.... on Creationist Explaining Cave Paintings

Q

How do young earth creationists explain cave paintings?
https://www.quora.com/How-do-young-earth-creationists-explain-cave-paintings/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl#

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Blog : "http://creavsevolu.blogspot.com". Debating evolutionists for 15 years +.

Answered Jan 30, 2017

The trucker Brett Passmore got his answer collapsed.

It was actually, on a first level of response extremely good:

“Uh….. Someone drew pictures on a cave wall. How does an evolutionist explain it?”

If this was thought inadequate, I suppose there was some unstated thought behind the words of the question.

If you mean why Altamira and Lascaux were painted in 30,000 BC and 20,000 BC, I’d say it is because they were painted within two centuries after the Flood, which explains the style was the same (painter still living or his disciple or her disciple), and as carbon 14 level compared to other carbon was still very low back then, this gets misdated to the kind of dates we see in the text books.

Since this thing about carbon dating is a recurrent theme in archaeology, contrary to John Erikson: “With either denial or whatever bullshit they make up on the spot” we actually do have a systematic and thought through answer to it.

If you want to know more, see for instance here:

Where my dating of music differs from Habermehl's
http://filolohika.blogspot.fr/2017/01/where-my-dating-of-music-differs-from.html

(she and I are both creationists, but differ on what the rise of carbon really was, so her modified timeline is different from mine), or here:

C14 Calibrations, comparing two preliminary ones, mine and Tas Walker's
http://creavsevolu.blogspot.fr/2016/08/c14-calibrations-comparing-two.html

(he’s a geologist and made his curve from trying to figure out what Biblical dates can correspond to peak of ice age, I was simply trying to make a nice curve and checking more on the later parts of it, with better identifiable Biblical events)

Times given as

x min / hours ago are some time back. Dito, the "just now". The comments which were deleted are not so by me.

i

Michael W. Rickard II

Feb 1, 2017

2 upvotes including Hans-Georg Lundahl

T hanks for your detailed answer and links for further thought.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Feb 1, 2017

You are welcome!

ij

Basil Fondu

Jan 30, 2017

2 upvotes

I must have missed the part where you cited testable evidence for a world-wide flood.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Jan 30, 2017

That certain things are testably there does not mean all agree they prove the world wide flood. Some persons (excluding me) do not consider Cretaceous, Permian and other faunas as evidence for the Flood and diverse biotopes when the Flood struck, but as evidence of millions and billions of years between which the biotopes evolved into each other.

Basil Fondu

Jan 30, 2017

So you have no testable evidence for a world-wide flood.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Jan 31, 2017

You have a confusion about what “logic” and “testable” mean.

The pieces of evidence are indeed VERY testable. It is a question of LOGIC - not of other or more testable evidence - whether they point rather to a Flood or rather to millions of years.

iij

Everett Sass

Feb 4, 2017

2 upvotes including Hans-Georg Lundahl

I didn't quite understand your answer. What do you believe is wrong with the 'accepted' method of radiometric dating and what do you do instead (and why)?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

5m ago

First of all, I don’t conflate all types of radiometric dating with each other.

I am talking specifically of carbon dating and other methods are different.

Second, when Göbekli Tepe is dated to two half lives ago, it is presumed that the organic material would, if a researcher had come back to the time in a time machine, tested as “recent”, that is, that the carbon 14 in the atmosphere would have been like now.

If carbon 14 in the atmosphere was instead about 50 % in relation to carbon 12 to what it is now, if there was one carbon 14 per two trillions carbon 12 instead of one carbon 14 per only one trillion carbon 12 as now, a team in a time machine would back then have dated recent organic material as one half life old, and this means that Göbekli Tepe could be only one half life back instead of two, like one of the two dated half lives being from original lower carbon 14 content and other from the time the things have been in the mud since then. Or, for Göbekli Tepe, I should rather say in the sand.

My first test is therefore not carbon dating, but Biblical history, and using this I do find that GT - if I identify it correctly as Babel - is even less than one half life back and would have been dated even older than one half life.

The thing is, when Lascaux was painted, there was so little carbon 14, I think I recall it is about 4 half lifes old, and it is post-Flood, so close to Babel / GT, it would have dated about three half lives old.

Now, with this in mind, go to the article which I give to compare my recalibration with Tas Walker’s.

C14 Calibrations, comparing two preliminary ones, mine and Tas Walker's
http://creavsevolu.blogspot.fr/2016/08/c14-calibrations-comparing-two.html

iu

Comment deleted

Jan 30, 2017

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Jan 30, 2017

How would a scenario with a rising level of carbon 14 be “ignorance and superstition”?

Comment deleted

Jan 30, 2017

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Jan 30, 2017

1 upvote

“free, educated, secular and democratic”

An oxymoron.

If it is secular and democratic and educated in accordance with such political decisions, it is not free.

The question was not about how I explained the Flood, which is another debate.

The question was about how I explained certain paintings, the problem of which is that their dating seems to refute Biblical chronology, and I have answered, as you have not been able to refute so far, that the carbon 14 levels can have risen.

If some organic material of Altamira has 2.654 % of the modern level of carbon 14 (relative to carbon 12), it can of course, if we consider the halflife, be because it had c. 100% of it when recent and has been decaying c. the time it takes for 100 to become 2.654, that being 30,000 years. Or it could have had 5.308 % when recent and gone through only one half life. Or less than 5.308 % (but not much less) and gone through less than one half life (but also not much less).

Whether there was a Flood before that is actually not important to the question.

Except, the population change in Europe c. 37,000 BP would indicate something happened. I’d say it was the global Flood. And that by taking into account that date, the Biblical chronology date of the Flood and the decay rate of carbon 14, we can calculate what the atmospheric carbon 14 ratio was - or at least one typical one.

C.R. Denmon

Jan 31, 2017

2 upvotes

"that the carbon 14 levels can have risen." this year or always? Because cosmic rays turn N-14 into C-14. Are you arguing the sun was in a significantly different location 20,000 years ago? Rather sound scientific understandings indicate that Carbon 14 has been fluctuating over the last 10,000 years as we would expect, a small measurable variation that can be accounted for. 20,000 years is twice what the bible contends occurred. What evidence other than the claim it has do you have to demonstrate conclusively that all evidence is concurrent with your understanding while addressing all evidence that is in direct contradiction to your claims.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Just now

You know, your claim of a fluctuation over the last 10,000 years and this one being small and measurable, that claim is not historically testable.

Over the last TWO thousand years, yes, we can test that historically and I accept that, even up to 2500 years ago.

Knowing that Hezekias lived before 500 BC, and his seal has just been found, I would like to know how associated organic material will be dated. If his seal dates older than expected date, that would to me argue that as recently as in his time the carbon 14 level was lower.

Paul Manning

Apr 27, 2017

I like your style. Keep it up.

Adam Parker

May 9, 2017

Nice. You chased Derek off!