... debating Steve McRae on Dating

Under video with Hovind / Ludlow debate:

Hans-Georg Lundahl

56:54 "samples must be younger than 50 000 years and older then 100 years"

Bill Ludlow is highlighting an article with a misleading selection. Note, it does not say "Capital S: Samples must be ... etc. Full Stop."

It says in full :

"Since there are practical limits to the age range of the method, most samples must be younger than 50,000 years and older than 100 years."

Well, this is another pair of boots altogether!

Now, practical limit about "younger than 50 000 years" means probably that after 50 000 years not enough carbon 14 is supposed to be left, distinguishable from later contamination.

But a coal sample traditionally dated to 20 million years ago was dated to 36 000 years ago - meaning that even if you find more C14 than for 50 000 years ago, by now an evolutionist would need to say contamination is possible there too.

And how mineral coal which is a very near pure sample of the C14/C12 ratio could be sufficiently contaminated by much less pure contaminations of carbon from other sources:

Dating in conflict
Which ‘age’ will you trust?
by Hansruedi Stutz
http://creation.com/dating-in-conflict

As to "older than 100 years", well, that would indicate that fluctuations smaller than 98.798 percent modern carbon could happen within atmosphere we have (the seal and the mollusk would be examples of another problem, "reservoir effect", since they have gotten lots of "old carbon" through the water they were living in).

That frame is therefore +/- 1.2 %.

Let's take the two carbon dates from same/different animal:

16.292 pmc = 15 000 years ago
7.884 pmc = 21 000 years ago

Well, the discrepancy between the two dates are a bit bigger than +/- 1.2 pmc. I'd say they are different animals.

But they were probably animals from the timespan between Flood and Babel (in which atmospheric C14/C12 ratio was rising in a few centuries from 2 pmc to c. 40 pmc).

Both have a bit more than 50 % of original carbon content left, since they are both less than one half life old. The difference between them is that the original carbon content grew in the time between them. And that means that someone presuming original carbon content to have been 100 percent modern carbon (or pmc) or close enough (variation around +/- 1.2 pmc) will date both way older than they are and also put more than one half life between them, since they differ in a ratio more than 2:1.

Well, the slide by Kent Hovind was wrong, but he could have got it from a secondary source and a bad reading.

He has been a bit too sceptic about learning anything from carbon dating, I disagree, but so what? He has put the finger on the spot (like Edgar Andrews and probably Henry Morris), that if sth originally had far less C14 than 100 pmc and the ones dating it assume it had 100 pmc, their interpretation (good that Kent insists on that word) will give the thing a way too old age.

This point remains valid even if Bill Ludlow can accurately point out that Kent Hovind has been inaccurate in an amateurish way. An argument which is logically valid does not become invalid if it is presented in amateurish ways.

Aristotle's best argument for Earth being round was Gibraltar being just East of Ganges. It is not, but logically the proof is exactly the same which was 2000 years nearly later given by Magellan. So, Magellan proved Aristotle right, even if already Eratosthenes proved him inaccurate.

Steve McRae Owner of the GDC

+Hans-Georg Lundahl I think the (major) point you miss here is that carbon dating will only give you a lower bound. If a sample is a billion years old and you try to carbon date it, it will come up (depending upon method you use) anywhere from 20k to 40k years old. Meaning that that is the LOWEST possible age, but it does not give you an upper bound. So the sample STILL could be billions of years old. Carbon dating of older fossils is utterly useless because of this reason. It doesn't tell us anything.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"If a sample is a billion years old and you try to carbon date it, it will come up (depending upon method you use) anywhere from 20k to 40k years old."

1) The Creationists are using the latest method, meaning the result is not "beyond detectable carbon", but "carbon detected".If a sample dates 36 k years and the detection limit is 50 k years (or rather : corresponding carbon level), the result means "carbon detected".

This means it is indeed an upper bound, unless you presume that :

a) original carbon content was orders of magnitude higher than 100 pmc
b) or that new carbon 14 has formed within sample.

Those are the options for it not being an upper bound.

2) You are presuming the methods by which the sample or where it is from is dated to billions of years (methods other than carbon, obviously) are worth anything : I think you are wrong on any of these methods.

Carbon method is worth some, I think it needs compression to take into account that carbon levels rose drastically after Flood.

"So the sample STILL could be billions of years old. Carbon dating of older fossils is utterly useless because of this reason. It doesn't tell us anything."

How do you presume to know the fossil IS older?

As I took up coal from "20 million years old" dated to 36 k years, what is the method by which you presume the coal is from 20 million years ago rather than from Flood?

Plus, your having a point would make any carbon date moot, how does one know it isn't too old?

But seriously, the methods you use for the older dates are worthless.

First attempt

in a library:



Fortunately, I could get it better later, but this kind of hampering conditions is hampering my work some!

Steve McRae (Great Debate Community)

+Hans-Georg Lundahl There isn't an upper bound when you have a sample outside the range of what carbon dating can detect. Why creationists do not understand this is beyond me.

"Carbon method is worth some, I think it needs compression to take into account that carbon levels rose drastically after Flood."

There was no flood. There is not a single solitary shred of evidence of a flood.

"How do you presume to know the fossil IS older?"

You don't. You use other methods to valdiate such as isochron.

"But seriously, the methods you use for the older dates are worthless."

The methods are fine, your understanding of them is worthless.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

" when you have a sample outside the range of what carbon dating can detect"

Per se, the lab test is detecting carbon, not a date.

And what you evolutionists fail to understand or pretend to, is that the carbon is within what the lab test can detect.

The date is just an interpretation of that.

"There was no flood. There is not a single solitary shred of evidence of a flood."

False. Bible, other legends, fossils all over earth, land shapes all over earth.

"You don't. You use other methods to valdiate such as isochron. / The methods are fine, your understanding of them is worthless."

You have just missed the chance of making a case for the method in order to make a case againt me instead, like Ludlow does against Hovind.

How about making a case why K-Ar is not debunked after Mount St Helen's or those New Zealand volcanos? How about making a case why the original line like shape on the graph for isochrons has not been blurred by subsequent findings?

Well, perhaps you prefer ad hominems because you have no good case!

Steve McRae

+Hans-George Lundahl "And what you evolutionists fail to understand or pretend to, is that the carbon is within what the lab test can detect"

It is physics and geology...has nothing to do with evolution. Take sample X...carbon date it. It comes back 30k years. Now tell me how you know that it is 30k years old, or 100 million. Go ahead...

"False. Bible, other legends, fossils all over earth, land shapes all over earth."

Um, no...actually there were entire civilizations thriving in the orient during this supposed flood. And every flood story is radically different at radically different times.

"How about making a case why K-Ar is not debunked after Mount St Helen's or those New Zealand volcanos?"

It was...Dr. Steven Austin submitted samples that the lab could not K/Ar date and yet they did it anyways for him. He knew the samples were "fresh" from a volcano with inclusions. He was utterly deceptive and this has long since been debunked.

" How about making a case why the original line like shape on the graph for isochrons has not been blurred by subsequent findings? "

Evidence please? Even RATES admited that isochron dating methods indicate an old Earth. In fact I will be discussing this with Dr. Humphrey's in a week or two. Geochronological dating formulas for isochron dating work. YEC's however have tried to have an ad hoc explanation to explain it away using "accelerated decay"...which they have utterly been unable to demonstrate, as well as explain the "heat problem" it would create.

"Well, perhaps you prefer ad hominems because you have no good case!"

Clearly you don't know what "ad hominem" means, I recommend you look it up as I have directly addressed your arguments.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"It is physics and geology...has nothing to do with evolution. Take sample X...carbon date it. It comes back 30k years"

It comes back 30k years = it shows 2.654 pmc = within detectable limit.

Impossible after 100 million, but possible after for instance 5000 years, if for instance carbon content then was close to 5 pmc, as opposed to the 20 times more which the presupposition is behind the reading 30k years.

"actually there were entire civilizations thriving in the orient during this supposed flood."

DATED to during the Flood. You don't have a complete welldocumented chronology of history saying we are year so and so after Menes united both Egypts.

A flood 5000 years ago = > Egypt started later than 5000 years ago, carbon dates are off due to lower carbon content back from the times of Buto and Hieraconopolis.

"Dr. Steven Austin submitted samples that the lab could not K/Ar date and yet they did it anyways for him. He knew the samples were "fresh" from a volcano with inclusions."

There is nothing deceptive about testing a method by tests outside usual range.

"It has been debunked" = how?

Next one, here is Snelling on isochron:

CMI : Radioactive dating method ‘under fire’
by Andrew A. Snelling
http://creation.com/radioactive-dating-method-under-fire

"as I have directly addressed your arguments."

This time, yes, the previous time you just pretended I don't understand isochron or K-Ar.

I understand K-Ar better than isochron, but both enough to know there is a faulty assumption somewhere, and in K-Ar I am equipped to say which one, excess argon cannot be ruled out.

... on Kent Hovind / Bill Ludlow debate, first half

Kent Hovind debates Bill Ludlow: Is there evidence for human evolution. (BEST DEBATE TO DATE)
Steve McRae
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tul_F9sY-Rk

Video is 1 h 27 som min long, Bill's presentation made me want to wait, I started at 29:30 and went on to about 46:00 sth. Keep looking out for updates with second half. The same debate is also uploaded on videos by both Kent Hovind and Bill Ludlow, on their channels. This one is from the one who I think arranged the debate./HGL

29:30 While I agree with Kent Hovind that the idea of human evolution is part of the general idea of amoeba to man evolution, adressing the one is not a substitute for adressing the other.

As to human evolution, I can't dispute we are related to Neanderthals and Denisovans, I simply think they were pre-Flood races related to some inlaws of Noah. Neanderthals having been part of lineage of Mrs Japheth, and Denisovans either of Mrs Japheth or of Mrs Shem, unless you could argue South East Asians stem mainly from Ham. I think certain Christian authors who did believe table of nations considered at least the Chinese as a melting pot of diverse people from mainly Shem's lineages. On the other hand, European whites and Asiatics "yellows" form a spectrum which involves clearly Japhethic people (Scythians arguably from Magog) having clearly Asiatic features.

And I found some evidence Japs and Romans could both be related to Hittites, via Puduhepa figuring as "Venus mater" (she was an Ishtar priestess) and as "Amaterasu" (she was also priestess of the sungoddess of Arinna). But Hittites would seem to come from the oldest son of Canaan, on Ham's side.

37:00 sth

Cave paintings.

Probably a short period - about a century or two or three - and possibly same artist.

Mr or Mrs Japheth, since many of them are in Europe. Possibly provoked by a sense (fairly obvious after the Flood) of : the world is changing, let's document it!

38:09 Yes, exactly, we don't have Neanderthal Y chromosomes and a population replacement of predominantly Neanderthals to exclusive Cro-Magnon happened in Europe between "39 000 BP" and "30 000 BP" - you just hit the nail with my argument of Neanderthals being a pre-Flood race.

38:24 I agree they were not modern humans, which means post-Flood descendants from Adam via Noah.

Also, while we have Neandethal hastags but no cave paintings, that could be because there was a Flood washing away the paint after Neanderthals doing them. No Flood after Chauvet, then.

41:37 do we or do we not need "to prove a fossil had children"?

If we can assume for a fossil it had typical traits of its population on this or that item, we can assume that the population had these traits.

However, this immediately rules out using one single fossil as proof of a population since it could be abnormally formed.

But also, when it comes to humans, I think populations of abnormally formed and perhaps not very likely to have children many more generations have existed.

In China, you have dwarf villages. I sometimes suspect tribes in the woods of trolls would have been tribes of trisomy 21, especially in Sweden or Norway (down in France or England, the Downsers as some like to call them were values as family members and once they usually died young from heart failure as praying for their families, since baptised and having all their life been incapable of committing mortal sins after baptism). But in Sweden and Norway, there is a tradition about "bortbytingar" (troll children left in normal human cradles instead of the real child) and there is some speculation these could be children with Downs syndrome. Ergo, when some recovered "their real child" by mistreating the troll child, could the troll child have gone to a secret colony of Mongos?

Seeing child welfare these times in those countries, perhaps some élite (clergy or nobles, not sure which is most suspect) would have done exchanges and instead of killing could have set up colonies, leading to stories of trolls in the woods.

Dwarf colonies are more likely to lead to reproduction, but hardly to have evolved to us, rather for a while from us. I e, from normal stature, not from humanity as such. But people with Downs can reproduce too.

So, suppose we really do have very close intermediates on every step between ourselves and Australopithecus, not saying I grant that, and we should conclude they are related to us, could they have been some kind of colony of abnormals or some kind of genetic experiment farm for "orc breeding" from men?

That is one possibility I have not entiremy thrown out.

42:02 "you didn't prove any of the Neanderthal skeletons had children"

There is however proof that Neanderthal typical genome can account for up to 5 % of the genome of a modern European, perhaps including you. This means people genetically like them had children, but since both their Y chromosome and their mitochondrial DNA is different from ours, we would be dealing with sth like a woman marrying a modern human (Seth-Noah or "sapiens sapiens") man, herself having a modern human mother. As a woman she would not carry Y-chromosomes at all, and as having our mitochondrial DNA from her mum, she would not carry Neanderthal specific mtDNA either. But she would carry Neanderthal typic DNA on one of her X and of the autosomes from her Neanderthal dad.

And this, supposing Noah did not count Neanderthals as Nephelim tainted in chosing his daughters in law, would fit the profile of one wife of one son of his very neatly.

42:20

We are not dealing with Neanderthal genes identic overall to modern human, i e post-Flood human genes.

There are plenty of those too, probably the reason why one racist theorist has concluded Europeans are Neanderthals and not Homo Sapiens.

We are dealing with genes usually found in Neaderthals and not post-Flood men, but found in a few of us, typically Europeans or Asiatics.

This means there was common offspring, so we must conclude they are the same created kind as we.

Unless you prefer to say they were elves, the first born of Iluvatar, who only rarely and against His usual laws intermarried with us. I don't believe that, I believe Silmarillion is great Christian literature by an Old Earth Creationist who unusually much made the best out of it intellectually (even squeezing in an absolute truth for Mark 10:6, which is why Silmarillion is more intelligent than Evolutionism), but I believe it is based on speculation and that one on one flawed principle, acceptance of Old Earth, which we agree is wrong.

Therefore, the Neanderthals who had children with people like us and whose descendants live among us (we are probably among these) were human, descending from Adam, like we do. And this, with the rest, fits a pre-Flood race.

43:07 sorry, you missed the point.

If ALL men share certain genes with chimps (like the damaged gene for vitamin C production), this proves a common Designer (and in case of the damaging, probably also a common one Cursing the one for the sake of the Other).

But if most men do NOT share and some men exceptionally did share a gene with chimps, that usually would either prove some of us had mated with them, or that there had been a genetic experiment. Unless of course the difference from a more typical human version of it is not very great.

We are dealing with genes here that are multiple and on more than one chromosome, and this presumably excludes a genetic experiment with Neanderthals. And we are dealing with small but very many differences between certain of us and most likely random other human alive today, which are also identical to genes found in Neanderthal bones.

We also know one gene which Neanderthals did have in common with men today and with no other primate : the FOX2P gene is a version permitting human speech, I think it is the brain capacity for learning words or acquiring actively acquired associations. They were able to learn.

So, Neanderthals, whatever might be the case for Australopithecus, most certainly were men descended from Adam and Eve.

43:42 "why don't we find a single" - Ludlow says "human ancestor" - "in the same layers" - namely as modern humans, or reverse? What is Kent Hovind's explanation to that?

Mine is this: with Neanderthals, those that are carbon dated, we most certainly DO find human remains of them with human remains of our type. While there were few modern men in Europe while Neanderthals lived, there were some and in Romania a researcher from Barcelona found two brothers (or probable such) in a cave, who were as much intermediate between us and Neanderthals as Alicia Keys is intermediate between my whiter mum and the blacker daughter of Martin Luther King, to name one black woman I respect.

The non-finding of contemporaries with Heidelbergians, Antecessors, Erecti races is due to using other dating techniques than carbon falsely suggesting they could not be carbon dated and for that reason NOT carbon dated to same time BP. Also not carbon dated to a different time either. And obviously, if these other dating techniques apart from giving much larger dates are much more worthless too, unusable even for relative dating, then the arguent of Ludlow falls apart.

44:39 "not finding humans and X together" - I'd certainly second that with certain larger questions, like man and T Rex. If I lived before the Flood, I would have liked to keep a safe distance. Hence we are not found in the coast swamps now known as Cretaceous.

But this is not about Erecti, Antecessors, Heidelbergians, as much, since the specific point of contemporaneity is not so much being settled by biostratigraphy per se as by K-Ar.

I mentioned that if the Tautavel man were carbon dated, he would probably look like the carbon dating of pre-Flood humans, just he isn't. 50 000 - 39 000 BP - instead of the ten times older obtained by ... the footnote I found links to a site which does not say.

Well, the population was anatomically corresponding to 20 (TMan himself) and around there, even younger, oldest corersponding to 50. My theory is, they were pre-Flood men, aging slower, and were therefore also older.

45:09 "if you've [n]ever found a modern human in the same layers as these more primitive species, you never have"

In general a bluff. You usually don't find lots of levels of land fossils in the same place in layers above or below each other, mussels and shellfish squids don't solve anything for human evolution, even if some are found above each other in GC.

In this particular case, if you extend the word "same layers" to mean "layers dated to same time" you do find "H. sapiens" (so named after wisdom of its surviving member Noah and his family, no doubt!) dated to early enough to overlap with Neanderthal and I think Heidelbergenses too. Earliest, recent find in Morocco, for those who believe that dating method. I think it was ... yes, quoting : "The Moroccan fossils, by contrast, are roughly 300,000 years old. "

NYT : Oldest Fossils of Homo Sapiens Found in Morocco, Altering History of Our Species
Carl Zimmer : MATTER : JUNE 7, 2017
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/07/science/human-fossils-morocco.html

Speaking of a bluff, I have a slight suspicion of bluff too when it comes to eyebrow bones not growing. You may have one skull of a ten year old with thicker eyebrows than one of a 90 year old, but you won't get the skull of same ten year old when he dies again at 90, or of same 90 year old when he died first time at 10. In other words, to study that on skulls, you would need to get relics like this joke (I hope it was) about relics being forged some cases "this Church has the skull of St John the Baptist" - "yeah, OK, but we have the skull of St John the Baptist as a child!"

No, and fortunately I don't think this was typical, even if Reformers pretended so.

And checking, the "layer" of 300 000 years ago (as they say) in Morocco is contemporary to presumed span of existence of Homo erectus, presumed to have died out 100 000 years ago:

Homo erectus est un représentant fossile du genre Homo, qui aurait vécu en Asie entre 1,8 million d'années et moins de 100 000 ans avant le présent.

https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_erectus

45:26

"So a vast conspiracy is your answer" - "that is not my answer, that is a possibility"

There seems to be a very vast conspiracy to bring up the spook of "vast conspiracy" whenever someone mentions ANY conspiracy, even a small or partial one, in the field of evolution! I have heard it so often and it is so not to the point.

The Piltdown man was a forgery, and the conspiracy may of may not have included the non-Catholic Jesuit Teilhard de Chardin, but it took two or three men to do that conspiracy.

If five men find a Homo sapiens of clear Cro-Magnon feature in a boxing match with a Homo erectus, and they decide "oh, this looks like Flood biology and evolution being wrong, we can't show this", they don't need ten million collaborators to hide one of the fossils. Five diggers can do that by themselves, and there is nothing vast about such a conspiracy.

There is however something really vast about a certain culture which intimidates anything reeking of creationism, which could theoretically inspire such a small conspiracy of five diggers.

45:43 "chicken are pretty recent" - how recent is "Red junglefowl"? Considered as Gallus gallus, but without adding domesticus, here:

Wickipeejuh sez so on "Red junglefowl"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_junglefowl

If "chicken" is Gallus gallus domesticus and "red junglefowl" is gallus gallus, perhaps Kent Hovind is also including the non-domestic gallus gallus, the now named red junglefowl? [In chicken, for which he does not consider domesticus as denoting other kind.]

How nice is it to change terminology and try to paint the other guy as ignorant because he uses an older one.

I met someone according to whom we don't have 23 chromosome pairs, but 23 chromosomes - because what comes in pairs is really chromatids, while chromosomes are now chromatid pairs ... obviously the older and more well known terminology is that we have 23 pairs of chromosomes, while chromatid is a word known more to specialists.

If you wanted to prove Kent Hovind is no specialist, congrats. You won that one, but I think it is a cheap one!

46:18 Ludlow really enjoys playing on terminology, he secretly assumes the "knowledge" that chicken only exist since 7000 and some years ago, when gallus gallus was domesticated and became gallus gallus domesticus, except those which didn't - while Kent Hovind, like most of us, is referring to red junglefowl as chickens, which fairly obviously they are.

Show a child of ten a family of red junglefowl, he will call them chicken.

46:44 comparing living things with something in the fossil record is eminently rational! It is through living things that we get a clue of what fossils might mean, either directly, as when they look much the same, or indirectly, like when fossils look plenty different from anything the researcher considers alive today.

Kent Hovind's point is that chicken (normal sense, not restrictive one as excluding red junglefowl) cannot have appeared from nothing well after man was there. It is a perfectly legitimate point, Ludlow is deliberately obscuring his point, so that people who share his fairly ill-known knowledge that chicken now only means what evolved 7000 years ago FROM the chicken no longer called chicken but just red junglefowl (probably previously known phrase to chicken farmers as name of a non-domestic race of chicken) can smirk at Hovind not knowing this.

Does not prove anything, except perhaps Ludlow being a jerk and putting science in an inaccessible ivory tower where only specialists enter. Opposite of what was considered good manners in science back when I was a amateur scientist at age 8 and believing both evolution and heliocentrism and big bang!