Posed Two Pertinent Questions, Got Deflection Attempts

Why almost all coal was made at the same time
25th Oct. 2019 | Steve Mould
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b34al8YmQSA

My comments were orginally two, and after the second one, there was a debate, perhaps going to continue:

I

Question 1 - where is the coal layer in Karroo?

We have found Permian, Triassic, Jurassic, perhaps a little bit of Cretaceous fauna in Karroo, but to my best knowledge, no coal.

Related - where your best coal mine is, what is the Mesozoic fauna on top of it?

II

in debate:

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Question 2 - if every piece of coal that Young Earth Creationists have got carbon dated shows C14, how do you explain the presence of C14 after 300 000 000 years?

S Panke

did they used charcoal?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@S Panke No, that would have given a carbon age "recent" rather than 20 000 years or whatever it was.

S Panke

@Hans-Georg Lundahl it was a joke... and even then. the result, which can be explained by either contamination or by deception, still collide with their holy text. that's because it has no scientific relevance with respect to geology, physics, or any other natural science. it's interesting literature from a cultural perspective. it can be fascinating to study it's implications and it's origins, but that's it. Nothing more...nothing less.

I understand the desire to proof their believe. but the way they do it with respect to creationism and especially young earth creationism can't be taken seriously. because they have to deny more or less everything that surrounds them. every time a young earth creationist fills gas into his car... he acts hypocritical. Because this person rejects the science that leads to finding the oil, explains the origin of this oil and in the end denies the physical foundation of the molecules that made up the oil. Science is no religious text that you can cherry pick. Either it all fits together or it all brakes apart. You can't claim that geology is correct when they find resources and help to exploit them, but they are wrong when explaining how they are able to find it in the first place... Have a good day.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@S Panke "which can be explained by either contamination or by deception,"

I rule out deception fairly much. Contamination is a very recurring theme if you are right on the other one.

"the result, ... still collide with their holy text."

Supposing you accept the uniformitarian calibration. Our holy text, so you can say "your" when adressing me.

I consider C14 has risen drastically between the Flood and c. time of King David, perhaps a little earlier. This would explain the uniformitarian calibration reading of some tens of thousand years beyond Biblical chronology.

"that's because it has no scientific relevance with respect to geology, physics, or any other natural science"

Unless it's accurate history, which always has some scientific relevance.

"because they have to deny more or less everything that surrounds them."

No, but some of your interpretations of it.

" every time a young earth creationist fills gas into his car... he acts hypocritical."

Petrol has also been carbon dated, and see above for the conflict with Biblical chronology, only if you accept uniformitarian calibration as the correct one or close enough.

"Because this person rejects the science that leads to finding the oil, explains the origin of this oil and in the end denies the physical foundation of the molecules that made up the oil."

No, we know very well that oil layers are very likely to exist under shales of chalk that once were shellfish. We also have demonstrated that conditions in the Flood are likely to produce petrol, with right composition of molecules.

@S Panke "Either it all fits together or it all brakes apart."

So you either accept all of Riccioli's astronomy or reject all?

S Panke

@Hans-Georg Lundahl my last comment was with respect to the over all picture and the tendency that all modern explanations kind of connecting to each other. you know... like evolution theory was a thing before we discovered DNA, and DNA explains perfectly how mutation and inheritance actually works. things like these where new discoveries and new understanding either falsifies older hypothesis or not. it's a constant process which creates stronger and stronger interconnections between all the different aspects of our world and our understanding of it.

Religion doesn't work this way. if a new prophet comes around, the religion either branches or not. but it never evolves. never adapts. Christianity branches like crazy. I forgot how many different interpretations we currently have. but I'm sure the number of Christians who disagree with you on these things is quite high.

So... you made up all these little excuses to rationalize your believe. which is fine... but I fail to see the point tho, because lets face it...it doesn't matter! either you believe it, or you don't. you don't need a proof and especially not one where you need an instrument to quantify the ration of carbon isotopes. you don't need to battle every scientific hypothesis that collides with your holy text if you truly believe it. Geologists, Biologists, Chemists, Physicist... don't talk about your believe. they talk about the world that surrounds us and provide explanations that can be tested, falsified, and are used to create everything that you can see around you in our modern world.

I fail to see why you accept this all and reject it at the same time. either you believe in your religion, but then you don't need any proof of it. or you don't... proof won't help you there. the only proof that would matter ... is a personal connection anyway. and this is what most christians claim they have. it's not that they claim that god showed up and explained to them in detail how the flood happened and how the C14 ration was created ... they claim that the feel loved, supported, understood, that god told them to do stuff or don't do stuff. So why are you trying so hard to come up with these little bits and pieces of misinformation that have been shown false so many times... your truth has no substance in the real world! if you need proof for your believe...you don't believe. and if you need these misinformation to hope to convince none believers or to keep believers believing...then you should ask yourself why that is the case? shouldn't be the truth...self evident? so you can ask yourself... is the christian denomination you personally believe is the right one... is self evident. will it be emerge over and over again in the same way even if all the books, all the people and all the stories are lost some day? and if so... what do you think makes it that way? if the answer is god... then the answer has apparently nothing to do with dating methods, geology, biology ...

Have a good day or night.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@S Panke " like evolution theory was a thing before we discovered DNA, and DNA explains perfectly how mutation and inheritance actually works. things like these where new discoveries and new understanding either falsifies older hypothesis or not."

Well, seems that the discovery of chromosomes tends to falsify evolution, except evolution as you mentioned already being ingrained, academia tends not to notice.

" it's a constant process which creates stronger and stronger interconnections between all the different aspects of our world and our understanding of it."

Oh, wait ... you mean in order for science not to be picked and chosen from, it must be recent? How recent must a theory be for it to be taken as a whole or left aside totally on your view?

And, obviously, except when the process leads to some disconnect.

"Religion doesn't work this way. if a new prophet comes around, the religion either branches or not. but it never evolves. never adapts."

Did I mention the adversary of evolution theory was history, like not prophecy? The Bible contains both genres. But Genesis (except the six day account) is history.

"Christianity branches like crazy. I forgot how many different interpretations we currently have. but I'm sure the number of Christians who disagree with you on these things is quite high."

And Protestant disunity and Modernist, precisely adapt[at]ion, and more precisely overadapt[at]ion, has what exactly to do with this issue? Fallacy of division, perhaps?

"So... you made up all these little excuses to rationalize your believe. which is fine"

Projection, eh? It seems the original question is left heavily aside on your part. I'm following you, but I note you deflected from them.

"you don't need a proof and especially not one where you need an instrument to quantify the ration of carbon isotopes."

I may not need carbon isotopes as a proof, but as I have proof theologic and historic, I need carbon isotopes to fit it.

"you don't need to battle every scientific hypothesis that collides with your holy text if you truly believe it."

You heard a Fideist last time you spoke about the matter? I am a Catholic, hence a Scholastic.

"Geologists, Biologists, Chemists, Physicist... don't talk about your believe. they talk about the world that surrounds us"

And precisely insofar as they do that, they don't happen to collide with anything I believe. But when they go beyond - and they do ...

"and provide explanations that can be tested, falsified, and are used to create everything that you can see around you in our modern world."

All of which is very true - usually (electrons being particles can't be tested) when it comes to the science of here and now. None of it when it comes to the original carbon 14 content in a sample actually from 2957 BC, because 2957 BC is not when Libby started his work. None of it is true when it comes to distance of alpha Centauri, or claims on earth moving, because they didn't see Earth move around the Sun from Tatooine, nor look at Sun and alpha Centauri from Death Star.

"I fail to see why you accept this all and reject it at the same time."

I don't. I make a distinction between what I'd consider truly operational science and not just historic science, as CMI like to point out, but also "science at great distance" or of the sub-microscopic.

"either you believe in your religion, but then you don't need any proof of it."

Again, this is how a Calvinist Fideist would define faith, and as a Catholic, I insist he is a heretic who goes to Hell for that lie. The Bible says But these are written, that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God: and that believing, you may have life in his name. And this is about a Gospel, that is about history, and its history is marked out as reliable: And he that saw it, hath given testimony, and his testimony is true. And he knoweth that he saith true; that you also may believe. - In other words, the Biblical faith is indeed a faith rooted in rational, specifically historic proof. You may find it unreliable and reject it (to your damnation) or you may find it reliable, but if you say "I don't care if it is reliable or not, I just believe it," then you are outside the Faith of Christ. (Quotes from John 20 and 19)

"the only proof that would matter ... is a personal connection anyway."

Absolutely not.

"and this is what most christians claim they have."

As in all Christians you know are Pentecostals?

"it's not that they claim that god showed up and explained to them in detail how the flood happened and how the C14 ration was created"

Neither do I claim that. I do however claim these things can be rationally modelled and the Genesis account therefore shown rationally believeable as history.

"they claim that the feel loved, supported, understood, that god told them to do stuff or don't do stuff."

I'd not take that approach in apologetics. If Christianity were untrue, these impressions would be illusions.

"So why are you trying so hard to come up with these little bits and pieces of misinformation that have been shown false so many times"

Presuming the argument already given instead of giving one, aren't you?

"your truth has no substance in the real world!"

Oh, it has. But you are apparently to cowardly to discuss that. Perhaps you should "S Panke" yourself for bad arguing?

"if you need these misinformation to hope to convince none believers or to keep believers believing...then you should ask yourself why that is the case?"

Because there is a certain campaign of promoting evolution ... the same campaign that also tries to stamp any argument from opponents as "misinformation" before the discussion even gets started!

"shouldn't be the truth...self evident?"

That 2 + 2 = 4 is nearly self evident, but that (x-y)(x+y) is equivalent to x sq minus y sq needs explanation. Some truths are self evident and some truths need arguing.

" so you can ask yourself... is the christian denomination you personally believe is the right one"

Between the papal claimants there is of course some doubt, except that Evolution promoter Bergoglio is out of the question, as his predecessor now emeritus. Between Catholics and Protestants, the coast is fairly clear, Luther, Calvin, Arminius et consortes didn't personally know either Jesus or Peter or Paul or a Gospeller, while Apostolic Succession has continued in Rome (up to recently, it is now in exile).

" will it be emerge over and over again in the same way even if all the books, all the people and all the stories are lost some day?"

Historical truth doesn't work that way. And God would not let it happen (and did not let it happen between Apostles and Reformation either).

"and if so... what do you think makes it that way? if the answer is god... then the answer has apparently nothing to do with dating methods, geology, biology"

The WHY I believe Christianity is one thing, and the matter certainly has to do with history. The why I believe it EVEN IF so and so claims such and such has at least some bearing on the matters that so and so uses to argue against it.

S Panke

@Hans-Georg Lundahl I'm honest. I thought a moment about replying at all. you see, there is a misunderstanding. I'm not hear to battle every little detail you have cherry picked to criticize 'science'. Because I'm not qualified to do so. But I can read, and I have read rebuttals to your points many, many times over. That's why I don't want to waste any time of copying these statements. you'll find them all over the internet and the literature if you want to read it.

But I can see a misunderstanding in your argumentation that I maybe can point out. you ask how modern a theory has to be to taken into account. The question is fundamentally wrong, because it seems to imply that theories are somewhat disconnected from reality. a bit like the bible if you allow me this side note. But they are not! A theory in science, or better a hypothesis, is an idea, a frame work, a model about how nature works in a certain area. it's important that this framework allows predictions. if certain assumptions are met, certain results should be appear. Take Darwins work, I know you disagree with it, but he 'predicted' a method of transferring information from one generation to another. he predicted that this information can be altered. when we found the DNA, and the inner working of it, this prediction was fulfilled. It's important to understand that this is not prophecy! it's a simple "if...then..."

Back to your question, how old or how new should be a hypothesis or a theory be. it can be as old as it can be... the only criteria is that it hasn't been falsified yet! means, there is no data that collides with the predictions of the hypotheses. if there is data that contradicts the used model. the model has to adjusted or replaced by a newer model. Newton has been replaced, because it had troubles with Mercurys orbit. Einstein provided us with a better hypothesis. That's why it is not enough to criticize a certain tiny aspect of a scientific hypothesis. you can't cherry pick! if the criticism is correct, the hypothesis needs to be modified or replaced. but this isn't what you suggest.

Back to C14. you agree with the fact that there are radioactive isotopes, you agree with the way we measure them, you agree that the radioactive decay is the reason for the changes in the isotopes and you agree that this happens within a specific time frame, so that you can measure the time that had passed. what you disagree with is the assumption of how much C14 there was to begin with. and here it gets interesting. Because you claim that it has to be wrong because the resulting time frame doesn't fit to your holy text. you assume that the amount was chosen as a tool in a campaign? like they run evolution campaigns against Christianity? You honestly thing that scientist looked at the bible, picked the dates, that are not in the bible because god hasn't had the idea of a calendar, and then modeled the starting amount of C14 in that way, that the earth seems to be...old.

Or you assume they simply picked a number and went with it since then? you see...here is the catch. the point when I told you that science forms strong bonds over time between all the different aspects, wasn't just fluff. it was the essence! you see...we understand the process how C14 is created in the atmosphere. we understand thanks to quantum physics, how cosmic rays interact with nitrogen and so on.

if you now claim that the amount was higher, you need to make a case for that! and this involves quantum physics. you need to explain in a model what was different and why the amount of C14 was different and why physics was different. or the amount of cosmic rays was different or why the absorption rate of neutrinos was different...and so on!

this is the main difference between your point and or criticism and science. The amount of C14 based on science isn't just a guess or even worse an attack on the bible. it's a logical conclusion based on models that haven't been disproved yet. yours is based an many assumptions around a translation of a copy of a translated copy... your argument isn't because you have trouble with physics, with the method or the assumption. you just don't like the result.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@S Panke "A theory in science, or better a hypothesis, is an idea, a frame work, a model about how nature works in a certain area. it's important that this framework allows predictions."

Not always - and especially not always such that are not already fulfilled in everyday experience. Btw, you are copying the theory of Popper, and the problem is, Popper tried to refute Platonism by pretending Platonism doesn't predict anything, but it actually does, namely everyday experience.

"if certain assumptions are met, certain results should be appear."

Yeah, I know what is meant by "prediction" in the Popper sense.

"Take Darwins work, I know you disagree with it,"

Not the Galapagos finches! By the way, he thought "speciation" had happened, and as defined then, this meant no more interfertility. The newest species of Galapagos finch is a hybrid, meaning other species are in fact interfertile.

"but he 'predicted' a method of transferring information from one generation to another. he predicted that this information can be altered. when we found the DNA, and the inner working of it, this prediction was fulfilled."

Yes, but if you didn't notice, he predicted gradual alterations of it could add functionalities too, and this prediction is actually heavily discredited by how genes work. You know his famous reply on developing an eye? You start with a photosensitive spot. Turns out, the blind chiclides in a cave in Mexico have two faulty genes related exactly to the retina, and that makes them blind. To make a healthy retina in nearest related fish that isn't blind, these two genes are at work among a total of ten genes intervening at different moments of the "gestation" (perhaps a bad word for non-mammals).

"it can be as old as it can be... the only criteria is that it hasn't been falsified yet! means, there is no data that collides with the predictions of the hypotheses."

Wonderful. In this case, Young Earth Creationism and Geocentrism with Angelic movers (though more on Thomasic lines, God moving all each day and angels doing minor more periodic movements, Riccioli thought of angels moving heavenly bodies through strict void, that is out by Foucault's pendulum) are still in the competition. My only problem with your previous diatribes is, you presume it's already out of them.

"Newton has been replaced, because it had troubles with Mercurys orbit. Einstein provided us with a better hypothesis. That's why it is not enough to criticize a certain tiny aspect of a scientific hypothesis. you can't cherry pick! if the criticism is correct, the hypothesis needs to be modified or replaced. but this isn't what you suggest."

It very certainly is what I suggest.

"what you disagree with is the assumption of how much C14 there was to begin with. and here it gets interesting. Because you claim that it has to be wrong because the resulting time frame doesn't fit to your holy text"

Scientists in your camp state that then and then and then it was not 100 pmC to begin with (though very close, as it should be if the world were ancient and 100 pmC were reached millions of years ago), and in each case this is because they have a reason outside carbon dating to believe certain things have another age than the carbon age. They usually use tree rings in this case. What I do is using: a) known history, b) more or less reasonably lineups between this and the archaeological or palaeontological material.

"you assume that the amount was chosen as a tool in a campaign? like they run evolution campaigns against Christianity?"

I had to look up where I used the word campaign. // Because there is a certain campaign of promoting evolution ... the same campaign that also tries to stamp any argument from opponents as "misinformation" before the discussion even gets started! // This is not in response to any question about C14, it is in response to your challenge, I quote "if you need these misinformation to hope to convince none believers or to keep believers believing...then you should ask yourself why that is the case?" - in other words, I am not speaking of the scientist who carbon dates, I am speaking about the general culture and what has happened in that one. I do not believe the carbon dating scientist chose 100 pmC simply or mainly as part of a campaign, but I do believe your curriculum was chosen so. In school, both the one where you went as a pupil, and the one where you possibly go as a teacher, if such be the case.

"you see...we understand the process how C14 is created in the atmosphere. we understand thanks to quantum physics, how cosmic rays interact with nitrogen and so on."

So do I.

"if you now claim that the amount was higher, you need to make a case for that! and this involves quantum physics. you need to explain in a model what was different and why the amount of C14 was different and why physics was different. or the amount of cosmic rays was different or why the absorption rate of neutrinos was different...and so on!" (My emphasis)

I claim it was lower. The first atom of C14 was created when solar rays reached earth on day IV. In pre-Flood times the addition of C14 in relation to C12 (remember - pmC is measured in relation to C12 in same sample, not per se as absolute quantity in the atmosphere) was slower than now, and between Flood and King David it was up to 10 times or 11 times faster. And the reason is, God's angels at the heavenly bodies (Sun and fix stars) made them emit more cosmic radiation, so that there was an Ice age between Flood and Babel and so that lifespans diminished.

"The amount of C14 based on science isn't just a guess"

It is a guess in relation to how much there was back then.

"it's a logical conclusion based on models that haven't been disproved yet."

Based on models that haven't been proven, and whose logical conclusions aren't proven either.

"yours is based an many assumptions around a translation of a copy of a translated copy"

I so happen to be somewhat fluent in Greek and able to read Genesis 5 and 11 in the LXX (a first step of translation). And you happen to show you have no idea how history is ascertained normally and therefore no idea on what one should take and what one should reject as evidence of historic facts.