I Had a Dream : a Discussion About Human Skeleta

The first part was a view of old "human species" (misnomer I think) that I do not share, and it's refutation.

I cannot totally recall it, as I had fever and was too tired to get up and memorise my dream, but basically, if you take Homo erectus soloensis, Homo heidelbergensis (which is probably = Antecessor and to Denisovan), Homo sapiens neanderthalensis as early post-Flood, it would be a very remarkable variety just after the Ark, and it would involve (on a view not shared by other Creationists, even those who do hold Neanderthals are post-Flood) a very rapid development in a very short time from these or some of them to the Homo sapiens we see today.

Even the other view, the one I didn't dream about, the one saying Neanderthals are early post-Babel would involve a very remarkable speed of mutations accumulating in one population. This is held by Carter (who doesn't believe there were caves for them to live in in the pre-Flood world) and by Anne Habermehl (who holds that Genesis 6:7 involves a complete annihilation, or reduction to unidentifiable powder of anything pre-Flood human we could come across).

Compare this to my view.

In the Flood, 2262 after Creation, those perishing involved:

• the Homo sapiens type we are best familiar with (those on the Ark belonged to it too)
• the Neanderthal and Denisovan types (from which some partial ancestry of some on the Ark is involved)*
• the Homo erectus on Java and in Peking
• a few others, perhaps.

When it comes to divergent gene and mutation drifts 2262 years before the Flood is much more ample opportunity for the non-"sapiens" to diverge from "us" than 101 or 531 years after the Ark.**

The equivalent for these types appearing post-Flood would be them appearing in somewhat before 695 BC or 996 BC in a LXX chronology, or in somewhat before 84 BC in the Masoretic one.

But moreoever, in the Pre-Flood world, there is not just natural divergence, there is also the genetic effect of whatever the Nephelim were about, perhaps also some (other?) genetic engineering done by demons.

So, the existence of these different human tribes is really less mysterious before a Flood in 2958 BC or in 3266 BC, than it would be after the Flood.

When it comes to radiometric dates, the carbon dates concern only Neanderthals and Denisovans, when it comes to Heidelbergians and Antecessors (whom I suspect of being simply Denisovans, but they are other finds and other dates) and to Homo erectus, we are more typically dealing with K-Ar, with Potassium Argon. In a Flood setting, how old would reflect how much argon was trapped by rapid cooling of lava spreading above the mud their bodies were in. For Neanderthals and Denisovans, where we have carbon dates, these end at or perhaps a bit before 40 000 BP. This is why for long I took the carbon date 40 000 BP or 38 000 BC as the carbon date of the Flood year.

If the skeleta are really 5000 years old, they are carbon dated 8 times as old as they really are, and if the carbon 14 proportion to carbon 12 in the atmosphere was 1/64 of what it is today (or would have been without industrialism), this is really not very surprising.

So, my main answer, as to time, is, a) potassium argon dates either mean nothing or more typically point to the Flood, different amounts of water at different temperatures of cold cooling lava at different rapidity and trapping different quantities of argon (considered then as daughter isotope, when it really was always in the sample) b) carbon 14 proportion has risen from 1.628 pmC during the Flood to 100 pmC at the Fall of Troy, 1777 years later.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
St. George
23.IV.2024

Natalis sancti Georgii Martyris, cujus illustre martyrium inter Martyrum coronas Ecclesia Dei veneratur.

* The Neanderthal genes we have now do not involve Neanderthal Y-chromosomes, nor Neanderthal mitochondriae. If a daughter in law of Noah had a father who was Neanderthal, she would not have Neanderthal mitochondriae. Being female, she would not have Neanderthal or any other Y-chromosomes. The Ark is the perfect bottleneck for allowing this degree of Neanderthal ancestry to survive and at the same time eliminate any woman who had Neanderthal mothers or any man who had a Neanderthal father.

** Citing the times from Flood to Peleg's birth in Masoretic and full LXX chronology.

"Vakro" = Växjö, Damien ?

Il y a des raisons pour lesquelles je n'aurais pas du tout deviné. Sauf par mon esprit d'escalier.

• 1) Växjö est au sud de Stockholm, pas au nord de Stockholm. Voir le plan audessus.
• 2) La prononciation.
  
  
  • a) ä en Växjö est è, ö en Växjö est eu—comme partout dans la langue suédoise
  • b) xj = k+sj. Or, je n'aurais pas approximé SJ avec un R français. Plutôt avec un CH.

Ceci mérite une petite discussion. En Finlande, SJ se prononce CH. Un fenno-suédois prononcerait donc Vecquecheu.

Par contre, en toute la Suède, SJ a une autre prononciation, et en parties de Suède, CH est la prononciation de RS. Et, cette autre prononciation est assez difficile pour les étrangers.

Prends un WH en Écosse (haud yer WHeesht!), ajoute un petit soupçon de CH, mais davantage quand même d'un C'H en Bretagne. J'ai entendu d'immigrés prononcer SJ comme Ach-Laut / C'H breton.

C'est ici que je me suis dit ... et si le R était l'approximation d'un C'H, lui-même une approximation d'un SJ ?

Si c'est le cas, Damien, prends quelques rendez-vous avec des bretonnants pour apprendre une bonne prononciation de C'H. C'est quand même une de vos fiertés, à Brest, d'avoir une langue régionale qui en plus est celtique !

Par contre, Växjö est effectivement une ville étudiante, il y a une université.

Linnéuniversitetet
https://lnu.se/

Entretemps, enjoy my blog !

Si tu préfères de lire la thématique en français, il y a de ça sur mon blog principal :

New blog on the kid : libellé : de refutatione evolutionnismi
https://nov9blogg9.blogspot.com/search/label/de%20refutatione%20evolutionnismi

Quand j'écris en français là-dessus, c'est normalement là que je l'écris, c'est en anglais plutôt que j'ai le lectorat pour un blog spécialisé sur ce thème.

Merci pour la bière, hier !

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
St. Soter, Pape et Martyr
22.IV.2024

Romae, via Appia, natalis sancti Soteris, Papae et Martyris.

PS, pour le propos "l'édition peut être compliquée" que je pense qu'on fait tourner, voir:

Avec bonne volonté, mon projet n'est pas irréalisable

Wessex culture, Únětice culture, Ottomány culture : Recalibrating Timespan

Creation vs. Evolution: Solutrean and Clovis, According to "Other Revision of I-II?" · Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere: Can Biblical Recalibration Save the Solutrean Hypothesis? · back to: Creation vs. Evolution: Wessex culture, Únětice culture, Ottomány culture : Recalibrating Timespan

Wessex culture

"2000 — 1650 BC"

Únětice culture

"2300 — 1600 BC"

Ottomány culture

"2100 — 1400 BC"

"2300 BC" or beginning of Únětice culture

(1655 + 1633) / 2 = 1644 BC
(91.4498 + 93.3283) / 2 = 92.38905 pmC => 650
1644 + 650 = "2294 BC"

"2100 BC" or beginning of Ottomány culture

(1633 + 1633 + 1610 + 1633 + 1610 + 1610 + 1610) / 7 = 1620 BC
(93.3283 + 93.3283 + 95.2011 + 93.3283 + 95.2011 + 95.2011 + 95.2011) / 7 = 94.39847 pmC => 480
1620 + 480 = "2100 BC"

"2000 BC" or beginning of Wessex culture

(1610 + 1610 + 1610 + 1610 + 1610 + 1610 + 1610 + 1610 + 1610 + 1588) / 10 = 1608 BC
(95.2011 + 95.2011 + 95.2011 + 95.2011 + 95.2011 + 95.2011 + 95.2011 + 95.2011 + 95.2011 + 97.0681) / 10 = 95.3878 pmC => 390
1608 + 390 = "1998 BC"

"1650 BC" or end of Wessex culture

(1521 + 1498) / 2 = 1510 BC
(98.184 + 98.555) / 2 = 98.3695 pmC => 140
1510 + 140 = "1650 BC"

Caveat. This involves the carbon date of the Exodus as being 1650 BC. If God used the eruption of Santorini as partial means for the plagues of Egypt, the carbon date for the Exodus should instead be 1609.

This would involve a revision of table VI — VII.

This would also involve the Wessex culture ended before 1510 BC. Such a revision would also affect the following item, but not the last one, which is in table VII — VIII:

"1600 BC" or end of Únětice culture

(1498 + 1476) / 2 = 1487 BC
(98.555 + 98.924) / 2 = 98.7395 pmC => 110
1487 + 110 = "1597 BC"

"1400 BC" or end of Ottomány culture

(1364 + 1341) / 2 = 1353 BC
(99.3421 + 99.425) / 2 = 99.38355 pmC => 50
1353 + 50 = "1403 BC"

This accompanies a video by Dan Davies (from my part), here:

Magnificent Ancient Kings: The Únětice Culture
Dan Davis History | 14 April 2024
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5fcEHA2ABeo

Solutrean and Clovis, According to "Other Revision of I-II?"

Creation vs. Evolution: Solutrean and Clovis, According to "Other Revision of I-II?" · Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere: Can Biblical Recalibration Save the Solutrean Hypothesis? · back to: Creation vs. Evolution: Wessex culture, Únětice culture, Ottomány culture : Recalibrating Timespan

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solutrean

Period

Upper Paleolithic

Dates

c. 22,000 – c. 17,000 BP

"20 000 BC" = 2733 BC

12.3736 pmC, so dated 19 983 BC

"15 000 BC" = 2693 BC

22.4405 pmC, so dated 15 043 BC

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clovis_culture

Period

Lithic

Dates

c. 11,500 – 10,800 BCE[1][2]

"11 500 BC" = 2644 BC

34.211 pmC, so dated 11 494 BC

"10 800 BC" = 2631

37.351 pmC, so dated 10 781 BC

Creation vs. Evolution: Other Revision of I-II?
https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2024/03/other-revision-of-i-ii.html

Given the Amount of Posts I Spend on Contradicting CMI

For instance, previous, where I contradict Gary Bates on Egyptian chronology ... one could assume I were very opposed to them.

In fact not the case.

Most of their articles, like either I totally agree, or the differences are not much worth making a fuss about. But on the other hand, most of thei articles I assume my readers can get anyway.

Tomorrow's article is however a gem. I'd be sinning against my readers if I withheld direct recommendation of:

Racemization of amino acids under natural conditions: part 4—racemization always exceeds the rate of peptide elongation in aqueous solution
by Royal Truman and Boris Schmidtgall | This article is from
Journal of Creation 36(3):72–80, December 2022
https://creation.com/racemization-of-amino-acids-4

Carbon 14 and Egyptian Chronology, a Reply to Gary Bates

Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere: Gary Bates' Egyptian Matches Bungle the Carbon Rise · Creation vs. Evolution: Egyptian Chronology Calibrated · Augustine and Origen each give us "two birds with one stone" · Carbon 14 and Egyptian Chronology, a Reply to Gary Bates

Egyptian chronology and the Bible—framing the issues
by Gary Bates
https://creation.com/egypt-chronology

I am basically going to concentrate on two things:

what he says on carbon 14 (¹⁴C for short)

what he says of the New Kingdom

To assist with dating artifacts from Egypt, carbon-14 dating is now extensively used but widely disputed due to the massive revisions in time it can lead to. We have written much about the alleged absolute reliability of ¹⁴C dating.

I do in fact not hold to the absolute reliability of ¹⁴C dating. However, I have much more confidence as to its relative reiability than CMI generally have. There are factors in the problem they persist in ignoring. Robert Carter offered me this "explanation" (it was obviously clear to him that I was not promoting taking "40 000 BP" as really 40 000 years ago) of why they do not even attempt such a thing:

This period covers some of the most important periods of biblical history, yet carbon dating fails to properly date any of it. If we have rapidly rising ¹⁴C levels, we cannot even assume the atmosphere would be fully mixed during the transition period. Throw in an Ice Age, shifting atmospheric circulation patterns, vast amounts of old carbon being dumped into the biosphere via vulcanism and via the erosion of calcium-containing rocks, a collapsing magnetic field, and who knows what bombarding us from outer space, and I fully suspect that the oldest measurements will be far from precise.

The problem is, the more ¹⁴C levels punctually sink because of release of old carbon, and note the release of old carbon from 1750 to 1950 has contributed to such a decline in ¹⁴C levels that 1750 having dated to 1950 (raw, uncalibrated date), 1950 dated to 1750 (dito). As said, the more the level punctually sinks, the more drastic increases have to be taken in as to cosmogenic ¹⁴C which implies radioactivity.

If the levels rose from just above 1 pmC in the Flood 2957 BC to 82.73 pmC in 1935 BC when Genesis 14 happened (Abraham around 80 years, or between 76 and 85), the medium factor of how much more ¹⁴C was produced each year can be calculated as this:

2957 - 1935 = 1022 years (it will be radically less in the Masoretic timeline), implies a decay from 100 to 88.37 percent of original level, and therefore also a normal replacement of 100 - 88.37 = 11.63 pmC.

1.628 * 88.37 / 100 = 1.439 remaining pmC*
82.73 actual pmC
82.73 - 1.439 = 81.291 pmC replacement.

81.291 / 11.63 = 6.99 times faster.

Let's follow this up as to what this implies midway or rather 401 after the Flood, when Peleg was born.

401 years, decay 100 to 95.265, normal replacement 4.735 pmC

1.628 * 95.265 / 100 = 1.551 pmC
6.99 * 4.735 pmC = 33.097 pmC
33.097 + 1.551 = 34.648 pmC

2556 BC + 8750 extra years = dates as 11306 BC (in my view, 2556 BC actually dates as 8000 BC, and the level is 51 pmC and some).

Now, to account for the supposition of Carter, let's suppose old carbon to a quantity comparable to the one dumped between 1750 and 1950 is dumped by some volcanic activity.

In order to do this, I need to speak of pmC levels above 100 meaning dates "into the future", because that's what things start out with in 1750. I'm going back to my usual carbon 14 dating calculator, so we are now using numbers from two different apps. In 1750, the level was 102.449 pmC. We'll suppose this sinks to 1950 to 100 pmC, meanwhile the level in 1950 is actually 97.61 pmC.

What exact addition of old carbon to the overall CO₂ has this effect?

X = 100 pCO₂ => 100 pmC
X = 200 pCO₂ => 50 pmC
X = 150 pCO₂ => 75 pmC
X = 112.5 pCO₂ => 87.5 pmC
X = 106.25 pCO₂ => 93.75 pmC
X = 103.125 pCO₂ => 96.875 pmC

So, adding 3.125 pCO₂ (or percent atmospheric carbon, I improvised the term) is a thing. While it took 200 years, we'll suppose it happened in one go, 401 after the Flood. Actual post-Babel dates would then date prior to the date 11 306 BC.

X = 100 pCO₂ => 34.648 pmC
X = 103.125 pCO₂ => 33.565 pmC

So, next year, 2555 BC, you add instead the extra years 9000, giving 11 555 BC. I don't find it very convincing that a sudden addition of old carbon could have happened more than 200 times faster than it did in the industrial era, but have at it.

In 2555, the pmC has instead halved. That would imply that reaching 34.648 pmC actually only took 3.495 times faster production, since the time from flood to 2556 BC would have had only half of our atmospheric carbon. But, 2555 BC, we have present levels of atmospheric carbon, half of which was back then old carbon, it is terribly badly mixed, but the medium level would be down to 17.324 pmC.

2555 would range from 37 000 BC to 11 306 BC, but tend to date around 17 055 BC.

However, 2555 BC, carbon-14 level is on medium 17.324 pmC.

1022 - 402 = 620 years. Decay 100 to 92.774, normal replacement 7.226 pmC.

17.324 * 92.774 / 100 = 16.072 remaining pmC
82.73 - 16.072 = 66.658 actual replacement pmC
66.658 / 7.226 = 9.225 times faster replacement.

The extra years and therefore ¹⁴C levels would differ in Masoretic chronology, but not too much. I'll be inaccurate enough to insert the values from here to those other years. For Ussher years, I'll access Haydock.

Year of the World 2092, Year before Christ 1912 = Genesis 14
Year of the World about 1800, and Year before Christ 2204 = (end of) Babel

2204 - 1912 = 292 years. 620 / 292 = 2.123 faster overall process.
2.123 * 9.225 = 19.587 times faster ¹⁴C replacement/production

And that's just if you want to put Magdalenian in post-Babel instead of pre-Babel, it gets worse if you want to put Neanderthals and Denisovans in the post-Babel instead of the pre-Flood.

But between Genesis 14 and ... let's say fall of Troy, 1180 BC ... the rise is either way slower.

1935 - 1180 = 755 years, decay from 100 to 91.272, normal replacement = 8.728 pmC.
Or, if you prefer, 1912 to 1180, not much difference.

82.73 * 91.272 / 100 = 75.509 remaining pmC
100 - 75.509 = 24.491 actual replacement pmC
24.491 / 8.728 = 2.806 times faster

Note, from Genesis 14 to Fall of Troy, a period that spans the Exodus, this slower rise will likely be less irregular, since better mixed, since the ¹⁴C production more closely resembles the present one. This is the context in which one should take my comment under a video by Gary Bates:

1446 + 430 = 1876 (at the promise, 430 years prior to Exodus).
1550 - 1406 = 144 extra years at the taking of Jericho.

[etc]

Jacob going to Egypt would be in 215 after the promise, i e in 1661.

What would the C14 level be then?

215 years is 97.433 % and 2.567 pmC replacement.

82.164 * 97.433 / 100 = 80.055 pmC
80.055 + (2.567 * 3.736) = 89.646 pmC

89.646 pmC => 900 extra years.

1661 + 900 = 2561 BC. That carbon date is well before the Hyksos. It's actually not too far from Djoser.

Obviously, at Gary Bates' Exodus dating, we get to 100 pmC even before Fall of Troy, namely in the Exodus. The result is that the rise from Genesis 14 on would be even steeper. Not too steep to be fairly even, but still steep enough. Even clearer disproof of a Hyksos pharao, when Joseph arrived. But suppose instead we actually allowed a Hyksos pharao for Joseph.

Year of the World 2298, Year before Christ 1706. = Genesis 43 (Ussher chronology)
The Second Intermediate Period c. 1700–1550 BC

So, 100 pmC, not just for Exodus, but even Joseph's receiving the brethren.

1912 - 1706 = 206 years. Decay 100 to 97.539. Normal replacement 2.461 pmC.

82.73 * 97.539 / 100 = 80.694 remaining pmC
100 - 80.694 = 19.306 actual replacement pmC.
19.306 / 2.461 = 7.845 times faster replacement.

So, the scenario given by Gary Bates involves on the one hand, the ¹⁴C production continued to be much faster than today, nearly 8 times faster, up to Joseph in Egypt, and then came to rest flatly on the modern production level, so that Kenyon's inflated dating for Jericho must be due to mismanagement on her part, rather than ¹⁴C level that was still somewhat lower than what would equate carbon date to real date. How exactly does Gary Bates defend this?

Famous Egyptologist Zahi Hawass, who at the time of the 2010 report was secretary-general of the Egyptian Supreme Council for Antiquities, said:

“This technique shouldn’t be used at all in making changes to the chronology of the [sic] ancient Egypt, not even as a helpful addition … carbon dating is useless. This science will never develop. In archaeology, we consider carbon dating results imaginary.”32

Well, but what is his rationale? If we look at conventional carbon dates, calibrated according to a presumed ¹⁴C level close enough to 100 pmC, this more or less adds up to the totals, but it will make a trainwreck of the details in Egyptian "documented" chronology and succession of pharaos. Zahi Hawass may be very famous, but he is not a Young Earth Creationist and is therefore not prepared for a wholesale adaption of Egyptian chronology to the Biblical one, starting with Abraham meeting Narmer or one of his predecessors in Lower Egypt, before the unification. Or even maybe one of the guys in Upper Egypt whom Narmer defeated later on. However, I am, and Gary Bates should be, prepared for such reevaluation. Therefore, Zahi's premiss being flawed, his conclusion is flawed too.

Again, it shows how much disparity there is in trying to reconcile timelines for ancient Egypt as no one source seems to be consistent with any other and many preconceived ideologies and agendas rule. The further back in ancient Egypt one tries to use ¹⁴C dates the more disparate the figures are also likely to become. Also, because there are fewer artifacts from the more ancient dynasties the more likely it is that researchers will rely upon ¹⁴C alone as a single line of evidence. Hence, why an Old Kingdom revision can occur in the blink of an eye by c. 400 years. This is less likely with New Kingdom dates where we have a wealth of more recent evidence to confirm or reject a ¹⁴C date.

While the New Kingdom is better documented, it is not all that well documented that a revision of 100 years along the start is impossible. I would say, the New Kingdom starts at the carbon date 1550 BC, same as for Kenyon's date for Jericho. This means, the real date 1470 BC, 40 years after the Exodus, when Joshua conquers Jericho. Or in other words: the Hyksos were Canaaneans, when Joshua weakens these, or God does so through Joshua, he helps to liberate Egyptians from them as well.

In this context, I recall another video, with Gary Bates, where he gave specific arguments for a specific New Kingdom pharao. I made responses, and posted them on my blog, and now I cannot find the blog post. Not on either of the blogs where I would expect to find it, neither this one, nor the one called Assorted Retorts. Maybe he put that video down to replace it with the one from 27 March this year. If he did, let's hope he didn't arrange to have my post deleted for supposed "copy-right" issues, refuting is not plagiarising, in US law, but perhaps he could find a dishonest and accomodating internet admin. Or, for that matter, let's hope he didn't do so without deleting the previous video either. Whoever did it can be considered as committing inimical acts against me, and exercising a kind of illegal censorship. And especially an immoral one.

The take-away I hoped to provide through the citation of my previous criticism is, anyway, that the kind of astronomic event associated with that particular pharao that Gary used to clinch the date, also occurred some 20 or 50 years later, whichever it was, it would have been compatible with my dates for the Exodus and revision of the New Kingdom.

Meanwhile, an Exodus in 1510 BC (carbon dated to perhaps 1609 BC, if God used the Santorini eruption as partial cause for the plagues of Egypt) would from Gary Bates' perspective have the disadvantage of putting more time between the Exodus and the Temple than 480 years. On this issue I refer back to my conclusion that "480 years" is intended to mean "at least 480 years":

Creation vs. Evolution: 480 Years From Exodus to Temple?
https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2023/01/480-years-from-exodus-to-temple.html

It is possible that the material on what pharao Gary Bates had in mind is still there in another video, not taken down, and that even my comments would be accessible to me. It is possible that it is only on the new video. I'm sorry, but due to internet sabotage, I will have to return to that later.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
St. Mary Cleophas
9.IV.2024

In Judaea sanctae Mariae Cleophae, quam beatus Joannes Evangelista sororem sanctissimae Dei Genitricis Mariae nuncupat, et cum hac simul juxta crucem Jesu stetisse narrat.

* The calculation results often have more than three decimals in the following, but are rounded to three decimals.

Test if You Can Post a Link From Here on Facebook!

Creation vs. Evolution: Test if You Can Post a Link From Here on Facebook! · HGL'S F.B. WRITINGS: Abusive Censorship Again

It seems that Muslims who disapprove on FB France have banned this blog.

Creation vs. Evolution
https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/

What I tried to share was previous post:

Creation vs. Evolution: LXX / Vetus Latina as per Julius Africanus : Pre-Flood Period 2262 Years
https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2024/04/lxx-vetus-latina-as-per-julius.html