Continuing with J7b Second

First Half of a Video Pretending Micro-Evolution Prove Macro-Evolution Possible · Continuing with J7b Second · Fed Up with J7b Second's Harrassment

J7b Second

@Hans-Georg Lundahl oh you think moses wrote genesis.
Lol, are you serious, hilarious.

No it's not 'evolution of the gaps' but nice attempt at projection, at least it shows you understand the point and just how weak your position is.
To say an as yet undiscovered natural process is simply to say we don't know yet. That's not at all the same as saying we don't know yet therefore magic.

You first need to demonstrate that your supernatural 'thing' exists outside of your imagination.

Let's start there, can you provide any positive evidence for your imaginary god idea - demonstrate it exists.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@J7b Second Any evidence of existence of anything not directly seen or smelled or heard is evidence taken from the effects of the thing and the effects need to be seen at some level.

Unknown natural processes are getting depleted as more and more are tried and found inadequate.

J7b Second

@Hans-Georg Lundahl brilliant, you're getting somewhere.
I'm glad we agree - now let's explore that idea and see if we can help you, or at least establish where your cognitive dissonance is kicking in.

Yes we can establish information on a phenomenon by observing its effects, we can make predictions and if those predictions are correct then we raise our confidence in our hypothesis.

So for a rainbow I say its light reflected and refracted within water droplets. How do we test that?
How about I create a mist of water droplets and shine a light - that would be a start right?

So with your magical god thing, you think it exists in reality and not just your imagination, what test could we perform to establish the truth of your claim?

It would be silly to read Harry Potter then believe wizards were real - just having a book isn't enough is it.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@J7b Second "Yes we can establish information on a phenomenon by observing its effects,"

... instead of an in itself unobservable "phenomenon" (in that case a misnomer, since phenomenon and observed are essentially the same thing) or rather thing, yes. Now, the establishing of a thing does not just involve accepting one explanation of the effects but rejecting other ones. Hence, my logic stands.

"we can make predictions and if those predictions are correct then we raise our confidence in our hypothesis."

For instance, if the God behind biological life and gravitation and rainbows is the one of the Bible, its Flood would be somewhat traceable and one of the traces was the possibility of modelling a Carbon 14 rise after the Flood. As I mentioned. And as you omitted to react on.

"So for a rainbow I say its light reflected and refracted within water droplets. How do we test that? How about I create a mist of water droplets and shine a light - that would be a start right?"

And for where the rainbow is, you by the very act of doing so show a will was behind the rainbow showing then and there. Not exactly a refutation of my idea rainbows occur whereever and whenever God wants them to occur.

"So with your magical god thing, you think it exists in reality and not just your imagination, what test could we perform to establish the truth of your claim?"

Could it create magical minds that have control over bodies not strictly essentially though individually identic to them? Are there such? Look in a mirror : you have a body, or you are a body even ... and the matter in that body doesn't explain your reflecting on the question or even seeing the mirror image. Therefore, you also have and are a mind, with a different essence, thogh same individuality as your body.

"It would be silly to read Harry Potter then believe wizards were real - just having a book isn't enough is it."

That's why I check whether some actually historic sources are telling of God (and of wizards) in believeable ways, and also whether traces of major events show such sources believeable.

J7b Second

@Hans-Georg Lundahl you say historic sources but outside of the new testament- which is in my opinion just a myth. What historical sources do you have for the jesus story?

Sorry I missed the carbon 14 reference, what do you mean and why do you think its evidence of a global flood? Could you expand I'd be interested to take a look, I've never heard that mentioned before.

Thanks

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@J7b Second "you say historic sources but outside of the new testament- which is in my opinion just a myth."

In fact, when I was in context saying sth about checking whether major events leave traces, I was speaking of Genesis 1 - 11 and specifically of the Flood event.

Your opinion of what is "just a myth" is not worth much. It's wide spread, but ill informed, first of all in the idea that "myths" with actors on earth before human society are not historic sources, just because they share the word "myth" with such that take place before or totally above mankind, like Theogony.

"What historical sources do you have for the jesus story?"

The Gospels, with very early Church testimony for the Catholic Church taking it as history.

"Sorry I missed the carbon 14 reference, what do you mean and why do you think its evidence of a global flood?"

I said one type of evidence for the global flood was stories of it all around the world - the kind you call myths - and another one was traces of it, and one part of this being, one needs to be able to model a rise in C14 levels for other traces (like démise of Neanderthals and Denisovans) to be traces of the event occurring c. 1000 before Abraham went to Pharaonic Egypt. This would make impossibility of modelling a rise in C14 levels an evidence against the Flood, and possibility a possible trace of events occurring after the Flood and in connection with it.

Neanderthals and Denisovans are dated to 40 000 BP, the last ones we find skeletal parts of, and that means 38 000 BC, which is somewhat different from the historical Flood date 2957 BC.

The difference is c. 35 000 extra years, or a carbon level of 1.45 pmC. We now have one of 100 pmC, by definition, or nearly so, since 100 pmC is "corrected for preindustrial levels." This means C14 would have risen from 1.45 to 100 pmC some time between then and now.

And it so happens, if we assume this, this arranges a lot more - like things from Abraham's time dating c. 1500 - 1100 before his lifetime. Genesis 14 features the Amorrheans getting driven out of Asason Tamar, a k a En Geddi and reed mats with temple treasures from En Geddi show a carbon date of 3500 BC. The earliest pharao we found was from c. 3100 BC. But Abraham needs to be contemporary to both, essentially, which makes the carbon date 3500 BC arguably 1565 years too early, corresponding to a C14 level of 82.753 pmC.

2957 - 1935 = 1022 years for a rise from 1.45 to 82.753. End of Babel should be 401 after Flood or 621 before Genesis 14, Amorrheans leaving Asason Tamar.

82.753 - 1.45 = 81.303

81.303 * (401/1022) = 31.901 pmC = 9450 extra years.

9450 extra years + 2556 real BC = 12006 carbon dated BC.

Now, we don't find exactly that, but we find a structure beginning in 9600 BC and ending in 8600 BC - carbon dated, of course. This means c. 6000 extra years or 48.393 pmC instead of 31.901. This means the carbon was rising quicker before and slower after Babel - if this is Göbekli Tepe.

And before carbon dated Göbekli Tepe, we do not find any written languages different from each other, like Sumerian from Akkadian from Egyptian ... just as there shouldn't be before Babel.

It doesn't break down to incoherent as soon as your side would wish for a non-trace of a non-event.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Sorry, should have taken 31.901 + 1.45 = 33.351 pmC = 9100 extra years - but since this was only approximate methodology, and off by c. 15 pmC points or c. 3000 extra years, it is somewhat irrelevant anyway, just wanted to show my fatigue doesn't constitute complete methodological idiocy.

J7b Second

@Hans-Georg Lundahl I asked for evidence outside of the myth, you offered the myth as evidence of the myth lol.
So again, the book is myth, it is the claim, what evidence do you have outside of the story that the story is true? You suggested you had some.

Isn't it interesting how cognitive dissonance and confirmation bias has skewed your thinking. You demand exquisite levels of detail and place your evidence bar very high for anything which goes against your childhood beliefs, yet you will accept literally anything as evidence if its in support of those beliefs. Perhaps a more honest approach would be to set the bar equally and only then form beliefs based on the weight of evidence - not what you'd like it to be.

I took a quick look at your carbon claim, turns out it's easily refuted nonesense. Where did you find that information?
Scientists accept that the C14 rates fluctuate over time, there are tables which compensate for the variations.
Science likes to test its hypothesis, so when a C14 date is offered it's cross referenced with other data and the model is refined. For example we can use archeology, test an object with C14, then cross reference the date with the known or expected dates based on historical records - for example an Egyptian pharaoh where we would know reasonably well when they reigned.
Dates have been cross referenced with tree ring data, they conform.
Dates have been cross referenced with other radiometric data
Then we have some interesting techniques such as stonehenge where the C14 Dates pushed the dates further into the past than first suspected. At first this posed a problem until some clever people computer modeled how the stars would appear x thousand years ago and found the monument was indeed constructed at that much earlier time and the stones were arranged such that they aligned perfectly with astronomical phenomena at that time - not the later time. Sorry I don't have those dates to hand, its late, but I'm sure you can research.

Tower of babel lol, another myth, that just a fireside tale that is more interesting in reality than your fantasy. It's a mythical retelling of the loss of cuneiform, babel is babylon, after the fall of that empire the standard written language in the ANE was lost.

Anyway, back to your C14 claim, do you have any published papers you could point me to that support your assertion?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@J7b Second "I asked for evidence outside of the myth, you offered the myth as evidence of the myth lol."

It so happens, I told you why your request was ill formulated.

"So again, the book is myth,"

If the myth involves no men, or no men of whom anyone survived into more recent populations, it's reconstruction (or prophecy).

If the myth does involve men and men who can have left a tradition behind, then the myth is a historical document.

"it is the claim, what evidence do you have outside of the story that the story is true?"

The nearest evidence outside any story that it is partly or totally true, is a public reading or reciting it as precisely history. And yes, we do have people as early as St. Papias of Hierapolis who are giving us the Four Gospels of Jesus, according to Matthew, Marc, Luke and John, as the history of our salvation, and of the founding of the Church. We do not have anyone as early as this suggesting they could be fiction.

"You suggested you had some."

You think of my words about the Flood, but I just gave for the Gospels too.

"Isn't it interesting how cognitive dissonance and confirmation bias has skewed your thinking."

If you are a shrink, it is interesting how you diagnose by skewing what someone says, if he's Christian. That's confirmation bias for you.

"You demand exquisite levels of detail and place your evidence bar very high for anything which goes against your childhood beliefs,"

Yes, my early childhood beliefs were Evolutionism, with Heliocentrism, and without Christianity. I do indeed place the bar very high for those of my present beliefs that go against these childhood ones.

"yet you will accept literally anything as evidence if its in support of those beliefs."

No, I will take a story taken by its first audience as true as historic, I will take care to construe the models in favour of my present beliefs very carefully. If you didn't notice, that's your confirmation bias - in your prejudice against Christians.

"Perhaps a more honest approach would be to set the bar equally"

Like, what bar would you suggest? Let's see if your own bar is anywhere equal?

"and only then form beliefs based on the weight of evidence"

Nearly no one does that. I don't think you did. I don't think you grew up in a devout Christian home and only after such a decision opted very rationally for Atheism. I think you grew up in an Atheist home and accept as proven what you learned as proven by fossils when you were three, and accept as illproven things in a story without ever asking the question whether it was accepted as true recent history, true far off history or pure entertainment. By the first traceable audience.

"not what you'd like it to be."

We'll see if you live up to this standard yourself in a moment.

"I took a quick look at your carbon claim, turns out it's easily refuted nonesense."

Then refute it ...

"Where did you find that information?"

That's not a refutation.

"Scientists accept that the C14 rates fluctuate over time,"

Did I really forget to say "round" 100 pmC each time?

"there are tables which compensate for the variations."

Sure. And do you know how they make these tables? By actually stating such and such an object has another date than the raw carbon date, obtained by them believing another method more accurate. This involves both historical records and tree rings. What I did myself was discard tree rings before c. 3000 - 3200 years ago and accept the historic record of the Bible, as given in the chronology of the Roman martyrology for Christmas day. And then look around for appropriate objects to match the carbon dates to these dates. I startedoff with CMI informing me that dino fossils carbon date 20 000 to 50 000 BP when (contrary to consensual practise) they are actually carbon dated. I therefore took the medium value of that as date for Flood. On the other hand, the destruction of Jerusalem under Nebuchandnezzar took place c. 600 BC, and it is also carbon dated to c. 600 BC. I therefore took this as another object to match 100 pmC or zero extra years. From there I worked on, first attempt, a scale of evenly falling extra years, and found this wouldn't work. Abraham's time would then be c. Göbekli Tepe and not c. early Pharaonic Egypt. I then tried an evenly rising carbon level, and found this wouldn't work either. I then tried a curve, obtained through additions in falling installments of a constant times Fibonacci numbers. Now Göbekli Tepe looked more like time of Peleg than time of Abraham. I then actually did insert GT = Babel as a third, Genesis 14 at end of Chalcolithic (I took 3200 BC carbon date, only recently inserted Chalcolithic of En Geddi real carbon value, 3500 BC) and two pharaos with known carbon dates as pharaos of Joseph and of the birth of Moses (Djozer as per Joseph = Imhotep, Sesostris III equals the pharao who died after Moses was born, which allows me to take Kenyon's 1550 carbon date for Jericho's depopulation as the carbon date of 1470 as per 40 years after Exodus).

"Science likes to test its hypothesis,"

Like I do ...

"so when a C14 date is offered it's cross referenced with other data and the model is refined."

Like I did.

"For example we can use archeology,"

Like I did and do extensively.

"test an object with C14, then cross reference the date with the known or expected dates based on historical records - for example an Egyptian pharaoh where we would know reasonably well when they reigned."

If you take Biblical records and match Biblically unnamed pharaos, I agree. But skip the Turin and Abydos King Lists in the context, most of the pharaos aren't carbon dated, neither has a full match in archaeology, they don't match each other, they don't match Manetho or Josephus either. It's as if you had three conflicting version of Genesis 11, not only diverging about number of years, but even (more extensively than presence and absence of II Cainaan) about what names and how many generations. So, I know reasonably well when Djoser reigned, if Imhotep is Joseph, since I know reasonably well that Joseph in Egypt would be so and so many years after birth of Abraham and end up in 1728 or sth BC as real date, while Djoser's coffin's carbon date is more like 2600 or even 2800 BC, which gives a number of extra years for Djoser amounting to 900 or 1100, which argues a carbon 14 level of 89.685 pmC in Joseph's day.

"Dates have been cross referenced with tree ring data, they conform."

Tree rings are very hazy things when we get back to the times when my calibration from Biblical history conflicts with straight C14 dates. Fewer and smaller bits of wood.

"Dates have been cross referenced with other radiometric data"

Yeah, tell me more about those ones ...

"Then we have some interesting techniques such as stonehenge where the C14 Dates pushed the dates further into the past than first suspected."

Its earliest diggers were coming a little after Babel (carbon dated 8600 vs 8000) and it was completed around the time of Abraham (carbon dated 3100 BC).

"At first this posed a problem until some clever people computer modeled how the stars would appear x thousand years ago and found the monument was indeed constructed at that much earlier time and the stones were arranged such that they aligned perfectly with astronomical phenomena at that time - not the later time."

I'd like a reference for that one, like a paper.

"Sorry I don't have those dates to hand, its late, but I'm sure you can research."

You can catch up.

"Tower of babel lol, another myth, that just a fireside tale that is more interesting in reality than your fantasy. It's a mythical retelling of the loss of cuneiform,"

Cuneiform wasn't lost before the Christian era. Sumerian was still studied up to 1st C BC (or last C BC if you want to nit pick), and Akkadian up to 1st C AD. Last places where they were studied were in Assyria, not far from Babel - or Göbekli Tepe, where I put Babel.

As to "it's a mythical retelling of" you are giving your mythical retelling of how the Genesis 11 text came to be formed. The historic alternative is Moses wrote it, based on facts occurring c. 1000 years earlier.

"babel is babylon,"

Or Classic Babylon was named after an earlier Babel. It's c. 45° angle SE from GT. Neobabylonian Empire includes the site of GT.

"after the fall of that empire the standard written language in the ANE was lost."

Not very immediately after, it was kept up under Achamaeneans and Seleucid Hellenists and into Roman times of Trajan (for Akkadian, while Sumerian was actually lost c. 100 - 150 years earlier, BOTH being standard written languages, not of all ANE, but of Mesopotamia).

"Anyway, back to your C14 claim, do you have any published papers you could point me to that support your assertion?"

It so happens, some have so often stamped my links as spam, that youtube spam suppressed comments that include links from me. For the series involving my very early work, you google (omitting the // obviously) // new blog on the avec un peu d'aide de Fibonacci // and for my latest results you google // creavsevolu new tables // - and as I am pioneering the field, I obviously have no one else's links to refer to.

@J7b Second By the way, I think I already stated the work was mine, you show if so a fine piece of confirmation bias in asking me where I got it from. As if I had just swallowed someone else's loaf instead of baking the bread myself ...

J7b Second

@Hans-Georg Lundahl funny because it's not original, I've been reading quite a bit on C14 since you posted and it turns out it's a tired and easily debunked pseudoscience used by evangelical young earth creationists.
Perhaps you could have saved yourself the work and just copied some of their nonesense.

Let's park the C14 claim, perhaps publish your ideas, get back to me after peer review.

Do you believe outer space is an ocean and there is a metal dome over the earth? Can you provide evidence for that, its critical to your flood belief.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@J7b Second "funny because it's not original, I've been reading quite a bit on C14 since you posted and it turns out it's a tired and easily debunked pseudoscience used by evangelical young earth creationists."

No. They usually only say "carbon 14 rose". Nearly no one except me actually tries to model the rise. The one exception I know of is Tas Walker. As to Anne Habermehl, she tries to make "uniformitarian dates" rather than "carbon dates" fit the Biblical chronology in ONE scale to scale venture.

"Perhaps you could have saved yourself the work and just copied some of their nonesense."

I actually copied as much as they had to offer me. Somewhat little compared to what I, as a Roman Catholic Young Earth Creationist actually want. B U T if you happen to know anyone before me doing a similar scale, why don't you show one?

"Let's park the C14 claim, perhaps publish your ideas, get back to me after peer review."

They are published on my blogs, no one stops peer reviewers from reviewing them - except their own bias against Young Earth Creationists or - in the case of those on CMI - their preference for non-Catholics and for other Babels than Göbekli Tepe (lost pre-palaeolithic or later Eridu).

"Do you believe outer space is an ocean and there is a metal dome over the earth?"

No.

"Can you provide evidence for that, its critical to your flood belief."

Show how it's "critical" for it.

J7b Second

@Hans-Georg Lundahl pioneering the field, translates as armchair pseudoscientist who has published anything, lol
I'm happy to spend more time on C14 if you can show me something you've pioneered after peer review, until then it's unfounded speculation.

So your best evidence for your myth outside of your myth is papias?
What do we have with papias? Wasn't he born decades after the supposed events? When did he write, 60+ years after the events.
Wow, how low is your bar. You just really want or need to believe this story.

The bible says outer space is an ocean though, and that its held back by the metal dome. Its important for your flood myth as a magical hebrew guy who floats above the metal dome opened windows to allow water to pour in, then I guess had some sort of pump arrangement to remove it later, although the pump isn't specified.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@J7b Second "pioneering the field, translates as armchair pseudoscientist"

Armchair figures. Pseudoscientist, well some would say that, I would leave that for shrinks.

"who has published anything,"

Do you mean "who HAS published SOMETHING" or "who HASN'T published ANYTHING"? Are you French? You wrote "nonesens" instead of "nonsens" earlier ... which would figure with French spelling rules.

I have published on my blog.

"lol I'm happy to spend more time on C14 if you can show me something you've pioneered after peer review,"

I'll be happy to exchange you for the peer review. But I am afraid the available peer reviewers are so biassed they prefer shrink review over peer review ...

"until then it's unfounded speculation."

Not the least unfounded, the foundations of a speculation are not inherent in peer review but in the arguments offered.

Speculation? Yes, and arguably the best one in the field so far.

"So your best evidence for your myth outside of your myth is papias? What do we have with papias? Wasn't he born decades after the supposed events?"

Yes. Tacitus was also born decades after the events in Tiberius' reign, he was born 55. We have Velleius Paterculus, he ends in the 16th year of Tiberius, but is very, very, very unspecific on events in Tiberius' reign. Just very sure that Seianus is as high in quality as Tiberius then ranked him, and not the least aware that Seianus would fall out of favour a few years later.

"When did he write, 60+ years after the events."

More like 50 to 110 years after the Gospels whose authorship he wrote about. Not bad for an authorship this far back.

"Wow, how low is your bar. You just really want or need to believe this story."

Thank you for your erroneous analysis, it has entertainment value.

"The bible says outer space is an ocean though, and that its held back by the metal dome."

You might try to give references that are more precise than just "the Bible". I recall "waters above the firmament" in Genesis 1 (echoed, I suppose, somewhere in the psalms) but that could by dihydrogen and H2O molecules dispersed through space. I also recall "as of brass" but I do not recall any unqualified "of brass".

"Its important for your flood myth as a magical hebrew guy who floats above the metal dome opened windows to allow water to pour in,"

The words you refer to would be:

"In the six hundredth year of the life of Noe, in the second month, in the seventeenth day of the month, all the fountains of the great deep were broken up, and the flood gates of heaven were opened:"
[Genesis 7:11]

My reading : God allowed dihydrogen gas over the oxygen levels to get pushed down to it, mingle with it and form Brown's gas, which ignited by lightnings became water. Note, it doesn't specify how much of the water came from this source, the fountains of the great deep were mentioned first.

"The fountains also of the deep, and the flood gates of heaven were shut up, and the rain from heaven was restrained."
[Genesis 8:2]

Both sources of more water were stopped from continuing to provide the water.

"then I guess had some sort of pump arrangement to remove it later, although the pump isn't specified."

Deep sea basins like Mariana Trench would figure as "pumps." And adding verticality by making mountains rise after the Flood would add "traction" to the pump. You know, the traction known as gravity.

J7b Second

@Hans-Georg Lundahl best evidence for the myth = someone read the myth 50 years + later - brilliant 👏
How's that high bar for evidence working for you, lol,
"I have a myth written up by a non eye witness decades later, copied by other non eye witnesses decades after that, but I'm sure it's true because someone who believed the myth not only read it but wrote a review"
Religious indoctrination is powerful- some of us just aren't strong enough to see it, poor you

It refers to an ocean, the waters, not gas. Do you think outer space is water?
Yes a hammered out metal dome, do you think this dome exists?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@J7b Second "best evidence for the myth = someone read the myth 50 years + later - brilliant"

No. The books containing the so called myth and one of them (Luke) conforming to methodology and scope of history as practised by Greeks and Romans are accepted by the Catholic Church and 50 years is when direct evidence for the books with authorships start - in literary references. I think papyrus fragments of NT esp. Gospels go back even earlier.

"How's that high bar for evidence working for you, lol, "I have a myth written up by a non eye witness decades later,"

The point is, according to St. Papias, two were eyewitnesses, two others had spoken to such. Better evidence than Tacitus had for most of his stuff.

"copied by other non eye witnesses decades after that,"

Make it: "copied by non eye witnesses decades after that," and omit "other". For 1st C either BC or AD, this is excellent "primarity" of primary sources.

"but I'm sure it's true because someone who believed the myth not only read it but wrote a review"

The point is not so much St Papias wrote a review stating it was history 50 years after, the point is, people calling it non-history, "storytelling" and "myth" start their reviews more like 500 or more years later than St. Papias.

"Religious indoctrination is powerful- some of us just aren't strong enough to see it, poor you"

Poor you, you repeat the word "myth" all over the place as if that categorisation on YOUR part (you live, obviously, more than 500 years later than Papias) would be the clue about original intent of the works.

That's religious indoctrination in the religion known as Western Atheism (also mostly shared by Secularised Jews).

I note that you had no real refutations on my carbon model, especially not after your wild guess I had copied someone else's work was refuted to all except the conspiracy cooks who'd pretend me capable of lying about that.

@J7b Second "It refers to an ocean, the waters, not gas. Do you think outer space is water?"

I think both dihydrogen and H2O even in gas, although not liquid water, would qualify as water to someone who had no separate word for hydrogen.

"Yes a hammered out metal dome, do you think this dome exists?"

You still have not given a concrete reference as to where you find it, and the one reference I recall says "as molten brass" (molten, not hammered, as I recall), the key word "as" meaning it is in fact something else.

J7b Second

@Hans-Georg Lundahl so what are you saying specifically with your carbon 'model'?
That the current methodology is inaccurate by a factor of 10, or perhaps there is a hitherto unknown phenomenon which only you have noticed?

My understanding is the current model is cross referenced with known dates and tree ring information, it correlates very well.

Or, is it that you dispute the half life of C14 perhaps?

Back to the myth, you mentioned early papyrus fragments. How many do you have from around the time papias wrote? How many from the first or 2nd century?
Do you think a story is true if a non eye witness to the events decides its true?

Isn't mormonism better attested than the NT, smith wrote with his own hand and we have multiple 1st hand attestation and witnesses, so is mormonism true? Or is this a case of your very skewed evidence bar at work again?

The metal dome over the earth, do you think it exists, or is it fiction?
With your gas model for the flood, the bible doesn't say gas, it doesn't say there was a massive increase in atmospheric pressure, it says the windows were opened in the metal dome to allow the waters from space in. So is outer space an ocean, your book says it is.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@J7b Second "That the current methodology is inaccurate by a factor of 10, or perhaps there is a hitherto unknown phenomenon which only you have noticed?"

If 40 000 BP rather than 5000 BP is an inaccuracy by a factor of 8 in the outcome, 100 pmC rather than 1.45 pmC is an inaccuracy of 64 times, roughly, in the presuppositions (which cannot be checked). So, no, I think the uncheckable part is inaccurate by a factor of 64, not just ten. But the checkable parts, how much is left now, I don't think there is any error.

"My understanding is the current model is cross referenced with known dates and tree ring information, it correlates very well."

It so happens, tree rings get scarcer in samples with fewer rings as time goes by. Wood is not eternal and indistructible. This safeguard is therefore less and less reliable the further back it gets. Cambridge has published a calibration from tree rings for the 6000 last years (not the 40 000 last years) and I think that roughly speaking the second half of it is reliable.

"Or, is it that you dispute the half life of C14 perhaps?"

Not the least. Nor its constancy. It's by the halflife of 5730 years that I do my modelling.

"Back to the myth, you mentioned early papyrus fragments. How many do you have from around the time papias wrote? How many from the first or 2nd century?"

// February 15, 2019 Bryan Windle The Earliest New Testament Manuscripts // (google it, omitting the // of course) should answer that one.

"Do you think a story is true if a non eye witness to the events decides its true?"

If a non eye witness decides that the people he got it from are eyewitnesses, his assessment is at least far more important than yours or mine centuries later.

"Isn't mormonism better attested than the NT, smith wrote with his own hand and we have multiple 1st hand attestation and witnesses, so is mormonism true? Or is this a case of your very skewed evidence bar at work again?"

I have no qualms of accepting Joseph Smith as author of key works. However, these key works are not from his interviews with human eyewitnesses to the Nephite civilisation.

"The metal dome over the earth, do you think it exists, or is it fiction?"

I think it is your misreading of what the Bible says. But the thing which you misunderstand as "of metal" is however a thing.

"With your gas model for the flood, the bible doesn't say gas,"

The term doesn't exist. Sorry, didn't.

"it doesn't say there was a massive increase in atmospheric pressure,"

Neither did I. I said that a barrier of whatever kind it may have been ordinarily between a hydrogen layer and an oxygen layer was set aside.

"it says the windows were opened in the metal dome to allow the waters from space in."

It doesn't say "metal dome" then and there no. The barrier of whatever nature would qualify as a gate by the fact it could be momentarily opened.

"So is outer space an ocean, your book says it is."

No, it says there are waters above, which dihydrogen and H2O gas would qualify as.

J7b Second

@Hans-Georg Lundahl so you dispute the amount of C14 in the atmosphere at any given time but only at times where we don't have a cross reference for age?

Although you do accept the modeled and measured quantities for those times we do have a cross reference?

So you ate saying you don't trust the science unless it can be corroborated by an external source?

Brings me back to what external source corroborated your myth? For example when mathew says zombies walked into jerusalem witnessed by many, can you give me a writer outside of the myth who noticed and recorded this huge event?

The bible uses raqia which is a hammered out metal dome, do you have any evidence this exists? The bible says Windows were opened to allow the waters (not gases) from outer space to flood in, does this ocean exist?

Or is your evidence bar a little biased

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@J7b Second First of all, there is a difference between proving something true and proving something possible. Take factor x from theoreme y, it cannot prove theoreme y true, since that would be circular, but it can be used to test whether y is possible: if x is impossible, so is y.

"so you dispute the amount of C14 in the atmosphere at any given time"

No, at specific times, according to my calibration.

"but only at times where we don't have a cross reference for age?"

At times when I consider your cross reference doesn't work.

"Although you do accept the modeled and measured quantities for those times we do have a cross reference?"

At which times the cross reference I use agrees with it.

"So you ate saying you don't trust the science unless it can be corroborated by an external source?"

I don't trust dating unless it can be cross referenced by history. With Biblical history going back to creation, this gives a cross reference older than you get.

"Brings me back to what external source corroborated your myth?"

The communities taking them for history. Like Moses' Israelites taking Genesis 1 to 11 as their historic traditions. Or like Papias taking Gospels as recent history of which he knew fairly well one of the eyewitnesses.

"For example when mathew says zombies walked into jerusalem witnessed by many, can you give me a writer outside of the myth who noticed and recorded this huge event?"

No, I can't. Arguably the Jews hushed the event down, and Christians continuing to reference it outside St. Matthew got in trouble for "seeing things that weren't there" even if everyone else had seen them.

"The bible uses raqia which is a hammered out metal dome,"

Do you have evidence it does, or is that just hearsay from some expert?

"do you have any evidence this exists?"

I have evidence some kind of raqia exists, but not of metal. It is drawing stars and planets from East to West with it.

"The bible says Windows were opened to allow the waters (not gases)"

As already stated, the dihydrogen gas would qualify as water in a terminology pre-Lavoisier.

"from outer space to flood in, does this ocean exist? Or is your evidence bar a little biased"

Or are you biassed to find every and any fault you can invent and dismiss any either evidence or explanation that would make them not a fault?

Carbon 14 rise model, dihydrogen qualifying as water, raqia being aethereal but "solid" in another way and drawing space with it (between surface of earth and below God's throne room), all of these are x, derived from y. I find all of these possible. If y were wrong, one of them would be impossible. But, as per above explanation, x is not the evidence for y. The evidence for y (and not just against presumed evidence against y) is and remains the communities accepting Exodus and Gospels as recent history, and Genesis 1 to 11 as already known old history. Precisely as Tacitus Annals were accepted as recent history, and Livy's early chapters of Ab urbe condita as already known old history.

In this context, your parallel with Mormonism is simply "de mauvaise foi" since Book of Mormon neither claimed (at least most of it) to be recent history like the trek to Utah, nor to be already known and accepted old history, like Pilgrim Fathers or like Norman Conquest or like Horse and Hengist or like Boadicea facing Caesar's invasion - it claimed to add to knowledge by prophecy. Now, "religious texts" are not one epistemological category, but "history" and "prophecy" are two different ones. For believing a prophecy not yet confirmed by fulfilment or otherwise, one needs to believe the religion making the prophecy. For believing the history, one can start out believing or not believing the religion involved - and it can be the history that proves the religion. Mormonism has no such thing, no supernatural events witnessed by multiple eyewitnesses and those in direct social continuity with the first Mormons around Joseph Smith. Dito for Islam. Dito for Hesiod's Theogony. Dito for Voluspa except perhaps an apparition during a seance. OT Judaism has, and Christianity has. And they are in continuity.

J7b Second

@Hans-Georg Lundahl oh wow you think the earth is flat too ....

So you use the bible as a reliable record of dates, then adjust the C14 rates and dismiss tree ring data so that you can conceive a system which confirms those dates as a way to validate those dates ....amazing, confirmation bias reached a new level with you.

Haven't you read the bible, raqia appears a number of times, I thought you were a believer.

I'm begining to feel a little sorry for you, the indoctrination has really broken your critical thinking skills, you're delusional

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@J7b Second "oh wow you think the earth is flat too"

Neither said nor implied that.

"So you use the bible as a reliable record of dates,"

And you use Egyptian records of pharaos as such, remember? It is a much scantier record.

"then adjust the C14 rates"

Or more properly the C14 contents in the atmosphere.

"and dismiss tree ring data"

For back in 2000 BC? I certainly do. You may not have grasped that both lignine based record types, tree rings and papyrus to paper get scantier and scantier the further back we go.

"so that you can conceive a system which confirms those dates as a way to validate those dates"

More like showing the dates are possible, but yes, in a way that validates them too. The more implications of the Bible that could have been impossible and are shown possible, the more that is a validation.

"amazing, confirmation bias reached a new level with you."

Not as high as yours, you will use the word "indoctrination" and make remarks on my mentality at the end of this, just so you don't need to go into the nitty gritty details of what is and what isn't proven a fact about dates.

"Haven't you read the bible, raqia appears a number of times, I thought you were a believer."

And not even one of the times it says that the raqia actually is a dome or that it actually is of metal.

"I'm begining to feel a little sorry for you, the indoctrination has really broken your critical thinking skills, you're delusional"

I would feel sorry for you if you tried to get that into administrational actions about my freedoms. But obviously your little speculations about my mind, which you cannot read, and about my background which you do not know at least spares you the horror of questioning whether someone intelligent and sane found the proofs for evolution ideology less convincing than you do. THAT's confirmation bias. To a very extreme level. The Inquisition did not equal it.

J7b Second

@Hans-Georg Lundahl raqia

Virtually every description of raqia from antiquity to the Renaissance depicts it as solid. The non-solid interpretation of raqia is a novelty;

According to the flood story in Gen 7:11 8:2, the waters above were held back only to be released through the “floodgates of the heavens” (literally, “lattice windows”);

Other Old Testament passages are consistent with the raqia being solid (Ezekiel 1:22; Job 37:18; Psalm 148:4);

According to Genesis 1:20, the birds fly in front of the raqia (in the air), not in the raqia;

The noun raqia is derived from the verb that means to beat out or stamp out, as in hammering metal into thin plates (Exodus 39:3). This suggests that the noun form is likewise related to something solid;

Speaking of the sky as being stretched out like a canopy/tent (Isaiah 40:22) or that it will roll up like a scroll (34:4) are clearly similes and do not support the view that raqia in Genesis 1 is non-solid.

So this solid dome, where is it?
When does outer space stop being a vacuum and where is the ocean? Your gas idea is awful that's not what your imaginary god said.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@J7b Second "raqia Virtually every description of raqia from antiquity to the Renaissance depicts it as solid."

Now, I would describe it as quasi-solid.

"The non-solid interpretation of raqia is a novelty;"

I do not agree with the novelty of speaking simply of "expanse".

"According to the flood story in Gen 7:11 8:2, the waters above were held back only to be released through the “floodgates of the heavens” (literally, “lattice windows”);"

Yes, and any kind of barrier (literal solid body, force field, density disparity using gravitation etc) between a previously denser Hydrogen layer and the Oxygen layer of the atmosphere could reasonably be described that way. Btw, the literality "lattice windows" speaks against the "waters above" being literally liquid water. The Hydrogen used up for forming Flood water would therefore mean afterwards the Hydrogen layer was less dense and that made restoring the barrier or "closing the lattice windows" easier.

"Other Old Testament passages are consistent with the raqia being solid ([inserting numeration] 1)Ezekiel 1:22; 2) Job 37:18; 3) Psalm 148:4);"

Consistent with, but do not say it is.

In order:

1) And over the heads of the living creatures was the likeness of the firmament, as the appearance of crystal terrible to behold, and stretched out over their heads above.

Likeness, appearance. I suppose "firmament" here as elsewhere is "raqia" but here it only says the likeness of it, not the raqia itself.

2) Thou perhaps hast made the heavens with him, which are most strong, as if they were of molten brass.

My remembered reference was actually a conflation of 1 and 2. Note here "as if". A firmament of aether (matter surrounding atomic nuclei and atoms and in which light is ripples and in which vectors take place) rotating at the level of fix stars with a speed of 6.28 or 2pi the light speed and drawing the fix stars with it would certainly be a lot stronger than just molten brass.

3) (citing next verse too : Praise him, ye heavens of heavens: and let all the waters that are above the heavens [5] Praise the name of the Lord. For he spoke, and they were made: he commanded, and they were created.

Is this it?

"According to Genesis 1:20, the birds fly in front of the raqia (in the air), not in the raqia;"

Ah, wait "in front of" and not "above"? Thank you.

If the raqia is turning around earth at ....

[40,075 kilometers / 24 hours (at the equator) = 40 075 000 m / 24 h = 1 669 791.666 666 667 m / h = 27 829.861 111 111 12 m / min = 463.831 018 518 52 m / sec]

... 464 m/sec at the equator and slower at shorter parallel circles, the birds certainly fly in some kind of relation to it.

"The noun raqia is derived from the verb that means to beat out or stamp out, as in hammering metal into thin plates (Exodus 39:3)."

I was aware of that.

"This suggests that the noun form is likewise related to something solid;"

Or, if you will excuse me, quasi-solid.

"Speaking of the sky as being stretched out like a canopy/tent (Isaiah 40:22) or that it will roll up like a scroll (34:4) are clearly similes"

Most certainly.

"and do not support the view that raqia in Genesis 1 is non-solid."

I was not using them that way.

"So this solid dome, where is it?"

The quasi solid of the raqia is pulling a pendulum along its angle, and I think it is still around in the Paris observatory where Foucault put it.

"When does outer space stop being a vacuum and where is the ocean?"

The vacuum is not absolute, it does include - as I said more than once - lots of molecules, and the one most common is dihydrogen, and the second most common after it is H2O. The "ocean" as you would have it, is in that void.

Btw, the stretching out of the heavens could have taken place from after the Flood, too dilute the Hydrogen layer so it would never again be dense enough to make Brown's gas with our air's Oxygen, which is why there will not be a second Flood.

"Your gas idea is awful that's not what your imaginary god said."

What is water in Hebrew? What is Hydrogen in Hebrew? For German, I know "Wasser" and "Wasserstoff" and I suppose the updated language of Moses used by Zionists has a somewhat similar relation between the concepts. So, if Moses wanted to say "Hydrogen" before Lavoisier named it, "water" would have been the most appropriate word for it.