in 1864."
I would say the 40 Pitkerners descend from only few people, and the Norfolk Islanders came in three waves, third from Pitcairn.
@Edelwise Sorry, closer look at Norfolk Island, it's only populated from Pitcairn, since all previous settlers (convicts) were removed.
So, Pitcairn and Norfolk Island are two places with one population descending from very few Mutineers of the Bounty with Polynesian wives.
@Edelwise On Norfolk Island, the population is 2188 by 2021.
No reason to fear dying out after the bottleneck of 1789.
- Edelwise
- @Hans-Georg Lundahl There was never a bottleneck of 2 or 8 in human population, and both would lead to quick extinction
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- @Edelwise The bottleneck following the Mutiny of the Bounty was not much bigger. Definitely well below the 500 claimed to be minimal viability.
Also, the genome has deteriorated, so smaller bottlenecks were possible without extinction nearer God's perfect creation.
@Edelwise For your textbook, I suppose part of the argument was dating of "Pangaean" fossils? Plus obviously necessity, or presumed such, for the animals to get from one part where they lived to another on their own? Because, if that was so, it's answered, I can leave it aside.
- Edelwise
- @Hans-Georg Lundahl "For one, there is no evidence that the pre-Flood fauna of the year in the Flood did exclusively include "pangaean" fossils."
There's no evidence for a flood to begin with so you wouldn't know what is or isn't pre-flood except for maybe pure guesswork at what animals do and don't appear in the bible.
"But these are labels that say more about local fauna than about times."
It's both. If you don't find a fossil in some place among other fossils it indicates it didn't live there at that time.
In case of humans, you won't find any human fossils among dinosaur fossils anywhere on the planet.
@Hans-Georg Lundahl I don't see any relevance unless there were only 2 up to 8 of them and they had never gone into relation with anyone else for multiple centuries even a single time.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- @Edelwise "There's no evidence for a flood to begin with so you wouldn't know what is or isn't pre-flood except for maybe pure guesswork at what animals do and don't appear in the bible."
The evidence of the Flood is twofold. Historical, biblical and otherwise. Fossil. Most of the fossil layers are from the Flood.
This means, a pre-Flood animal can be identified fairly well by appearing as a fossil.
"It's both. If you don't find a fossil in some place among other fossils it indicates it didn't live there at that time."
I would put it at "there" - for land vertebrates you don't find layers piled on top of each other. We are dealing with separate biotopes in the year of the flood.
"In case of humans, you won't find any human fossils among dinosaur fossils anywhere on the planet."
Tell me what guy you ever met who would want to spend his life or even many hours in a biotope of T Rex or even of Diplodocus?
"I don't see any relevance unless there were only 2 up to 8 of them and they had never gone into relation with anyone else for multiple centuries even a single time."
It is already multiple centuries, 1790 - 2022 = 232 years, and the Pikerners, on Pitcairn and Norfolk Island, have married among themselves. The original number was far closer to 8 than to the 500 that's considered on your type of view "minimal viable population" ... I'll quote about it:
They created the “50/500” rule, which suggested that a minimum population size of 50 was necessary to combat inbreeding and a minimum of 500 individuals was needed to reduce genetic drift.
https://www.britannica.com/science/50-500-rule
I thought "500" was about inbreeding, turns out it wasn't. However, Pitcairn started out with half of those 50. They are doing fine. The key would seem how quick populations rise in number after the bottleneck - and obviously also how bad the genes were to begin with.
- Edelwise
- @Hans-Georg Lundahl "The evidence of the Flood is twofold. Historical, biblical and otherwise. Fossil. Most of the fossil layers are from the Flood."
There is no good historical evidence for a global flood. Biblical evidence isn't evidence, it's the claim, not evidence in itself. Fossil layers are not "from the flood". These layers couldn't have been created as they are in a flood, it's physically impossible. Fossil record makes no sense with a global flood.
"This means, a pre-Flood animal can be identified fairly well by appearing as a fossil."
So the claim is, that fossilization does not occur after the flood? How come? We know how fossilization occurs. A flood is totally not a necessary part of it.
"I would put it at "there" - for land vertebrates you don't find layers piled on top of each other. We are dealing with separate biotopes in the year of the flood."
Except we totally do. Fossils are layered in the geological column.
"Tell me what guy you ever met who would want to spend his life or even many hours in a biotope of T Rex or even of Diplodocus?"
Is this supposed to be a legitimate argument or are you having a laugh?
"It is already multiple centuries, 1790 - 2022 = 232 years, and the Pikerners, on Pitcairn and Norfolk Island, have married among themselves."
Studies on genetics of the Norfolk island indicates that they did inbreed a lot but also that they'd had over 300 outsiders come in and add to the genepool. so much so that of the original 20 or so individuals they make up only up to 20% of the current day population. Had they been completely isolated as you propose that number would be many times higher.
The Pitcairn island is the only interesting case but by far it's a very rare exception. Can't find any studies on those people on their genetics, only that the island itself had been completely depopulated at least once somewhere in XIX century.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- @Edelwise "There is no good historical evidence for a global flood."
Let's see.
"Biblical evidence isn't evidence, it's the claim, not evidence in itself."
Any historical claim is evidence - good or bad - of historical fact.
"Fossil layers are not "from the flood". These layers couldn't have been created as they are in a flood, it's physically impossible. Fossil record makes no sense with a global flood."
I disagree, obviously.
"So the claim is, that fossilization does not occur after the flood? How come? We know how fossilization occurs. A flood is totally not a necessary part of it."
Rapid burial is. Outside flooding scenarios, rapid burial is rare. I said most fossils are from the flood, not all.
"Except we totally do. Fossils are layered in the geological column."
I have studied that in some detail. I repeat what I said. Land vertebrates are not layered. In Grand Canyon, shellfish are layered.
"Is this supposed to be a legitimate argument or are you having a laugh?"
If the world were flooded today, what are the chances that one found you among herds of elephants or hyaenas?
"Studies on genetics of the Norfolk island indicates that they did inbreed a lot but also that they'd had over 300 outsiders come in and add to the genepool."
Documenting the 300 outsiders?
" so much so that of the original 20 or so individuals they make up only up to 20% of the current day population. Had they been completely isolated as you propose that number would be many times higher."
This is however not the case with Pitcairn itself.
"The Pitcairn island is the only interesting case but by far it's a very rare exception."
You do not have any cases of depopulation of a population due to inbreeding. In case you would like to cite Spanish Habsburgs, male lineage is not the whole population of them.
"Can't find any studies on those people on their genetics, only that the island itself had been completely depopulated at least once somewhere in XIX century."
The population on Pitcairn is totally from the original population, the complete depopulation was a move to Norfolk island, and the ones that moved back to Pitcairn hadn't had time to mix with 300 others.
Your info are from lines in the wiki article I missed or from other sources?
- Edelwise
- @Hans-Georg Lundahl "Any historical claim is evidence - good or bad - of historical fact."
Your claim that biblical flood is true, therefore the bible cannot be used as evidence for it. You'd be using the claim to evidence itself. It's like saying that LOTR book is evidence for LOTR being true. It's nonsensical, it's the WORST evidence.
"I disagree, obviously."
You have to, reality be damned. We know how flood deposits sedimentary layers. We know when floods happened in history in given areas. There is no sedimentary evidence for a global flood.
"Rapid burial is. Outside flooding scenarios, rapid burial is rare. I said most fossils are from the flood, not all."
You didn't say that, you'd be better off not lying this soon. I have very short temper when it comes to liars.
Rapid burials include being buried in bogs and swamps or areas prone to landslides.
And guess where we find most fossils. In areas we can geologically confirm to be one or another in most cases.
And somehow there's never ever been a single human being to have died alongside any of the dinosaurs, even in that supposed great flood of yours.
"I have studied that in some detail. I repeat what I said. Land vertebrates are not layered. In Grand Canyon, shellfish are layered."
[Kent] Hovind told you?
"If the world were flooded today, what are the chances that one found you among herds of elephants or hyaenas?"
Very little considering there's some 1000 or more kms between me and the next group of either. Which is not even relevant to your argument since dinosaurs for one were present on the entire planet and fossils of which can be found throughout the entire globe. Not only that, unless you didn't know, T-rex isn't the only species of Dinosaurs to have existed. Go ask a 6 year old and you might actually learn a thing or two.
"Documenting the 300 outsiders?"
They're present in their genomes. Get a clue.
"This is however not the case with Pitcairn itself."
Red herring and not true since they had not been completely isolated and the island had been completely depopulated when those people have migrated to Norfolk Island which we know genetically had not been isolated.
There's no studies done that I could find on the Pitcairns therefore you cannot make unfounded claims about their genetics.
"You do not have any cases of depopulation of a population due to inbreeding. In case you would like to cite Spanish Habsburgs, male lineage is not the whole population of them."
Even the Habsburgs were not completely isolated and had been marrying out. Even then largely due to their inbreeding and genetic defects that followed their entire male line had gone extinct. How do you propose a population to survive without a single man?
"The population on Pitcairn is totally from the original population"
To which no study has been done to confirm, therefore you're simply lying here.
"the complete depopulation was a move to Norfolk island"
The Norfolk Island which is established to while be superbly inbred for global standards has absolutely not been isolated, nor were they part of Pitcairn.
"Your info are from lines in the wiki article I missed or from other sources?"
Better info than yours which comes from your lust to mingle with your sibling.
@Hans-Georg Lundahl And speaking of studies, ang genetics. We can tell when a population was severely inbred or when there was a genetic bottleneck. For global flood story to be true we would've needed to find evidence of it in entire human race's genes. We don't. The largest bottleneck in human genetics is found to be about 60-70 thousand years ago when population dropped to anywhere between 10,000-30,000 individuals.
Not 2, not 8, not 19. 10,000 at the lowest.
And of course we can check in the geologic column and find sedimentary layers that coincide with that time period and whatdya know, no flood deposits that would be found globally. But wait, there actually is evidence for a global catastrophe that has left its mark in the geologic column all over the planet, but it's volcanic ash. Huh, curious.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- @Edelwise "We can tell when a population was severely inbred or when there was a genetic bottleneck."
To some degree.
"The largest bottleneck in human genetics is found to be about 60-70 thousand years ago when population dropped to anywhere between 10,000-30,000 individuals."
That time is inaccurate, doesn't even exist.
You have basically projected ghost images.
"And of course we can check in the geologic column and find sedimentary layers that coincide with that time period and whatdya know, no flood deposits that would be found globally."
If you pretend that Miocene and Permian are from radically different events.
" But wait, there actually is evidence for a global catastrophe that has left its mark in the geologic column all over the planet, but it's volcanic ash."
In fact, I changed my carbon date for the Flood from 40 000 BP to 39 000 BP over volcanic ash from Campi Flegrei.
If you carbon dated things from Permian or Miocene, first sawing up bones to find non-permineralised interiors, I think much could be carbon dated like that.
@Edelwise "Your claim that biblical flood is true, therefore the bible cannot be used as evidence for it. You'd be using the claim to evidence itself."
Historical claims are evidence that historical facts are true. Not always the 100 % correct evidence, but it is the evidence that history as such uses. More claims and closer in time to purported facts, and similar claims fom different sources are all factors that increase the quality.
If we regard the Bible as historic evidence and don't think about Divine inspiration, it concords with lots of evidence from other sources for the Flood. Not just from Mesopotamia, but from Altai and Peru as well.
"It's like saying that LOTR book is evidence for LOTR being true. It's nonsensical, it's the WORST evidence."
The first known audience of the book has not taken it as a historic claim, but as fiction.
"You have to, reality be damned."
Not the least damning reality ...
"We know how flood deposits sedimentary layers."
Guy Berthault has done experiments published in some Journal of Lithology. If the water is running at 20 m / sec, it can depose before calming down, does produce wharves.
"We know when floods happened in history in given areas."
Apart from historic records, no you don't.
"There is no sedimentary evidence for a global flood."
The Jurassic at Ankerschlag, the Miocene in Vienna and Lienz and lots of other places mentioned on palaeocritti disagree with you.
"You didn't say that, you'd be better off not lying this soon. I have very short temper when it comes to liars."
I quoted myself from memory. Here is the quote copypasted : // Most of the fossil layers are from the Flood. //
So, I didn't say most fossils were from the Flood, I said most of the fossil layers are from then. I still used "most" and I still didn't use "all" ... thanks for correcting me.
"Rapid burials include being buried in bogs and swamps or areas prone to landslides."
Indeed. But 5000 years worth of rapid burials after the Flood under such circumstances would still be dwarfed by those in the Flood.
Possible second, post-Flood landslides while mountains rose rapidly.
"And guess where we find most fossils. In areas we can geologically confirm to be one or another in most cases."
How does a geologically confirmed bog or swamp differ from a geologically confirmed part of the Flood?
"And somehow there's never ever been a single human being to have died alongside any of the dinosaurs, even in that supposed great flood of yours."
Even when the waters were coming, I'd prefer to stay miles away from the dinos, if I had lived back then. So would you.
[Kent] "Hovind told you?"
I have studied it in non-creationist sources apart from him. I hold his position as confirmed by my research. My go-to has been palaeocritti.
"Very little considering there's some 1000 or more kms between me and the next group of either."
It would probably be some hundred km between men and dinos just before the Flood to. Let's check for dino fossils close to Tautavel - a place where a Erectus race man was buried below lava in the Flood.
Tautavel is Pyrénées-Orientales.
Allier, Ardèche, Aude, Dordogne, Doubs, Hérault, Morbihan, Paris, Yonne are departments in France where you can see dinosaurs. In Paris they are probably brought there from elsewhere. In Dordogne, the men who came there were probably post-Flood.
"Which is not even relevant to your argument since dinosaurs for one were present on the entire planet and fossils of which can be found throughout the entire globe."
Not every square kilometer.
"Not only that, unless you didn't know, T-rex isn't the only species of Dinosaurs to have existed. Go ask a 6 year old and you might actually learn a thing or two."
It would be charming to spend some minutes discussing with a 6 year old who of Stego, Diplo and Ankylo would be best at resisting an attack from a Dimetrodon Grandis. But I was not trying to show off my capacity to discuss the dino kinds with a six year old, I was making a point. Dino carnivores were not very good to go near, and some herbivores weren't that either. Should I have taken two other types than T Rex and Diplodocus? Allosaurus and Brontosaurus (if the latter is a valid taxon currently) are obviously classed as different species, perhaps even genera, but are same kinds.
"They're present in their genomes. Get a clue."
With Norfolk island it's a qustion of history. If it's a known historic fact, why isn't it on the wiki on Norfolk Island?
"Red herring and not true since they had not been completely isolated and the island had been completely depopulated when those people have migrated to Norfolk Island which we know genetically had not been isolated."
The relevant other people on Norfolk Island came after the very brief time when all Pitkerners moved to Norfolk Island before any moved back.
"There's no studies done that I could find on the Pitcairns therefore you cannot make unfounded claims about their genetics."
My claim is about their history. Pitcairn and Norfolk Island have a history that can be studied in Church books.
"Even the Habsburgs were not completely isolated and had been marrying out."
Charles II was descended from Philip III, who also had two sons died without issue. One of them was clergy and the other died of a fever at 24. Neither of these extinctions had anything to do with inbreeding.
Philip III was son of Philip II, who had three sons die in infancy before Philip III became Prince of Asturias. The infant mortality also had no relation to inbreeding.
Philip II was son of Charles V, who had sons die young, apart from him. Two other sons survived into adulthood but were not eligible, since illegitimate.
"Even then largely due to their inbreeding and genetic defects that followed their entire male line had gone extinct."
The one example of damaging genetic effects was in Charles II. His ancestry must have had defective genes, but he was the first to have many of these from both sides.
So, no, inbreeding didn't kill the Habsburgs of Spain, just the last of them.
"How do you propose a population to survive without a single man?"
Would be a valid question if the Habsburg males hadn't had to deal with infant mortality, high fever at 24 or monastic / clerical vocations.
"To which no study has been done to confirm, therefore you're simply lying here."
Genetic studies are irrelevant, the historic facts are known.
"The Norfolk Island which is established to while be superbly inbred for global standards has absolutely not been isolated, nor were they part of Pitcairn."
You have entirely missed the history of Norfolk Island. It's available on wikipedia. I am still waiting for your reference for 300 ancestral individuals not from Pitcairn. A historical one, not a reconstruction by genetic testing.
But as you mention it is "superbly inbred for global standards" do they seem to be dying? A population well over 2000 seems to be doing just fine.
"Better info than yours which comes from your lust to mingle with your sibling."
I have no lust to mingle with my sibling. That's a hugely unfair charge just to vent your anger over the disagreement, or to demonise Christians who believe in these bottlenecks.
You are still not saying what info.
- Continued Debate with Edelwise
- upcoming
- IV
- 9:06 You are aware that the different fossils of the Paris basin (the one studied by Lyell) were mostly shellfish, right?
How would that superposition be explainable in a Flood setting? Hmmmm .....
9:21 "likely took a long time to form"
We don't see structures like that forming in the present, so uniformitarianism would perhaps still be off?
10:25 Tree rings are not a great key for millions or billions of years.
Back when I started out as Young Earth Creationist, before even becoming Catholic on top of that, From Nothing to Nature, by Edgar Andrews suggested tree rings could be possibly used for going 20 000 years back in time, and now a very serious tree ring research centre in Germany is only going 10 000 years back in time.
That's also over the top.
For the other items, deposition rates are either not biologically determined, or as with corals, not in conflict with Young Earth for other reasons, like thickness fitting a coral having grown since the Flood very well.
- Paul Garrett
- How does any of that relate to radiometric dating.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- @Paul Garrett Did you not notice that at the time stamp 10:25 Gutsick Gibbon is not talking of radiometric dating?
If you know the video less well than I do, why bother to answer? I at least am aware of the first 10 minutes, like 10:25 not being about radiometric dating.
She's in fact talking of among other things tree rings.
I am making a detailed comment on the video, point by point, not just answering the title, OK?
- Paul Garrett
- @Hans-Georg Lundahl gotcha, so radiometric dating is sound and the earth is 4.5 billion years old.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- @Paul Garrett No, this is not the comment for that debate.
@Paul Garrett 10:25 is not the time stamp in the video where Gutsick is talking of radiometric dating.
- Paul Garrett
- @Hans-Georg Lundahl it's where she is talking about other methods that corroborate radiometric dating, an they do. Dendrochronology is concordant with carbon dating and other lower half life isotopes like Ar-Ar.
Radiometric dating is still sound, the earth is still 4.5 billion years old.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- @Paul Garrett yes, it's about other methods, and this coment is about those other methods.
If you want to discuss the 4.5 billion years, wait for the comment where she is discussing how to get there.
11:00 Putting blue hyperlinks into a book - I think they should make a second edition, where each section has the hyperlinks in the pages explicitated with written out URL's at the end.
OR - you should verify they haven't done so already.
