... on Protestants Getting Wrong WHY "Pope Francis" is Wrong about Mother Theresa

Here is a video:

Mother Teresa Made a Saint by the Pope - Currently Burning in Hell - Salvation is NOT of Works!
Truth In Genesis
Ajoutée le 18 sept. 2016
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6-r5ecs0c9s

It attacks the "canonisation" of Mother Theresa in the wrong way. This is how I comment on beginning and some subsequent moments to correct it:

If Mother Theresa is burning in Hell or just staying in purgatory, some of her works were straw, and so much one cannot be sure THAT she built on the right foundation.

Some Catholics are sure she did not do so, and think indeed she is burning in Hell. Antipope Alexander IX has excommunicated her posthumously (if he is an antipope, as I think, invalidly, just as invalid as the "canonisation" by the other Argentinian Antipope). Pope Michael has at least not at all confirmed the "canonisation".

That said, this is not because of your theory about salvation by faith without works, if Keiren Parmley got you right (I haven't seen the video myself yet), but because some of her works were bad or inadequate, and considered such by Catholics throughout history. Like having Muslim and Hindoo patients in your hospital and NOT telling them about Christ.

By 1:28 it is clear, Keiren Parmley is right.

You actually DO have to keep the commandments (at least the last minute of your life, ideally some time before that too) to get to Heaven. John chapter 3 does mention that!

At 1:55, it is not keeping commandments now which saves from past sins, but it is one requirement for keeping the salvation you got through grace, through the sacraments of faith.

No, 2:22, it is your protestantism which will send you to Hell unless you repent.

2:34 The Bible does not say we ARE all sinners, but that all of us (except Our Lord Jesus Christ and His Blessed Mother) HAVE BEEN sinners.

We HAVE all SINNED - in the past. But some have been justified by grace since then, and ARE no longer sinners.

Luther's "at once sinner and just" is simply a lie. It sends to Hell.

2:46 The wages of sin is death. The pay roll a sinner is on mentions not just corporeal death, but eternal death, a k a Hell.

The payroll a just is on says eternal life. You don't get on it by works, but you stay on it by keeping the commandments, by works. By breaking commandments, you get back on the bad payroll.

3:13 Your name can get written into the book of life, which happens by a miracle of justification. A sacrament like Baptism or Confession or Extreme unction, in some rare cases the Eucharist can suffice, but usually you need to be already justified before receving it [1 Corinthians 11:29].

Your name can also get erased from it, as long as you haven't died. See here:

"He that shall overcome, shall thus be clothed in white garments, and I will not blot out his name out of the book of life, and I will confess his name before my Father, and before his angels."
[Apocalypse (Revelation) 3:5]

So, if you do NOT overcome, perhaps your name WILL be blotted out?

See what I mean?

I am not yet settled on whether this channel abuses a clearly Creationist label ("Truth in Genesis" sounds as creationist as Answers in Genesis) to promote mostly other issues, but it would seem so from top 17 videos (not all necessarily bad). Since youtube allows one user more than one channel (if?) perhaps better restrict Truth in Genesis to Creationist matters and use another channel name for sth else?

... updating Kent Hovind on C14, part 2

... updating Hovind on C14 · ... updating Kent Hovind on C14, part 2

16:38

the wild carbon 14 dates, well, they were Egyptologists, and in early dynastic/predynastic times in Egypt, carbon 14 was still rising - which gives an "inconsistent half life" or, by a consistent halflife being assumed, inconsistent datings of earlier and later material, the inconsistent halflife being a mathematical impression given by the rise in C14 : while level is c. 45% of stable, but is mistaken for stable, you can take objects from a range of 2000 years, and earliest will give dates that are wildly off the medium as well as later ones doing so.

Also, the half life impression given if mistaking 45% of stable in rising for 100% of a stable level will be about half as long as the real halflife of C14 - assuming you get your impression from dating historically known objects, which we can do for last 2000 years.

That is what the last of these tables is about, see post:

New blog on the kid : Examinons une hypothèse qui se trouve contrefactuelle un peu de près
http://nov9blogg9.blogspot.com/2015/10/examinons-une-hypothese-qui-se-trouve.html

First of the tables says that starting with:

2957 (avant Jésus-Christ) 3/64 (du taux présent de C14)

And adding normals amounts of C14 each year (you said 21 pounds a year), you arrive in 2013 at:

2013 0.4572193977407785684036364330248471874682057649283872118718611542

Or 45.7% of stable level. Supposing the 45.7% of stable level were reinterpreted as 100% of stable level, but we still stuck with 5730 years' half life, you get NEXT table.

El Alamein gets dated as Ghettysburg and a lot of other funny stuff before that. That is the ultralong table. When abstracting the fun of it and just leaving percentages, reinterpreting consistently 457:1000, we would have had - third, shorter table - in 227 BC or 2242 BP:

0,5004891440422348718879843942245829632895718154101377462548512654

BUT the last table (which has no bold text and doesn't look like one) shows that attempts to date each date with appropriate half life for its known historic date gives the impression of a half life fluctuating, so that if you took a half life obtained from an object from ... I might want to look over the last table, it seems entries were garbled when copying from notepad to post. Or a hacker did sth.

Anyway, using the halflife obtained from oldest objects, I would date one from 2242 years ago to 2832 years ago.

And using the half life from a historically known object 2242 years ago, I would date the oldest one as younger than it was.

According to what Egyptologists said in your source*, that would mean Pre-Dynastic and early Dynastic Egypt was in such a situation. And this would mean not just that C14 was still rising, but that it was far below stable - so start of Early Kingdom is later than dated.

"Anyway, using the halflife obtained from oldest objects, I would date one from 2242 years ago to 2832 years ago."

Correction, after extracting the most relevant parts, of this last table, I am left with following:

177
177 158 164 158 161 158 155 153 152 151 147 146 146 145 140
0,9576032806985736427993411

317
354 317 328 316 323 316 311 307 304 301 293 292 291 290 280
0,9170040432046712238204

492
531 476 492 474 484 473 466 460 456 452 440 438 437 435 420
0,87812608018664973017524071974848340308374473844

632
708 634 656 632 646 631 621 613 608 603 586 584 582 580 560
0,8408964152537145285

807
885 792 820 790 807 789 776 767 759 754 733 730 728 725 701
0,80524516597462713669594825775751874729717135

947
1062 951 984 948 968 947 932 920 911 904 879 876 873 871 841
0,7711054127039703918185037524151107546814

1087
XV ? 1110 1148 1106 1130 1105 1087 1074 1063 1055 1026 1022 1019 1016 980
0,7384130729697496333631862712845828169251080005327764349276604255

1227
1416 1268 1312 1264 1291 1263 1242 1227 1215 1206 1172 1168 1164 1161 1121
0,7071067811865475

1367
1593 1426 1476 1422 1453 1420 1398 1380 1367 1356 1319 1314 1310 1306 1261
0,67712777346844633785740308077210918385225

1507
1770 1585 1640 1580 1614 1578 1553 1534 1519 1507 1465 1460 1455 1451 1401
0,648419777325504804988696971258036069

1612
1947 1744 1804 1738 1775 1736 1708 1687 1671 1658 1612 1606 1601 1596 1541
0,6209289060367419948223520717813389469537524230607602332341359

1752
2124 1902 1968 1896 1937 1894 1863 1840 1823 1808 1759 1752 1746 1741 1681
0,59460355750136050256511006950535375

1892
2301 2060 2132 2054 2098 2052 2019 1994 1975 1959 1905 1898 1892 1887 1822
0,569394317378345794903970704068264767562476012215343422414125

2032
2478 2219 2296 2212 2260 2210 2174 2147 2126 2109 2052 2044 2038 2032 1962
0,5452538663326287966544848412744322702549033080823284665

2102
2655 2378 2460 2370 2421 2367 2329 2301 2278 2260 2198 2190 2183 2177 2102
0,5221368912137068863531972179212530815462861493744144146237420433

2242 [227 av.J.C., daté comme min. 227, maxim 817 av. J.C., Âge Moyen 436 av. J.C.]
2832 2536 2624 2528 2582 2525 2485 2454 2430 2411 2345 2336 2329 2322 2242
0,5

In other words, since "dated age" right under real age to the left is using half life from latest dated age (177=177), and since last of "dated ages" is using half life from last of these (2242=2242 years ago), this means that of we were now just 45.7% of stable, any half life obtained by more recent datings would be giving us too old datings for less recent datings, and any half life from older datings will give the more recent datings too young an age.

Could this be what was happening to the Egyptologist? 

22:36

"how can you use RD as a resource"

Now, it is true that RD has less pre-publishing peer review than NG or sth, but it is also true that RD tends to have a flair on what are acceptable and non-acceptable bets for quoting from well known magazines like NG.

When it comes to wikipedia, it has more post-publishing review per article than either of above. And it is post-publishing peer review which tends to correct the mistakes.

Let's not be fooled by socially accepted "value stamps" on certain media.

25:45

J. P. Dawson - phone number, I can't test. Testing mail takes some time. The sites www.jpdawson.com and www.aaronc.com are down. There may be back ups for principal pages on wayback machine, but there is no back up I could find to content in articles.

26:33

Potassium Argon dating is a pure joke.**

Some of the facts you mentioned before were not carbon and perhaps not even Ka-Ar, like Moon Rocks. Some which were carbon could be explained either by reservoir effect (imagine you consistently ate wheat which was several thousand years old, from Harappa or Jericho - your C14 would sink after a while), which accounts for mollusks, penguins eating such, snail living in similar vicinity to much calcium carbonate with much old carbon. Or, other option which I forgot before finishing the sentence, by rising C14 levels and mathematic appearance of inconsistent half life.

But in closer range, and even in long range once you make allowance for rising levels, you can make some sence (outside forgeries) of carbo dates, including by systematic squeezing as per my table or Tas Walker's.

For potassium argon dating, no such making sense seems even possible.

The problems with potassium argon - and there come lots of late millions or hundred thousands of years - are immensely huger than with C14.

Footnotes

* T. Säve-Söderbergh & I. U. Olsson "C-14 dating and Egyptian chronology in Radiocarbon Variations and Absolute Chronology" Proceedings of the twelfth Nobel Symposium, New York 1970, p.35

** For those not knowing why I agree with Kent Hovind here, I refer to CMI

CMI : How do you date a New Zealand volcano?
by Robert Doolan
http://creation.com/how-do-you-date-a-new-zealand-volcano

and CMI : ‘I got excited at Mount St Helens!’
by Ken Ham
http://creation.com/i-got-excited-at-mount-st-helens 

... updating Hovind on C14

... updating Hovind on C14 · ... updating Kent Hovind on C14, part 2

Carbon Dating Flaws
Truth In Genesis
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TVuVYnHRuig

After seing first half of video.

1:07 did they say in 1830 the Earth was billions of years old?

I thought they were staying in the range of 20 million up to c. 1900?

2:04 Carbon dating is actually used for things "so young" that geological column is irrelevant.

If a thing is dated by geologic column, like a ceratopsian fossil, routinely it is not carbon dated. When exceptioonally it is, you get surprising results, like a Triceratops horridus c. 40 000 - not 40 000 000 just 40 000 - years old.

2:53 Derek Ager is obviously speaking of radiocarbon dated things as being "really archaeology".

The radiometric datings related to "geologic column" is the wordthless K-Ar method, mainly, which was proven worthless at Mt St Helens.

4:21 If now 21 pounds of C 14 each year is produced, in order to account for the rise back when history started, it must have been 420 pounds in the year of the Flood (that is 20 times more than now in a year)* with the speed declining, and probably stabilising around the time of Cyrus or of taking of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar.

I am now speaking of a Flood in 2957 BC. If it was 2400 BC, you would need to have somewhat more carbon 14 than 420 pounds produced in the year of the Flood, to account for present level being stable last 2000 - 2500 years, unless you have a steeper rise for longer, which means some history is radically shorter.

I see an Exodus in 1510 BC carbon datable to 1700 BC - you might need to have it carbon datable to 2000 BC or 2400 BC (Pepi I or II).

420 pounds instead of 21 pounds means 20 times as much radiation, which gives a level of cosmic radiation close to total background radiation at Princeton.

12:31 "it would take 30 000 years to reach equilibrium"

Well, that means they were talking of only 21 pounds a year.

Somehow, since we have been in equilibrium last two millennia, unless history is falsified in chronology, we already have equilibrium, and if 30 000 years would be the time required with 21 pounds a year, and if 21 pounds a year is what we have now, well, since Earth is NOT 30 000 years old, it started rising (after Flood) at a level of roughly 420 pounds C14 added to atmosphere each year. Add some, if you assume KJV rather than LXX chronology!

Radiocarbon is still forming 28%-37% faster than it is decaying?

The source you give** is not a study of how it forms and decays now, but an attempt of explaining a discrepancy in North American Human Skeletons.

One which does not take into account perhaps that last tw thousand years we have a well dated history where carbon 14 datings match history rather well.

13:18 "you'd have to know when it lived so you could calculate when it lived"

We know when Tiberius lived (most of us assume), and some of the coins with his image has datable blood, sweat, tears from when it was used - matching carbon dates with history. And therefore also validating a carbon dating of 78.511% of modern carbon as implying 2000 years (unlike exceptional circumstances, like shellfish from polar regions or generally shell fish).

13:43. Half the carbon of today's atmosphere left ... half original would mean 5730 years ago. If original was 84.421% modern carbon, it would only mean 3/4 of that time (84.421% to the power of 4 is 50%, roughly). If it was instead 70.711% modern carbon***, it was alive half a halflife ago.

For a thing having half modern carbon, I think history (including Biblical) make 3/4 of a hlf life from originally 84.421% modern carbon a more reasonable guess. By 2865 years ago, carbon would be more evenly rising if not yet quite stable.

14:57 "how much was in it when it lived"

Well, it seems that carbon level in the year of the Flood and just previous was around 3% of present level - since consistently carbon datings from Flood fossils give 20 000 to 50 000 years ago.

That means it rose from c. 3% in say 2957 BC to c. 100% in c. 500 BC (when carbon dates can be well verified by history).°

This is why starting with 420 pounds a year and levelling out to 21 pounds as per present rate is the good option.

If Flood was only 2400 BC, you need either a higher initial addition rate than 420 pounds per year, or a faster and steeper rise - which might make for conflict with historically well dated archaeology.

15:36 No, the initial level as per pre-Flood C14 is lower than 25% of present level. Much lower.

Otherwise, a Triceratops horridus from Flood would date to 11 450 BP or 9450 BC.

It dates to 40 000 BP. So Carbon level was lots lower than 25% modern carbon.

Update

five years later, this dialogue and part of the footnotes.

Bunny Poop

Prove it

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Bunny Poop Flood in 2957 BC + 2022 AD = real age of 4979 actual years.

I cannot access the carbon 14 calculator, (error 403) so let's use the basics in maths instead.

50 % = 0.5, which is what is left after a halflife, aka 5730 years.
0.5^(4979/5730) = 0.5475507422311837

What was buried in the Flood, you will now have 54 - 55 % of the then ratio.

0.5475507422311837 * 0.25 = 0.136887685557795925

You would have 13.69 % left.

0.5^(x/5730) = 0.136887685557795925

I actually don't know maths well enough to extract the x from here. So, lets go another way.

Let's say x is 11 450 as I presumed five years ago, when I did access the carbon calculator, and we get this:

0.5^(11450/5730) = 0.2503026032256235 ooops ...

I got about twice as much, meaning I made a calculation mistake a few years ago.

11450 + 5730 = 17180 BP or 15 000 BC ...

0.5^(17180/5730) = 0.1251513016128118

Yup, a lot better ...

* Since then I have made tables requiring only ten times the present production, and as for pounds produced a year, I am taking Kent Hovind's word for it. It is also not necessarily true that x times as fast production equals x times as much radioactivity from the cosmos on earth. Both C14 and radioactivity added to background radiation on earth depend on radiation from cosmos in somewhat quirky ways that get computer models. I have failed to obtain a modelling till it reaches "ten times as fast C14 production" from Ilya Usoskin (University of Åbo or Turkku) who has specialised in this.
** R. E. Taylor et al., "Major Revisions in the Pleistocene Age Assignments for North American Skeletons by C-14 Accelerator Mass Spectrometry," American Antiquity, Vol. 50, No. 1 1985 pp. 136-140.
*** All relations % modern carbon 14 to age, HT: https://www.math.upenn.edu/~deturck/m170/c14/carbdate.html
° Since updated to arguably it was 1.4 pmC at the Flood, in my view.