mardi 24 avril 2018

For Sea-Farers ....

I have been looking at a book about "stability and trim", editor William E. George.*

Transverse Metacentric is an imagined but localisable point in the middle of the vertical axis, affecting the radius of a circle segment in which smaller variations of centre of buoyancy occur, around the longitudinal axis.

It is calculated as BM (radius of B, centre of buoyancy, around/below M, Transverse Metacentre) = I/V.

I is calculated in relevance to water plane as Length * Breadth3 / 12, for a rectangular water plane, which Ark arguably had.

Assume 1 cubit = 2 feet.

300 cubits * (50 cubits) 3 / 12 =

600 ft * (100 ft) 3 / 12 = 50 000 000 ft4.

V involves Length, Breadth and Draft, and I assume the latter is 15 cubits = 30 feet.

600*100*30 = 1 800 000 ft3.

Now, I/V = BM = 27.777 ft. Or 27 ft 9' 4".

If Draft was 30 feet, then centre of buoyancy "initial" (before any rolling) would be 15 feet above "keel" (if any), meaning, Height of Transverse Metacentre (KM) is 15 ft + 27 ft 9' 4" = 42 ft 9' and 4".

So much for transverse stability.

Now, longitudinal hull strength ... how do we avoid hull breaks ...

First, how do we not avoid hull breaks? A ship progresses through waves and especially waves that are the length of the ship are a strain on the trim. When waves have crests near two ends of ship, a sagging tendency if there in structure is enforced. When one wave has the crest midship, a hogging tendency is enforced. The periodic enforcing of either a sagging or a hogging one can case a break of hull.

Now, how long were waves in the Flood?

I would imagine, a very typical seascape during the Flood would have been long dunes.

If they were very much longer than 600 feet, like 1200 feet, ark would not have had to deal either with hogging or with sagging, even if progressing through the waves. But more importantly, it was arguably not even doing that. The main motion except rolling would have been swaying - moving with waves and having the length of the Ark confortably between two of them, so moving sideways.

Progress would have sunk the Ark, fortunately there was none.

Indeed, one Swedish dialect would translate progress as "framstega" - and in block letters and ASCII values, that adds up to 666.

But, there was no progress, no surge, for the Ark. No progress, no hull break, no sink.

Hans Georg Lundahl
St Fidelis of Sigmaringen**

PS : I was out, I calculated that total weight of Ark with load when waterline was 15 cubits up was 50,970 metric tons. I took into account that there were three storeys on Ark, and considering foot tons and calculating for even distribution of weight over three storeys, I got it to a centre of gravitation of either 21.37 feet above keel/bottom, if lowest storey count as ten feet up, or if the foot tons are zero because the height is zero, 18 feet above bottom.

I also considered that lifting a ton in pulleys from its resting on floor of one storey to its hanging from its roof, twenty feet higher, ten cubits higher, would add twenty foot tons on that side. Note, with pulleys, even one man can lift a ton, especially if he only needs to lift it one inch.

And this would imply a possibility of leaning a floor (with all "ship", or if it has independent slant from that of whole Ark), when cleaning or food distribution can be facilitated by that.

Supposing the lowest floor counts as ten feet for weight position, and lifting is done at one side between second and third floor, the sides would then have a momentum of 594,150 foot tons on one, and 594,170 foot tons on other side - for all of Ark. Independent movement of a floor would add agility to occasional slanting and a floor could be secured to the side except when this is done./HGL

* Stability and Trim for the Ship's Officer, Third Edition, based on original edition by John La Dage and Lee Van Gemert, Third Edition, ed. by William E. George Cornell Maritime Press, last copyright 1983. ** Sevisii, in Rhaetia, sancti Fidelis a Sigmaringa, Sacerdotis ex Ordine Minorum Capuccinorum et Martyris; qui, illuc ad praedicandam catholicam fidem missus, ibidem, ab haereticis interemptus, martyrium consummavit; et a Benedicto Decimo quarto, Pontifice Maximo, inter sanctos Martyres relatus est.

vendredi 20 avril 2018

From Joseph to Jericho ... one of the ways

I was looking up one of the articles I used for carbon dating issues. I saw that the medium carbon date, averaged over different samples, for the Burial Boat of Sesostris III was to 3500 sth before present in Libby dates.

I converted it to Cambridge dates uncalibrated except as to halflife 1713 BC.

This is interesting, because in this article on CMI ...

Searching for Moses
by David Down

... Sesostris III is cited as probably dying just before Moses was born, since his successor Amenemhet III was probably the pharao ordering slaughter of infants, and since he probably survived to after Amemehmet IV / Moses had to flee after killing an overseer.

This would place Sesostris III's death at near 1590 BC, since Moses was 80 years in the Exodus 1510 BC - according to St Jerome. Djoser's coffin from 2600 BC is already tied to his being Joseph's Pharao, to 1700 BC sth.

I will add the Kenyon date 1550 BC as relevant to Biblical date 1470 BC fr Jericho - even while knowing some dispute relevance, preferring the 2200 BC walls ...

 Djoser  Sesostris III  Jericho Distances
Real Date 1710 BC  1590 BC  1470 BC 1710 1590
Carbon Dated 2600 BC  1713 BC  1550 BC 1590 1470
Extra Years 890  223  80 0220 0120
Carbon level, pmC* 89.793  97.338  99.037

From Djoser to Sesostris III, if the Biblical alignments are correct, we would then have in 220 years a rise from 89.793 pmC to 97.338 pmC. How many % would the 89.793 pmC degrade? Same as the pmC in an object from 220 years ago. To 97.374 % of original. That is, of 89.793 pmC. With no new carbon one would have 87.435 pmC.

97.338 - 87.435 = 9.903 pmC points of carbon added to atmosphere.

Now, normal compensation for the decay would be ... 2.626 pmC points.

9.903 : 2.626 = 3.7711 times as fast addition of new carbon 14.

From Sesostris III to Jericho, same proviso, we would then have in 120 years a rise from 97.338 pmC to 99.037 pmC. How many % would the 97.338 pmC degrade? Same as in pmC of objects 120 years old, 98.559 % of original. That is, in this case, of not 100 but 97.338 pmC, to 95.935 pmC.

99.037 - 95.935 = 3.102 pmC points of carbon added.

Normal compensation would be 1.441

3.102 : 1.441 = 2.153 times as fast addition of new carbon 14.

This means, the addition of new carbon 14 would be slowing down. From near four times as fast as at present to a little more than twice as fast.

Let's project this another 120 years past Jericho, to 1350 BC.

99.037 pmC would degrade 98.559 % to 97.61 pmC. But add not 1.441 pmC points to 99.051, but rather instead 3.102 pmC points, you will get to 100.712 pmC ... objects will date to 60 years younger than they are.

On the other hand, as 2.153 times as fast is already slowing down compared to 3.7711 times as fast, one would expect even some further slowing down. If this holds, the real and carbon dates would be coinciding roughly since about 1400 BC.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Cergy, Astrolabe
Sts Sulpicius and Servilian

* for pmC levels after so and so many years decay after an initial presumed 100 pmC, as always these days:

Carbon 14 Dating Calculator

(These days = I previously used another carbon calculator, which is now down. Short link to this one =

samedi 14 avril 2018

Chromosome Split After All? What Does it Take?

Here is a chromosome. Parts of genome have been marked by lowercase letter a - m (counting j as i, after my Latin preference). Telomeres have been marked uppercase T, centromeres uppercase C.

T a b c d e f C g h i k l m T

Now, imagine it undergoes a single doubling event, we will italicise the area doubled, then show the result:

T a b c d e f C g h i k l m T

T a b c d e f C g h e f C g h i k l m T

If you have a split directly after this, as P. Z. Myers imagined, you would have it either between the two centromeres or within one of them.

Between two telomeres eliminates genome in between, since genome unprotected by a mere at each end will shrivel:

T a b c d e f C g h e f C g h i k l m T*


T a b c d e f C/T

T/C g h i k l m T

No parts of genome doubled, but two "incomplete", one armed chromosomes, like the Y-chromosome. It is called telocentric. Sometimes it is called "extreme acrocentric," but acrocentric is simply not having a longitudinal symmetry around centromere. Telocentric is having only two meres, like Y-chromosome, and one of them also functioning as centromere, i e connecting to centromere of other chromosome.

Let's imagine instead split goes through one of centromeres, both of the:

T a b c d e f C g h e f C/T

T/C g h i k l m T

One of the chromosomes is still telocentric. Part of genome is repeated between the telocentric and the normal one, namely g h, other part, namely e f, between the arms of the normal chromsosome.

This is the weakness I diagnosed in P. Z. Myers' imagination.* He had written it out like this:

a b c d e f C g h e f C g h i k l m

And pretended to split like this:

a b c d e f C g h

e f C g h i k l m

But the problem is, this would really be:

T a b c d e f C g h

e f C g h i k l m T

And this means:

T a b c d e f C g h

e f C g h i k l m T

And he might hope instead:

T a b c d e f C g h TEN

TEN e f C g h i k l m T

Where TEN stands for Telomere Ex Nihilo. While telomeres and centromeres are from telomerase and centromerase, which is a special sequencing of DNA, distinct from genes, or perhaps two different ones, it is still DNA and needs to be compied from an original. Splits between meres are known from cancer studies, from onkology.

Now, imagine instead there is a second doubling event.

T a b c d e f C g h e f C g h i k l m T

T a b c d e f C g h d e f C g h e f C g h i k l m T

T a b c d e f C g h d e f C/T

T/C g h e f C g h i k l m T

e f three times, of which d e f twice

g h three times

Or if the second doubling event comprises both centromere exemplars:

T a b c d e f C g h e f C g h i k l m T

T a b c d e f C g h e f C g h i d e f C g h e f C g h i k l m T

T a b c d e f C g h e f C/T

T/C g h e f C g h i k l m T

e f three times, g h three times.

I have ignored versions which would leave one armed chromosomes as results. Here I'll be complete, a doubling across both centrmeres could be followed by a split through one of the three:

T a b c d e f C g h e f C/T

T/C g h i d e f C g h e f (C) g h i k l m T

Where (pretty standard) (C) = disactivated centromere.

Repeated sequences:

d e f twice and apart from that e f twice, g h i twice and apart from that g h twice.

This is the kind of scrambling of genome you should look for, when claiming a chromosome number increase by chromosome split.

For any creature, trisomy enlarged to tetrasomy is unlikely, since the trisomies are disabling and since tetrasomies are even more so, and recombining the fetal development to use two of the chromosomes for one and two for another part is unlikely and therefore ruled out. Tetraploidy is highly unlikely for mammals. It exists in plants and in amphibians, as does octoploidy. For mammals, chromosome split is the way up, and it is if not ruled out, totally, at least very hard.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Bibl. Mouffetard
St Justin Martyr**

* His post is here:

Pharyngula : Basics: How can chromosome numbers change?

It is possible he has rewritten it, so as to answer some of my objections ... will take a look ...

** Sancti Justini, Philosophi et Martyris, cuius memoria pridie hujus diei recensetur. / oops, too late ...

mercredi 28 mars 2018

Can India Have Been Nod East of Eden?

How do I test this?

Well, one basic for Nod is, it cannot have been all sea and no land.

We are not asking "was India Nod" - which I believe is correct on other grounds - but "can it have been Nod", as in : was there land?

Palaeocritti : India

Kota formation and Gondhwana Group are both Andhra Pradesh, which was land since including Sauropods.

Lameta formation was also land and is in Madhya Pradesh.

Subathi and Harudi formations are in parts of what is now Uttarakhand and Gujarat and it was sea, since including whales.

Pre-Flood Land states:

Pre-Flood Sea states:

So, yes, parts of India do at least fit the land criterium of Nod, east of Eden.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
Wednesday of Holy Week

Update, next day: how many of the whales are really whales? Material from Palaeocritti site, quoted and commented on:

Kutchicetus minimus, Locality: Godhatad, Kachchh, western India; Indocetus ramani, Near Harudi, Kutch district, Gujarat, India; Debhra, Sulayman range, Punjab, Pakistan; perhaps also Remingtonocetus harudiensis, Locality: Southwestern Kutch, Gujarat province, India & Kohat District, Pakistan : these seem to have hind limbs and therefore not necessarily to be whales or marine at all.

They would be classified as being whales (or in the Remingtonocetus case, as having hind limbs, perhaps) on the theory that whales evolved from land mammals.

Himalayacetus subathuensis : "Himalayacetus is only known from a fragmentary left mandible but it predates Pakicetus making it the earliest known cetacean. It was found in a marine strata and was inferred to be an amphibious animal."

In other words, probably a real whale, and we have no real evidence it had any hind limbs, it was found in marine strata and only a mandible.

Andrewsiphius sloani : the skull looks more marine than sth we expect on land. And yes, all specimina are from skull, more or less, including mandibles and maxillae galore.

Babiacetus indicus, Holotype (GSI 19647): left and right dentaries with cheek teeth; Referred specimens: GSP-UM 3005 (much of skull and lower jaws, Pakistan specimen);

Babiacetus mishrai, Holotype (RUSB 2512): partial skull.

It would seem that (GSP-UM 3005) looks marine-ish.

Gaviacetus razai, Holotype (GSP-UM 3095): cranium with associated postcranial elements.

Gaviacetus sahnii, Holotype (VPL 1021): fragmentary skull.

Neither seems to involve any evidence as to totality of skeleton ... I take "associated postcranial elements" as meaning those which would be near cranium?

Gaviacetus sahnii, Referred specimens: RUSB 2024, RUSB 2023, RUSB 2027 ... we are not told on this site what they look like.

mardi 20 mars 2018

Behemoth in Job?

What are the exact alternatives to a Sauropod, as Creationists like to argue, me among them?

An Australian Catholic (of sorts), Damien Mackey, has been recently promoting Ian Plimer's view on Dinosaurs on the Ark*, but then in a second part** gives an alternative explanation for Behemoth and Leviathan.

He opts for Hippopotamus:

Now the word Behemoth is undoubtedly a Hebrew attempt to render the Egyptian, p-ehe-mau, ‘hippopotamus’, probably not found in Palestine. Leviathan is obviously, from its description, the crocodile. These fierce creatures were both natives of the Nile in Egypt. They were not dinosaurs.

Previously he cites St Thomas Aquinas considering Behemoth an elephant:

For centuries, students of the Bible have questioned the identity of behemoth and leviathan. “In the Middle Ages, some theologians, like Albert Magnus, conceived of behemoth as a symbol of sensuality and sin. Others, like Thomas Aquinas, equated behemoth with the elephant, and leviathan with the whale” (Gordis, 1978, p. 569)— both being natural monsters in the literal sense, but representing diabolical power in a figurative sense.

So, Behemoth is described in a way which makes sense both for elephants and for hippopotami, the latter also having linguistic support from Old Egyptian.

I think I argued about ten or fifteen years ago, that a sauropod, apart from having a tail not only movable as a cedar tree in the storm but also as big as one, unlike both elephant and hippo, actually approximates both.

Like a hippo, it could be likely to support its weight in water.

Like an elephant, it can be tamed. Perhaps even used in battle, if the serpopards of the Narmer Palette are sauropods.

Look what news say of the hippo:

A farmer in South Africa has been killed by his pet hippopotamus, after repeated warnings that it was a wild animal that could never be tamed.

Humphrey the pet hippo kills owner in South Africa
David Smith in Johannesburg, Mon 14 Nov 2011 14.13 GMT

Now look what the Bible says about behemoth and leviathan:

Job 40:19 In his eyes as with a hook he shall take him, and bore through his nostrils with stakes.

This suggests you can do some kind of taming with the Behemoth.

Here are the comments from Haydock Bible:

Ver. 19. Stakes. Serpents attack the eyes of the elephant, and sometimes drag it by the trunk into the deep, where it is drowned. Pliny viii. 12. Solin xxxviii.

Others read with an interrogation: "Shall one take?" &c. Will any one dare to attack it openly? The elephant is taken by stratagem, either in pits covered with a little earth, or by a tame elephant in an inclosure, and (C.) lying on her hack to receive the male. Arist. anim. v. 2.

When he has entered, the gate is shut, and the animal is tamed by hunger; being thus taken by his eyes. Judith x. 17. Chal. "They pierce his nostrils with bands." Thus other animals are led about, (v. 21) and the elephant might be so treated in those days; though of this we have no account. C.

Prot. "his nose pierceth through snares;" or marg. "will any bore his nose with a gin?" Here they conclude this chapter, which commences C. xxxix. 31. in Heb. But the Sept. agree with us. H.

This suggests, like the elephant and unlike the hippo, the behemoth can be tamed in some sense.

Unfortunately, the new site for Haydock comment does not give the full names and does not give a list of abbreviations either, though C. = Challoner, I think, and Chal. = Challoner, obviously. H. is probably Father George Leo Haydock himself.

For the Leviathan, we see it is probably impossible to tame it at all, next verses:

[20] Canst thou draw out the leviathan with a hook, or canst thou tie his tongue with a cord? [21] Canst thou put a ring in his nose, or bore through his jaw with a buckle? [22] Will he make many supplications to thee, or speak soft words to thee? [23] Will he make a covenant with thee, and wilt thou take him to be a servant for ever? [24] Shalt thou play with him as with a bird, or tie him up for thy handmaids? [25] Shall friends cut him in pieces, shall merchants divide him? [26] Wilt thou fill nets with his skin, and the cabins of fishes with his head? [27] Lay thy hand upon him: remember the battle, and speak no more.

In other words, you can kill the Leviathan but not tame him.***

There was a man who had a pet croc, Anthony J. Drexel Biddle. This was recorded by Cordelia Drexel Biddle in the book My Philadelphia Father, which served as basis for the screenplay by Disney (just hope the alligator actually was in Cordelia's book and not just the Disney film, but I think so). By the way, this Philadelphia millionaire was a relative of Katharine Drexel of holy memory. She was niece and he great-grandson of Anthony Joseph Drexel.

So, crocs and hippos are fairly equal and behemoth and leviathan obviously unequal in tameability.

I would say, neither the croc nor the hippo are really tameable, and giant crocs like the ones found as fossils were probably even less tameable than the alligator of Drexel-Biddle. Leviathan could be a croc, and since you can survive a fight with it, I would not consider a T Rex very probable.***

But sauropods, if the serpopards on Narmer tablette are such, as well as elephants have a greater taming potential than the hippo.

And, as said before sauropods have a watery lifestyle like to hippos (which can be the reason why behemoth gave the Egyptian word for hippo) and a tameability and potential battle use like elephants.

So, hippo, elephant, incompatibility with either in the real life, pretty much clinches sauropod.

One more, Behold, he will drink up a river, and not wonder: and he trusteth that the Jordan may run into his mouth. In some sense, this would be an obvious hyperbole for how a hippo opens his mouth in the river, but if you consider the throat and stomach of a sauropod, while its mouth is less opened, he can obviously drink by allowing a river stream to simply stream into his mouth. Elephants, as we know, can't, they have to use the trunk first. Unless you pretend the river and Jordan refers to how the elephant then lets the trunk push down the water through the mouth.

So, sauropod fits the bill and Egyptians reusing the word for hippos is no real problem, it is as if someone knowing hedgehogs from lore but never seeing one had named a porcupine hedgehog. Which is not the case but would not have been impossible either.

The reference to sword could of course also mean the horns of a rhino or of a triceratops, but it seems either is meant by "unicorn" and therefore sauropod remains somewhat likely for behemoth. Also, a rhino cannot be tamed and a triceratops, well, I read a Tarzan comic with tame triceratopes in Pal Ul Don, but that is not the equivalent of the Narmer tablette.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
Tuesday of First Passion Week

Update : no crocs these days breathe fire, but Leviathan did. This could be against him being a croc at all, or could mean not all crocs share that ability, just as not all squirrels are flying squirrels. There are several crocs of greater bulk in the fossils then the crocs existing now, and who knows if one of them breathed fire? If we search among dinosaurs, obviously the T Rex is too big to allow man to survive a confrontation, but there are smaller ones, both of same kind (probably, like Allosaurus and even smaller) and of different kinds. My main issue was of course that Behemoth was a sauropod./HGL

* Academia : Monsters in Book of Job Part One: Were Dinosaurs Intended?
by Damien F. Mackey

On which confer CMI's refutation of Plimer:

"Regarding Ultrasaurus and mating on the Ark—has Plimer considered that God (being in control of which pair went on board the Ark, according to the information given in the Bible) could have ensured that, for at least this kind, only still-immature (and therefore also small) representatives were chosen?" Comment to page 108

CMI : Our point-by-point rebuttal of Plimer’s Book

He actually involves this strawman:

"Apparently Noah and his family had been busy collecting dinosaur eggs:" John Mackay whom he thereafter cites mentions dinosaur eggs for their size, but mentions dino hatchlings as therefore small, never saying that hatchlings came from Noah's "poultry farm", never contradicting the words of the Bible.

** Academia : Monsters in Book of Job Part Two: Were they non dinosaur animals?
by Damien F. Mackey

*** "speak no more" is in a way compatible with dying (but if you die, the imperative is superfluous), in the hypothetic confrontation, but "remember the battle" means, yes, you do have a chance of surviving if you don't bungle it.

jeudi 22 février 2018

A Little Review of James Reilly's Inerrancy papers spec, the one on radiocarbon

I am looking on the quotes from his paper 4, on radiocarbon.*

1) The Ubaidians, Halafians, etc. represent not the first humans who inhabited these regions, but the initial human habitation after the great flood in the days of Noah, and 2) the inhabitants of these regions should not be dated in the era 6500-3800 BC. The timelines provided in our previous paper cannot be seriously questioned. Rather, the Ubaid, Halaf, Hassuna and Samarra cultures must be dated in the time frame ca 2450-2350 BC and beyond.

I take it, 2450 is Reilly's Flood year. Mine is 2957 BC.

I also consider Ubaid, Halaf, Hasuna and Samarra as defintely after first century after the Flood.

The assumption is made, entirely without evidence, that the 14C/12C ratio measurable in the atmosphere today was not significantly different in the remote past, and can be used reliably as the basis for all radiocarbon measurements on ancient samples.

Correct, if "can be used reliably" is taken as can be used reliably on the basis of quasi identity of carbon ratio.

There is a more reliable use of radiocarbon, namely modelling, on Biblical evidence, the rise of radiocarbon.

For the sake of critics who might interject at this point and claim that the discipline of dendrochronology (tree ring dating) is able to validate the stated assumption, we merely point out that calibration charts are of unproven reliability prior to the beginning of the 2nd millennium, and as we will see momentarily, even this author accepts the scientific premise back that far (see our Figure 3 on page 15). What we object to most strenuously are denrochronological calibration charts which claim that “tree ring dating” can be extended four or five thousand years into the past, where they cannot possibly be authenticated. The interested reader might want to read up on the subject here and here and here, with particular attention paid to the process called “cross dating”, a self-authenticating process in which dendrologists use errant assumptions about the initial 14C/12C ratio in tree ring samples in order to date them and arrange them in chronological order, which order is then used to validate their radiocarbon dating assumptions. 13 This is about the most extreme example of “circular reasoning” that this author has ever encountered.

I would agree, entirely or not far from.

Now, both quote one and quote two involved an implied question of how fast the carbon ratio rose.

2450 - 2350 2% - 61 % in 100 years. We will first discuss the carbon ratio of 2 % or so at Flood, which I accept, then the rise to 61 % during first 100 years after Flood, which I reject.

For a carbon ratio of 2 % at about the time of the Flood, with some imprecision margin, agreed. By the way, this would mean that a dinosaur carbon dated as 22,000 BP cannot be from the Flood burials. How is that?

If you date a dino bone to 22,000 BP, or to 22,000 years old - obviously, as per a lab using conventional carbon dates assuming initial ratio c; equal to present one - this means there are 6.986 % modern carbon left.**

2450 BC + 1950 AD = 4400 years. Leaving, as per half life, 58.728 % of initial content.

Now, if initial content was 2 %, this would mean the remainder multiplies 58.728 by two and reduces by 100, or simply, divides by 50. 58.728 / 50 = 1.17456 %.

So, if sth was 4400 years old and had initial carbon ratio two percent of present one, we would not have 6.986 % modern carbon, but only 1.17456 % modern carbon. Would not carbon date it to 22,000 BP, but to 36,700 BP.

For a bone to have now 6.986 % modern carbon left, it must have had at the time it is from, if c. 4400 years ago, well, let's check:

6.986 % / 58.728 % = 11.9 %? Yes.

A rapid pre-Flood rise from 2 to 11.9 % of certain items but not most of them is not what I would expect. However, a rather rapid rise from 2 to 11.9 % would be a natural part of the post-Flood rise in carbon ratio.

Therefore, a dino dated to 22,000 BP cannot be from the Flood, but must be from later on, and I would say, some dinos who had multiplied after the Ark were soon killed off in Americas by post-Flood mudslides.

Now, 2 % to 61 % in 100 years ...

In 100 years, the remaining carbon ratio is 98.798 % of initial. Count 2 % * 98.798 % = 1.98 %.

This means that anything above 1.98 % found after 100 years would be by carbon 14 production during that time.

61 % - 1.98 % = 59.02 pmC added.

How much would normally, nowadays, be added in 100 years? Since we are now at a stable level, as much as decays, so, 100 % - 98.798 % = 1.202 %.

Instead of rising from 2 to 61 percent, the ratio would rise from 2 to c. 3 %.

59.02 / 1.202 = 49.101

So, carbon would have been added 49 times faster than now. This, of course, presuming that carbon 12 was constant after the Flood.

I have somewhat different scenarios for how fast carbon 14 ratio rose after Flood. My own fastest addition of carbon 14 is during Babel event, which I identify with Göbekli Tepe, so, 40 real years spreading out to 1000 years discrepancy between first and last carbon dates would be about 11 times as fast the carbon 14 forms now. Between Flood and Babel, it would be in medium 8 to 9 times faster. I don't do 49 times faster.

So, if there were 400 years between Flood and birth of Peleg and that is about when Babel starts, this being Göbekli Tepe, fairly obviously the enumerated Ubaid, Halaf, Hassuna and Samarra cannot be from just after the Flood, but must be from just before or around Babel.

Here is a checkup. I'll add Göbekli Tepe as Babel for reference:

  Unif.  Bibl.
GT /Bbl  9600 BC  2551 BC / 2824 BC
GT /Bbl  8600 BC  2511 BC / 2780 BC
Ubaid  6500 BC  c. 2567 BC
Ubaid  3800 BC  c. 2249 BC
Halaf  6100 BC  betw 2535 BC and 2494 BC
Halaf  5100 BC  after 2412 BC
Hassuna  7000 BC  betw 2617 BC and 2576 BC
Hassuna  6000 BC  2494 BC
Samarra  5500 BC  c. 2437 BC
Samarra  4800 BC  c. 2360 BC

At Göbekli Tepe, I showed that I am using two different Biblical timelines, the St Jerome and the Syncellus one, in the following I have used syncellus, not because it is necessarily better, but because I have this as latest update or so, and I should start to get going on translating this to St Jerome dates.

Let us check speed of carbon rise, from Flood in 2957 BC to Babel beginning in 2551 BC and then from Flood in 3358 BC to Babel beginning in 2854 BC.

Assume, as usual, Flood level is 2 % modern carbon. In 406 years, you have 95.207 % of original content, and at present the added carbon is 4.793 pmC. 2 % should sink to 1.90414 %. Extra years at Babel beginning are 7049, so carbon level was 42.626 pmC. Added carbon was that minus what was left, so 40.72186. But 40.72 / 4.79 = 8.5 times faster. Not 49, but 8.5.

In 535 years you have 93.733 % of original content, and now we are adding in that time 6.267 pmC. Extra years at Babel beginning are 6776, so actual reached carbon level is 44.057 pmC. 44.057 - 1.87466 = 42.18234 pmC in added carbon, which is faster than 6.267 pmC by a factor of 6.73. Not 49, but 6.73.

There are limits on how fast carbon can be added without the radioactivity needed for it frying life. The actual limit is unknown to me.

It could be known to Ilya Usoskin, but he refuses to tell. He is a "scientist" and to him Creationists like I and James Reilly are engaging in "belief" and therefore we are not worthy of getting any scientific answers.

Here is a link to his and my correspondence, starting a few letters before I get to know about him:

Correspondence of Hans Georg Lundahl : Other Check on Carbon Buildup

So, as yet, I do not have full and incontrovertible proof that James Reilly is wrong. But I think he is.

He is also wrong on solution to Distant Starlight problem. The good solution is simply saying, distances based either directly (as in 4 lightyears for α Centauri) or indirectly (as in 13.8 billion lightyears for "furthest visible objects") on Heliocentrism are as moot as a carbon date from 9600 BC. No need to fidget about what the Bible says here. As to verb used, God could have created celestial objects partly from "water above the firmament" (or in upper part of it), if namely that means Hydrogen.

But his work on Sumerian Kinglist actually taught me something.

Hans Georg Lundahl
St Peter's Chair at Antioch

PS. Two more links:


Own : Interim III, Flood to Abraham with Syncellus

* Paper #4 Argument that there exists no record of human existence prior to ca 4000 BC: Part 3. In this paper we will provide arguments from science that plant and animal life was created around 4000 BC. The paper will deal exclusively with the radiometric dating method called radiocarbon dating, the only methodology capable of dating organic matter.

** Carbon 14 Dating Calculator
by Dennis DeTurck, University of Pennsylvania

lundi 19 février 2018

Overmoralising Factual Questions

It has happened to me, that fellow Christians (including Catholics) seem to suspect me of promoting Eastern Spirituality just because I consider Mahabharata and Ramayana partially factual.

Note, I said partially. Note too, what I "filter out" is what is incompatible with the true religion.

Note, I consider that part of what caused Mahabharata and Ramayana to be written and part of what causes them to be presented (including in Rama showing up in Mahabharata along with Krishna) as Ramayana first, and Mahabharata a thousand years later is, on my view, the "Proto-Hindoos" (if I may coin the word for what could well be pre-Vedic world views just after Babel) were deliberately trying to filter out both the Flood and the Tower of Babel.

But, even so, it happens to me that people either openly or by refusing the reply when I write them show they are accusing me of doing "Eastern spirituality".

Isaac Asimov seems to have been biassed against Creationism: Asimov, L., Is Big Brother watching? The Humanist 44(4):6–10, 1984. Given as source in

CMI : Contemporary suppression of the theistic worldview
by Jerry Bergman

That article cited in that article* seems to attribute to Isaac these statements:

‘creationists are stupid, lying people who are not to be trusted in any way.’ And that all of their ‘points are equally stupid, except where the creationists are outrightly lying.’

I met a very similar reaction from a certain Robert Sparling, at least on my own assessment, you can check it yourself on my debate with him:

Nor that Isaac Asimov is an excellent historian of science or philosopher of science

This piece links to a video by an ex-Creationist, now atheist. At least he claims so. The title is from my comment III out of I to V, and the debate has now swelled comment I into the very majority of the post.

Ironically we come to Asimov again here ... on quora I came across a question implying this hate mongering of his against Creationists is far from over.

Now, there is another type of moralising, which seems to abound in the Catholic or formerly Catholic diocese of Paris.

Antiracism in blacks, perhaps including Priests, takes the form of accusing Young Earth Creationists of considering black people as inferior due to Ham's or Canaan's curse.

It sometimes takes the form of implying (at least as far as I can guess, or perhaps at best reconstruct from a half-recalled memory) that Kent Hovind was from the South, so of course he was racist, and so of course he would believe Ham's or Canaan's curse for racist motives.

I'll go to a video by Hovind and fact check ... sorry, could only find Q & A sessions in which he answers question on whether Ham can have fathered Canaan by Incest. Which, for my own part, not mainly Kent Hovind's, no. Noah being drunk doesn't mean his wife would be so mad she committed incest, even if drunk husbands (in this case by mistake) are a pain in the ass to married women. She was perhaps the Palaeolithic artist and off painting some in Lascaux, unless of course that was Japheth**.

His sin was backbiting, also called detraction. His father really was (with no real moral fault of his own, since it was probably first time he tasted wine) in a somewhat sorry state. Ham did not lie. But Ham did not do the right thing either. He could have quickly turned his eyes away, and instead he went off telling his brothers. Bad enough.

But, the problem is, some people over here seem to think, if I think this story is literally true, I believe black people are cursed because of this. When they don't even go further and don't get around to admitting there was a real fault, some of them either, but twist the story into Ham accidentally seeing his father drunk and naked and that was it, as if Ham had done nothing worse after that.

So, if I believe the Bible story, to them that implies not just that I believe that curse of Canaan happened, but that my believing creationism is somehow a code word for believing black people are inferior. Well, some are morally inferior : those who twist the story into a racist one and those who twist my open endorsement of Young Earth Creationism into an encrypted one for White Supramacism.

Twisting the Bible and twisting what another group believes is morally inferior. But the inferiority is not a purely formal one in the person so doing and due to his descending from Ham - and, as I have more than once pointed out : via Kush - but a material one, violating materially the commandment of not bearing false witness and of not bearing witness against one's neighbour unless necessary and very especially not bearing false witness against your neighbour.

But whichever way you use of overmoralising questions about which view of the world's history is right and which set of people is right, those who get away with overmoralising are the enemies of Young Earth Creationism. We creationists often do not feel welcome to moralise the question even enough as in "do we believe what God said?" And then some among us who play the same game against Geocentrism or against accepting relative historicity of Pagan stories other than Flood and Ipuwer papyrus.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
St Gabinus

* Meaning, that article by Asimov, L., cited in that article by Jerry Bergman, if you didn't get it right! ** Noah's wife would have died around the same time as Noah himself, Japheth about the same time as Shem. One of my carbon tables has last carbon date for Palaeolithic cave art along the Biblical and real date for the death of Shem.