Et Rochette m'avertit contre ceux qui me pensent vraiment nul, dans le sens populaire ...

Pardon, Delorme, vous venez de m'appeler "nul" ? — Et Rochette m'avertit contre ceux qui me pensent vraiment nul, dans le sens populaire ...

Le Larousse en ligne se limite à quelques mots quant à notre sujet, quelques mots axiologiquement neutres, sans jugement de valeur : « Se dit de quelqu’un qui récuse la version communément admise d’un événement et cherche à démontrer que celui-ci résulte d’un complot fomenté par une minorité active. » Les spécialistes académiques du vocabulaire ne font que décrire la caractéristique commune de tous les complotistes, sans asséner l’idée selon laquelle leur façon d’étudier une problématique serait fausse ou haineuse, et sans amalgamer tous les conspirationnistes (autres noms des complotistes) dans une seule et même catégorie psychiatrique.

Il y a donc des gens qui, contrairement au Larousse considèrent que le complotisme soit reprochable.

Page 5, Rivarol N° 3614, il en parle, et c'est là qu'il cite le Larousse par contraste.

Mais il y a des gens qu'on décrit ainsi pour peu de raison.

Tout d'abord, la présence de vie, de conscience humaine, de variation dans les formes de vie, d'un soleil qui brille dessus le jour, la nuit qui les enduit en repos par le sombre (pour pas mal des espèces et des spécimens), de saisons qui permettent une meilleure maturation de certains processus biologiques, je ne suis pas sûr que Larousse les considère comme "événements" dans la signification visée par cette définition. Les deux tours de l'onze septembre 2001 seraient mieux placées pour y correspondre.

Ensuite, je ne suis pas non plus sûr que Dieu et ses anges seraient à considérer comme une minorité active ou ... bon quelque part, si Dieu commande les anges, et les athées en ignorent tout, ça devient à la limite un complot vis-à-vis eux ("surtout en rien avertir les athées que tu brilles sur ma commande !" — "pas de souci, mon Dieu, ils ne se rendent compte de rien !"), ou quelque chose ...

On peut donc recuser une version communément admise (par exemple 1) matérialisme des corps célestes et des pouvoirs qui gèrent leurs mouvements, 2) héliocentrisme, 3) évolution de l'homme des singes) sans que ça constitue un complotisme.

Par contre, en recusant la version communément admise que j'aliène les gens en étant complotiste en ces choses, je suis en train de parler d'un complot pour peindre les Géocentriques et les Créationnistes Jeune Terre comme des complotistes, et ceci semble être le cas depuis quelque décennies, par exemple depuis les années 1990 ... avant ça, les Scientifiques soutenant la synthèse néo-darwiniste avaient davantage le goût de débattre les Créationnistes, et moins le goût de les marginaliser.

Merci, M. Rochette !

Et pour ceux qui prétendraient que je fasse du complotisme réel vis-à-vis les scientifiques, que je les soupçonne d'avoir tous en tête la vérité du créationnisme et donc d'être malhonnêtes quand ils se déclarent croyants du néo-darwinisme, pas du tout. Je pense qu'un homme peut être incompétent en absence de collectivité ou malgré la sienne, mais aussi en commun avec, par exemple les biologistes qui soutiennent que nous descendions de singes comme Orrorrin.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
Veille de Pentecôte
18.V.2024

T' Ignore or Not Ignore?

That is the question : whether it be nobler in the mind to … well, here is more or less where my memory of exact quote from Hamlet breaks off. I have not been keeping it up. But the title refers to Mark Shea seeming to have a similar problem about whether to ignore me or answer me.

1) T' Ignore or Not Ignore?, 2) When is it rational to conclude one is facing a conspiracy? I might have been wrong. My friend Sungenis just wrote this: Mark Shea and the “Synthesis of All Heresies” http://galileowaswrong.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/Mark_Shea_and_Synthesis_of_All_Heresies.pdf Like myself, see below, he is not buying Mark Shea's claim to be the average Catholic.

Mark Shea Asking For the Commenter he Blocked
http://hglsfbwritings.blogspot.com/2014/03/mark-shea-asking-for-commenter-he.html

Mark Shea's Understanding of Scripture
http://greatbishopofgeneva.blogspot.com/2014/04/mark-sheas-understanding-of-scripture.html

Both of above links were sent to him. The latter mentions in passing that persons fulfilling a prophecy must not be doing it from manipulation by their parents at birth. Cyrus. Our Lord. And … as obviously … Antichrist. I gave two examples of people who could be fulfilling the prophecy by their name in ways that their parents could not in any possible way have foreseen. Obama and Bergoglio. For Obama I have not checked the exact gematria of the English translations of his three names. For Bergoglio it is last name in block letters according to ASCII code. Block letters of English alphabet are A – Z = 65 – 90 while 64 is just @ and first 0 – 31 (I e first thirtytwo starting from zero) are commands rather than signs. Minuscules are a – z = 97 – 122 and characters with extra strokes like “É” (201) or “é” (233) are outside this series. Or these two series.

Mark Shea in one way has responded, and in another way has not done so.

Over the Transom and into the Garbage
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/markshea/2014/04/over-the-transom-and-into-the-garbage.html

go all emails that start like this:

How To Respond If Pope Francis Is the False Prophet

I did not send an email. This time. My message did not start like that either. But since it was posted less than 48, near certainly less than 24 hours, after my posting the link on his wall I think I can feel alluded to.

Even if the eventuality of “Pope Francis” being the guy was not at all the main point.

Since I am pretty certainly alluded to without being named, I find he has merited the reproach of “to ignore or not to ignore”. With such an attitude I suppose he finds me a sling or arrow of outrageous fortune, somehow.

But what if the above post by him were just a coincidence with my posting above link on his wall?

Well, then there is one other coincidence, as you would call it, which strains at least my credulity. The reason why he blocked (as it seems) emails from me was mainly my take on the creationist question.

Mark Shea Basically Calls Creationists Protestants
http://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2012/12/this-is-somewhat-disingenious-mark-shea.html

Newspeak in Nineteen - Eighty ... er Sorry ... Ninety-Four
http://creavsevolu.blogspot.fr/2013/12/newspeak-in-nineteen-eighty-er-sorry.html

And guess what?

This same date of 4/IV there is on Catholic and Enjoying it another post by Shea:

Tee, as they say, Hee
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/markshea/2014/04/tee-as-they-say-hee-2.html

One thing I am grateful for: Catholics at least don’t waste a lot of time on arguments about “scientific evidence for the the flood of Noah” and all that. … But I am highly skeptical the author of Genesis would find creationist (and atheist) fundamentalist quarrels about the historicity of the Flood narrative that interesting or pertinent to his central point.

In other words, because I am interested in evidence – both from tradition (Hebrew and near universal Pagan alike) and from Geology – for Flood of Noah having occurred, therefore I am not a Catholic.

He gives about the same slur in the other post:

I never thought I’d see that day when Real Catholics[TM] would see themselves invested by the Holy Spirit to defend the Faith from the Pope. I say “Faith” not Church, because these Reactionaries hate 99% of their fellow Catholics as much as they hate Francis. It has become and abstraction to them, a simplified ideology of a few moral teaching they happen to like, plus a vision of imaginary liturgical perfection and, on a occasion, a miasma of creepy interpretation of private revelation filtered through an apocalyptic imagination. But it no longer has, for authors of junk like the stuff above, hardly any relationship to the actual Catholic faith.It’s not going to end well for this crap. Avoid it like the plague and stick with your ordinary, workaday Catholic parish of slobs and sinners in union with the pope and working out their salvation like the average schlubs we are.

That is as close to an anathema as a non-bishop can get. One can of course state even as a layman “if you persist in such, may you be anathema”, but of course without the pretention to impose the excommunication as an ecclesiastical punishment. A kind of “I will not share the condemnation which I see you heading for.” But that might have been a bit too drastic for Mark Shea. “It’s not going to end well for this crap. Avoid it like the plague” … so much more moderate words, aren’t they? And analyses like this are of course not the least bearing judgement (that was sarcastic): “I never thought I’d see that day when Real Catholics[TM] would see themselves invested by the Holy Spirit to defend the Faith from the Pope. I say ‘Faith’ not Church, because these Reactionaries hate 99% of their fellow Catholics as much as they hate Francis.” And analyses like the following are obviously speaking about the interior of the neighbour and in that sense about the unknownable (that was not sarcastic): “It has become and abstraction to them, a simplified ideology of a few moral teaching they happen to like, plus a vision of imaginary liturgical perfection and, on a occasion, a miasma of creepy interpretation of private revelation filtered through an apocalyptic imagination. But it no longer has, for authors of junk like the stuff above, hardly any relationship to the actual Catholic faith.”

One reader found it funny to add a comment about holy candles being all that works during the three dark days. A good point per se. Unfortunately for him, I think he meant it in a sarcastic way. Hope he does have a staple of such anyway, “just in case”.

a miasma of creepy interpretation of private revelation filtered through an apocalyptic imagination.

Just a bit linguistical here: miasma is a Greek word. It does not mean "swamp". It means "stain". A miasma of guilt is what we are rid of through Baptism and through Penance if receiving them correctly. It is also what Our Lord and Our Lady never had for a moment in their lives. The Latin for it is "macula". But let us return to the description:

a miasma of creepy interpretation of private revelation filtered through an apocalyptic imagination.

A bit like the people who St Matthew describes as “waiting for the Messiah” perhaps? I mean Anna and Simeon in the Temple did have a checklist including a passage of Micah. And they did have a private revelation about this visit to the Temple being the right one. Mark Shea gives a recommendation:

stick with your ordinary, workaday Catholic parish of slobs and sinners in union with the pope and working out their salvation like the average schlubs we are.

I see some relation to the assertion:

these Reactionaries hate 99% of their fellow Catholics

Perhaps he found it hateful when, trying to illustrate the concept of words changing meaning I took the example of “sad” not originally meaning “sorrowful” but “full of food after a meal” – and used him as an example of that meaning. I meant it as friendly banter. However, it may also be seen as describing him as a slob or a schlub. And in his case, I am not sure I would add “average” to it.

He does not feel any interest in testimony or physical evidence for the Flood. Ergo, average slobs in Catholic parishes do not. Especially as there is Mark Shea to tell them so. He feels sure the author of Genesis would not have cared one way or the other:

My own inclination is to think that there is some kind of primordial traumatic flood at the back of the story, given the ubiquity of flood narratives in global culture. … As far as [the author of Genesis] is concerned, his little corner of planet earth is “the world”. The main thing he cares about the is the meaning of the story.

And:

• a) it is of course Highly Irrelevant to the meaning if the world meant the world or “his little corner of the planet”?
• b) a Holy Author is of course not the least over patronised by this approach? The author of Genesis, unlike in Catholic Tradition (and Hebrew, if you like pre-Christian and pre-Jewish, Tradition before it) is not named as Moses, and he is not supposed to agree with St Peter, the first Pope, whom Kent Hovind is quoting more often than “Pope Francis” is?
• c) and this is of course also a very rational and coherent explanation of why there are flood stories all over the globe?

No, I do not hate 99% of all Catholics. But I do grudge at least a Catholic who talks and takes the tone of the kind of Modernist Lutherans I was once escaping from (they took similar approaches to questions related to Sacraments), and who uses the attention he has from people to get attention away, presumably from my writing (hardly a very nice attitude between writers at the best of times, even without a Theological quarrel in it) without having the courage to name me. Precisely as he both asserts “the author of Genesis” took “his corner of the planet” for “the world” (meaning it was a local flood) and that he was uniquely interested in “the meaning” of his story as if fact had nothing zilch or nada to do with meaning. This sloppy approach to a question is hardly what I excuse in a writer who is read by thousands and by thousands of thousands. Whatever my attitude to an average Catholic proferring it – if average Catholics are so sharing it.

The friend due to whom I started out, soon after my conversion, on the Traditionalist adventure had a teacher in "French as native language" (in Sweden, "hemspråk franska"), and she was a parishioner of St Thomas Aquinas parish in Lund (Sweden, and Scania was Swedish since 1660, previously Danish) before he and I were. He told me she used to complain “on ne prêche plus la parousie”. It means: “they are no longer preaching the second coming”.

This is evidence that to her (and she is far more of an average, pope faithful, working out her salvation than either I or Mark Shea are – or was if on the meantime she has died*) there was a time not very long ago when a Catholic Priest would tell people that Christ will come again, there will happen terrible things before that, the times of Noah were so to speak a foretaste of it. To her Padre Pio of Pietrelcina with the marks of the wounds of Our Lord and the three dark days were not a joke.

Neither were they so to a pro-lifer I met in Rome in 1986. Tom Zimmer. Read his Hope 84, to Honour Our Lady’s Assumption, if you can get hold of it. It has the three dark days.** It has more than one reference to Padre Pio. It has a proposal for Liturgic Peace before that was fashionable (and he was Novus Ordo insofar as he went to parishes were Communion was in both kinds, but against abuses, like hand communion which he considered diabolic). It has more than one very apt observation on the evil of Abortion. And the man was a bum in Rome, nearly as Saint Benedict Joseph Labre before him. An American of German Irish descent.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Nanterre University Library
St Isidor of Hispalis
4-IV-2014

* Oh frabjous joy, she hasn't. My friend just told me. One year older than the man he calls "the previous Pope" - and she too no doubt. ** It also has a saying about Our Lord's tenderness. "His Sacred Heart is so tender he cannot bear to see one eat the meat of a slaughtered animal the day when He died on a Cross. Never eat meat on Friday." I do not know where it comes from, I try to avoid eating meat on Fridays anyway. But I recalled it as I ate a chicken sandwich today, or as I was about to eat it. Though I also recalled it was Friday when the lady in the café offered me no salmon and only two meat sandwiches./HGL

Did Mr Darwin Block me from his Blog?

At least from this post:

DarwinCatholic : History's Expiration Date
http://darwincatholic.blogspot.fr/2014/03/historys-expiration-date.html

As to this debate, my last comment there still stands, but he has not answered it. He deleted a lot of other ones, including my last two on the above, but not the last one here (so far), oh, sorry, was wrong:

DarwinCatholic : Did Augustine and Aquinas Believe In A Literal Interpretation of Genesis
http://darwincatholic.blogspot.com/2014/02/did-augustine-and-aquinas-believe-in.html

Hans-Georg,

In case it's not obvious from this morning's clean sweep, I've decided not to let you use my comment boxes to air your opinions further. All further comments will be deleted.

I try to allow a wide range of opinion here, but I don't think there's any point in maintaining conversation with someone who thinks that our most recent popes are probably anti-popes, goes off on bizarre rants about "Illuminati Jew bankers", etc.

I hope that, in time, God's grace will help to bring you closer to the source of all Truth, which is Christ.

The implication that I am far from truth and far from Christ is so sweet, isn't it?

The profession - and quite in public - he makes of caring about my spiritual welfare after socially insulting me is of course not the least hypocritical, is it?

Well, I would say one of us is not a real Catholic. We are not behaving as if belonging to one and the same Church of Christ.

To me, it is clear, that he has a hysteric sacralisation of things not sacred to Catholicism going on. Modernism. Darwinism and Heliocentrism. Jewry even at its most hysterical and hateful, like when no Jew protested at Trotsky getting a plane from New York (and they think they are in a position to complain when Pius XII thought he had already exhausted diplomatic means with Hitler and preferred aiding Jews by secrecy!)

Now, here is the last comment, the one he deleted:

"Hans-Georg Lundahl said..." [Yes, I did, so you know I started the copy from its beginning, but it is not given in blockquotes, only where I quoted his last one I have blockquotes for that:]

The Church has accepted the teaching of the heliocentric model of the solar system as fact since 1820.

No, not quite.

It has accepted as licit or as not forbidden to teach it as a fact since then. But if Anfossi was forbidden to put Settel's book on the index, he was nevertheless NOT required to become a Heliocentric himself.

Pius XII, John Paul II and Benedict XVI all wrote about how not only the "old earth" understanding of natural history enjoyed great scientific support, but how the evolutionary account of biological history did as well — and how it is not incompatible with the faith.

For Pius XII I hope you are wrong.

The often missed but nevertheless very clear upshot of Humani Generis was teach the controversy - within a restrained circle.

This does not amount to preach the evolutionary version and to everyone.

If some people give an inch, some certain denizens of nether regions like to take an ell.

That is what I can make of your take on Anfossi-Settele affair.

As to JP-II and B-XVI, I might even on other grounds consider them as Antipopes.

But even supposing they were Popes: an encyclical or allocution which includes no condemnation of anything presented as heresy or error does not have canonical dignity to impose either Evolution or Heliocentrism on a Catholic believer.

Proof** Anfossi affair is old news to me, item Humani Generis, and you missed one pointed out by Dimond Brothers: In praeclara summorum.

I remain confident that just as Augustine and Aquinas adopted the cosmology which was the best science of their day (with a round earth rather than a flat one)

Has since been confirmed by Vasco da Gama, right?

they would if presented with modern science be among the great majority of educated Catholics who see no conflict between the faith and the findings of modern cosmology

Which has similarily been confirmed in a far far galaxy, long ago, by Luke Skywalker and Han Solo, right? Oh, wait, would your practical confirmation of the da Gama type still be lacking? You mean George Lucas was doing fiction? *shocked, shocked, shocked!*

OK, Eratosthenes was confirmed by never being refuted all over the 1500 and even more years since St Augustine accepted him.

And Galileo has been confirmed for how long? Even not. His version of Heliocentrism is not even accepted by Heliocentrics.

and biology

Evolution requires fission of Chromosomes, right?***

not among the few cranks who insist on supporting an overly literal view of Genesis

If of St Augustine's De Genesi ad Litteram you knew not only the one quote you like to towt on all occasions against litteralists, but the very first words a man opening book one can read, by the way it is one work conspicuously lacking on the newadvent collection of patristic texts, then you might have been somewhat queezy about assuming he would reject "an overly literal reading of Genesis".

no matter what bizarre glosses on the scientific evidence are needed to make it appear to work.

Oh, appealing to the possibility of angels actually doing something on a regular basis in creation is to you a "bizarre gloss on the evidence"?

My, my, my ... *why don't they teach logic in these schools?*

So far the comment I adressed to his last one this morning, before he deleted it.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Bpi, Georges Pompidou
St Patrick of Armagh
17-III-2014

* This he did not adress, as you see.

** in the links

*** I was anticipating to reply to his reply on "what does that have to do with it", with my refutation of P Z Myers. No, I do not consider myself a super scientist who can be better than every scientist, I only consider PZM had some very low ebbs as a scientist where even I can beat him. Obviously, on the theory that Evolution is wrong, that is bound to happen once in a while to scientists who embrace Evolution. Here is the link to a main index post linking to the other ones:

Creation vs. Evolution : Letter to Nature on Karyotype Evolution in Mammals
http://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2011/11/letter-to-nature-on-karyotype-evolution.html

By the way, Nature Genetics did not publish.

Update, 20-III-2014:

I posted (outside profile, which is blocked), this comment for resumption of debate: HGL said...

Oh, btw, how do you feel about Hornerstown Formation?

The Hornerstown Formation is a Paleogene or latest Mesozoic geologic formation.[1] The age of these deposits have been controversial. While most fossils are of animals types known from the earliest Cenozoic era, several fossils of otherwise exclusively Cretaceous age have been found. These include remains of the shark Squalicorax, the teleost fish Enchodus, several species of ammonite, and marine lizards referred to the genus Mosasaurus. Some of these remains show signs of severe abrasion and erosion, however, implying that they are probably re-worked from older deposits. Most of these fossils are restricted to the lowest point in the formation, one rich in fossils and known as the Main Fossiliferous Layer, or MFL. Other explanations for the out-of-place fossils in the MFL is that they represent a time-averaged assemblage that built up and remained unburied during a time of low sediment deposition, or that they were stirred up from deeper in the sediment and deposited together during a tsunami.[2]

Does very much NOT sound as if the Cretaceous beasts had been found at a deeper level than the Palaeogene ones.

Because in that case they would not be groping for explanations like that.

Unless of course those words were like a trap for me to see if I would fall for it. I mean, on wikipedia that is technically possible and some people agreeing with you would have a motive.

Just another little fossil find, which I do not think is supporting your story. You can of course say "gotcha, were you stupid enough to believe a wiki" ....

Wonder if he deletes or answers .../HGL

Est-ce nihiliste de croire que 2 + 2 font 4?

Je ne trouve pas. Ce n'est pas très nihiliste non plus de dire que 16:8 font 2.

Pas non plus que de dire que 4:2 font 2.

Et ça serait nihiliste de nier que 2=2, très strictement.

Donc, ce n'est pas le moindre nihiliste d'affirmer non plus que 16:8 font autant que 4:2, et autant que 8:4.

Prenons un morceau de matière ex-vivante, quelque chose qui a cessé de respirer. Récemment. Et pour clarifier, ne prenons pas un phoque de l'Antarctique non plus, ça pourrait bouleverser les datations correctes! Non, plutôt alors un morceau de bois coupé hier d'un arbre.

Si on appelle le taux de Carbon 14 actuellement dans l'atmosphère "16", on prédit que le morceau de bois va-t-avoir un taux de Carbon 14 aussi de "16".

Il faut savoir que:

• les savants prétendent que taux de Carbon 14 dans une matière ayant cessé de respirer se dégrade à la moitié du taux de l'origine à une vitesse de 5 - 6 millénnaires, de 5 - 6 fois mille ans. On peut vérifier la vitesse exacte. C'est moins important que l'argument que je vais faire, car la critique créationniste de la datation par les taux de Carbon 14 ne se base pas sur la possibilité même prétendue que la vitesse ait pu être tout une autre que celle prétendue par les savants. Au moins pas dans sa forme la plus classique;
• ce n'est pas très probable que cette vitesse (qui est exponentielle et non pas linéaire) ait été radicalement autre du moment qu'en l'applicant à de la matière ex-vivante comme meubles du style Louis XIV (je ne connais pas cet exemple par une occasion concrète, je le considère juste comme réaliste) ou meubles de Pompéi (item), on trouve que la distance dans le temps "mesurée" par les taux de Carbon 14 correspond assez bien à la distance dans le temps calculé par différences des dates connues. Une chaise du style Louis XIV - encore assez lourde, pas encore le style Louis XV qui est leger - devait avoir un "âge carbonique" qui correspond à la différence entre telle date sous Louis XIV, comme 1648, et telle date dans le présent, comme 2014. Un scabellum de Pompéi devait avoir un "âge carbonique" qui correspond à la différence entre l'an 79 et 2014;
• c'est fort possible et même absolument probable qu'on utilise cette technique pour détecter des faux, comme une chaise style Louis XIV produite de nos jours, qu'on n'a pas voulu admettre produite de nos jours mais qu'on a prétendu faite sous le Roi Soleil, ou comme un artéfact de Pompéi qu'on n'avait pas sû que l'antiquité avit déjà, si un archéologue veut faire de la sensation : alors, si la technologie en soi était fausse, ou si le taux de Carbon 14 avait été différent les derniers 2000 ans, on le saurait car on détecterait trop de faux.

Ajoutons à ceci que si on appelle le taux de Carbon 14 dans l'atmosphère "16" un artéfacte des derniers deux millénaires doit avoir audessus de "8" comme taux de Carbon 14. Même audessus de "12". Je crois que "12" est un peu plus vieux même que Persépolis détruite par Alexandre le Grand. Nous pouvons dater Persépolis par le fait que la ville a été couverte par cendres et poussière et donc préservée très intacte depuis la destruction. C'est à dire depuis la dernière destruction, mais on sait aussi très bien que le dernier destructeur connu de cette place était Alexandre le Grand, et encore que l'écriture qu'on y trouve est cunéiforme, ce qui n'est pas démeuré l'écriture de la langue Persane. Et encore que la ville reflète une monumentalité qui correspond bien à l'époque où son maître royal aimait s'appeler "le roi du monde", et pas encore la rivalité avec Rome. Donc, la date historque ne fait pas doute. Persépolis, et ses artéfactes, voilà une très bonne occasion de savoir si on a trouvé la bonne vitesse pour la dégradation de Carbon 14. Mais rappelons, la confirmation que l'atmosphère avait déjà alors un taux de Carbon 14 de "16" est valable pour Persépolis qui doit avoir un taux de Carbon 14 un peu audessus de "12".

Prenons alors autre chose. Un morceau de bois qui montre le taux de Carbon 14, ni de "16", ni de "12", mais de "2".

A-t-il vécu dans une atmosphère ayant, comme le nôtre, un taux de Carbon 14 de "16" il y a trois fois les 5 - 6 millénaires? A-t-il baissé son taux de Carbon 14 après les premiers 5 - 6 millénaires à un taux de Carbon 14 de "8", ensuite encore une fois 5 - 6 millénaires pour le baisser à "4", et ensuite encore 5 - 6 millénaires, donc en somme plus que 16 ou 17 mille ans depuis le début, pour nous arriver avec un taux de Carbon 14 baissé à "2"?

Ou a-t-il vécu dans une atmosphère ayant, à différence du nôtre, un taux de Carbon 14 de "8" il y a 11.000 ans? Ou ayant seulement un taux de Carbon 14 de "4" il y a 5 - 6 mille ans en arrière?

Vous savez, l'histoire avant les derniers trois millénaires et même au début de cette période restreinte, a ses querelles de datation purement historique. On n'est pas en position de dire avec certitude absolue que tel Pharaon (qui aurait regné sur les deux Égypte il y a 5000 ans) vivait à telle date plutôt qu'à telle autre un siècle ou deux plus récemment. À moins de "vérifier" par le taux de Carbon 14 - ce qui devient circulaire quand on n'a pas de date assurée pour vérifier que le taux de Carbon 14 était le même.

Quand aux Évolutionnistes qui disent que le taux de Carbon 14 avait été le même pendant tout ce temps, parce que le niveau de stabilité devait être atteint il y a de millions d'années avant, pour eux il n'y aura pas de doute - un morceau de bois ayant le taux de Carbon 14 de "2" (toujours en appelant, arbitrairement, l'actuel taux dans l'atmosphère "16"), doit avoir un âge de 15.000 - 18.000 ou plutôt environ 17.000 ans. Donc être d'une époque qui selon la chronologie biblique n'aurait pas dû être là. L'anglicain Ussher nous donne 6000 ans, le Père de l'Église un peu moins stressé qu'était St Jérôme de Stridon nous donne 7200 ans et quelques. Impossible qu'il soit question de 17.000 ans, si les généalogies entre Adam et le Christ sont complètes ou passablement telles, et si le monde est créé moins de 200 heures avant la création d'Adam et d'Éve.

Dire que les Créationnistes, spécifiquement les Créationnistes Jeune-Terre (surnommés tels parce que 7200 ans est assez jeune par rapport à 4.500.000.000 ans) sont inconscients ou nihilistes n'est pourtant pas nécessaire. Il vont dire, et moi avec le reste, que si le morceau a un taux de Carbon 14 de "2" c'est qu'il y a 5000 ans ou encore peut-être 4500 ou 4000 ans à la limite le taux de Carbon 14 était encore loin d'avoir atteint "16".

Pour la Guerre de Troie, la date traditionnelle est il y a 31 siècles et l'âge carbonique des restes de Troia VI (comme l'appellent les archéologues) est de 32 siècles. Ça pourrait s'explique au moins de deux façons. L'une c'est que la Tradition grecque a pu abréger les dates. On a de toute manière abrégé la distance entre déluge (censé avoir Deucalion plutôt que Noé comme survivant) et la Guerre de Troie. Probablement on a voulu oublier (et on a réussi de condamner à l'oubli) l'Empire Hettite. L'autre façon est que le taux de Carbon 14 à l'époque était tellement plus bas que le décalage entre âge réel et âge carbonique est de 31:32. Encore un peu avant et le taux de Carbon 14 a pu être juste "15" dans l'atmosphère. Ou encore, on s'est trompé de Troie de la Guerre de Troie (car ce n'est pas comme Persépolis qui a juste une couche d'habitation, ensuite détruite et jamais rébati), et pour par exemple Troie II le décalage entre âge réel et âge carbonique devient déjà dramatique.

Ceci repose sur le fait, reconnu à la fois par Évolutionnistes et par Créationnistes-Jeune-Terre* que si à un moment donné le taux de Carbon 14 n'est pas équilibré, soit audessus du niveau où dégradation athmosphérique et nouvelle formation de Carbon 14 s'équilibrent, soit audessous, alors le taux de Carbon 14 va chercher cet équilibre.

Si pour un facteur constructif et un facteur déstructif les deux sont linéaires, alors le niveau va rester le même à moins d'ajouter ou d'enlever facteurs de vitesse.

Mais pour le taux de Carbon 14 dans l'athmosphère, l'un des facteurs, à savoir la dégradation du Carbon 14, n'est pas linéaire, mais exponentiel. Plus grand est le taux de Carbon 14, plus est détruit du Carbon 14 par unité de temps. Moins important est le taux de Carbon 14, moins en est détruit par unité de temps. Entretemps, la radiation cosmique, cause reconnue des nouveaux isotopes de Carbon 14, reste, au moins depuis le Déluge, identique. Donc, a un taux de "2" ou "4" ou "8" ou "12" de Carbon 14 dans l'athmosphère**, la dégradation se fait moins vite que le remplissage et le taux de Carbon 14 monte. Ceci est reconnu par les Évolutionnistes. Ce qu'ils prétendent pour invalider la critique créationniste est que ces temps là étaient révolus il y a si longtemps que le problème doit être irrélévant pour la datation par Carbon 14. Avec une athmosphère en place depuis des milliards d'années, le taux de Carbon 14 aurait dû déjà avoir atteint ce fameux niveau de l'équilibre.

Et ne pas être d'accord avec eux en ça, ça vous paraît nihiliste? Je ne pense pas.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Bpi, Georges Pompidou
Sts Rodrigue et Salomon
Martyrs de Cordoue
13-III-2014

* Il y a encore d'écoles, Hugh Ross croit les dates mais refuse l'évolution, il est néo-Cuvieriste, et je laisse le Cuviérisme parmi les hérétiques, puisque Hugh Ross cite le Catéchisme Belge, une œuvre calviniste, tandis que Cuvier semble avoir été d'une famille luthérienne, et entre les deux, le Calviniste Barnes se prononce pour le Cuviérisme au moins comme une possibilité entre les premiers deux versets de la Bible, mais le commentaire catholique du Père George Leo Haydock ne le fait pas.

** Toujours en appelant, très arbitrairement, le taux de Carbon 14 actuel "16", biensûr.

Remerciements:

Pour le concept théorique en tant que tel, selon ce qui est de ma source immédiate   Edgar H. Andrews   Ma mère a su que j'allais devoir défendre ma foi à l'époque pas encore catholique, avec ma conviction créationniste, et pour le 12e. Anniversaire j'ai eu ce livre en cadeau.   Pour l'idée de simplifier avec des puissances de 2.   Kent Hovind   J'ai vu ses vidéos beaucoup plus récemment, cette idée pédagogique montre qu'il méritait son doctorat en éducation.   Pour ma langue française   L'école suédoise, collège et lycée, les éditions Budé, Mgr Lefèbvre, l'Abbé Bryan Houghton, le Rév. P. Abbé Dom Gérard ... et les BD.

Phil Provaznik / Dalrymple on Potassium-Argon and on Principle, more on Fission Track and Isochrons (a debunking of...)

1) Newspeak in Nineteen - Eighty ... er Sorry ... Ninety-Four, 2) Mark Shea Recommended David Palm Who Misconstrues Bible Commission of 1909, 3) Would GKC have Agreed with MkSh that KH was a Bible Idolater?, 4) Correspondence of Hans-Georg Lundahl : With Jonathan Sarfati PhD on Fall and Inquisition, 5) New blog on the kid : Quarterlife is a Bad Term, 5b) Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : Answering Bill Nye, the Science Guy on a few points, 5c) New blog on the kid : Phil Provaznik/Dalrymple on Potassium-Argon and on Principle, more on Fission Track and Isochrons (a debunking of...), 6) [Back to Creation vs. Evolution :] Scenario impossible, 7) Karl Keating Out of His Depth?, 8) Three Kinds of Proposition, 9) Is Flat Earth Belief Heretical?, 10) HGL's F.B. writings : Between Palm and Sungenis, 11a) HGL's F.B. writings : On Helios in Christian Geocentrism, 11b) Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : ... on Rivers Clapping Hands, Anaximander, Greek Philosophy at time of Ecclesiasticus ... , 12) Assorted retorts : ... on Geocentrism with Raymond Doetjes and "Imdor"

Here are the basic formulas for calculating ages, from radioactive isotopes*:

Pt = P0e-dt P0 = number of parent atoms at some starting time Pt = number of parent atoms at some later time t d = the decay constant (above)

This poses the question how we know P₀ - even apart from the doubts about decay constant for very long halflives that I sketched out in "Qurterlife is a bad term".

However, the Evolutionists do have a proposed solution to this problem:

P0 = Pt + Dt IF Dt means daughter atoms formed.

What Phil Provaznik missed is that this has its doubt as well. What if D_t comes both from decay AND from initial amount D₀?

However, this ignoring of this problem means he lands up with a less well-assured formula than the initial one, namely:

Pt = (Pt + Dt)e-dt

From there on he solves for t to get:

t = (1/d) loge ( Dt/Pt + 1 )

He claims this contains ONLY quantities that can be measured in the laboratory. Now, we have of course the decay constant d which can be very difficult to assess accurately in the laboratory for so long halflives. But apart from that he makes this admission which nullifies the "only" about quantities measurable:

If the rock incorporated some of the daughter isotope when it formed, then this initial amount of the daughter must be subtracted from the total amount measured.

Ah, and how do we know the initial amount of daughter element?

Dalrymple answers him:

However, for the principal methods, the value of the initial daughter is either zero, negligible or not required (Dalrymple, page 84-86).

OK, but how does he KNOW they are zero or negligible for some of the principal methods? And what does he mean by NOT REQUIRED for others of them?

Brings me to a certain point about Carbon-14. Is the daughter element nitrogen-14 or carbon-12? If it is carbon-12, this affects the measuring of carbon-14, since the carbon-14 is given as the amount per amount of carbon-12. On the other hand, if it is nitrogen, and since the carbon-14 was usually involved originally in certain chemical compounds, what happens to these compounds when carbon becomes nitrogen? I mean, for one thing they are different elements, for another thing they have different valencies. 4 for carbon, 3 for nitrogen.

But back to Phil Provaznik's text. He claims to refute a Catholic Creationist.

"In the first place, radiometric dating is based upon pure assumption and speculation. The scientist must assume he knows the ratio between potassium and argon that existed in the beginning. But, how can he know this?"

Phil answers:

This is a convenient dismissmal of the science of radiometric dating (no doubt picked up from some young-earth creationist literature). Radiometric dating is not "based upon pure assumption and speculation."

Sorry, Phil, but you just quoted Dalrymple as assuming the initial amounts of daughter element were zero or negligible. In potassium-argon method that is very much NOT something which is not required.

There are some assumptions involved, but they are eminently reasonable and scientifically justifiable.

The "some assumptions" being precisely what the Catholic Creationist enumerated, alone or among others: an assumption of knowing initial amounts of argon to potassium be zero or negligible.

but they are eminently reasonable and scientifically justifiable.

The creationist critique of them is also eminently reasonable and scientifically justifiable. Or maybe just even more so.

In my response to young-earther and geocentrist Robert Sungenis, I summarize Dalrymple's explanations of the scientific justifications for the assumptions involved, in particular (1) the constancy of decay rates,

Which is even known to be untrue in certain circumstances, like when exposed to radiation. Fission track dating involves counting fission tracks before and after speeding the decay rate of uranium up by exposing it to mica under heat.

(2) the initial daughter product (the "original ratio") is not required in any of the isochron or concordia-discordia calculations,

But it is required in ordinary Potassium-Argon dating without that isochron. Ah, Phil posted a denial of this?

This method is based on the decay of ⁴⁰K to ⁴⁰Ar and is probably the most commonly used radiometric dating technique available to geologists. It is the only decay scheme that can be used with little or no concern for the initial presence of the daughter isotope. This is because ⁴⁰Ar is an inert gas that does not combine chemically with any other element and so escapes easily from rocks when they are heated.

Any Creationist Scientist criticising the method knows that argument. And anyone will give the refutation that argon gaz need not combine with other elements in order to get caught in the stone even while it is hot and molten. And he would add that we cannot know that all of the lava was really molten during the volcanic eruption.

Actually, Potassium-Argon has been tested and - as the Creationist critique would predict - found wanting. Citing Robert Doolan whom I already linked to earlier on the Creationist blog:**

The scientists who did the Rangitoto tests dated 16 volcanoes in all. Eleven of these were able to be compared with carbon-14 dates. In every case the potassium-argon dates were clearly wrong to a huge extent. Similar conflict was found by researchers in Hawaii. A lava flow which is known to have taken place in 1800-1801—less than 200 years ago—was dated by potassium-argon as being 2,960 million years old. If the real dates were not fairly well established by other means, who could have proved that the potassium-argon dates were so wrong? So how do you date a volcano? The lesson seems to be that how ever you date it, don’t count on the potassium-argon method.

The reference given is "J. G. Punkhouser and J.J. Naughton, ‘He and Ar in ultramafic inclusions’, Journal of Geophysical Research, Vol.73,1968, pp. 4601-4607."

Now to the answer of Phil to Bob argument three:

and especially (3) the thousands of radiometric dates published in the scientific literature year after year, using different radiometric dating methods, testing and confirming over and over again the data which all consistently converge on the same date: the earth was created 4.5 billion years ago.

Not true. If Leakey finds an age of 1 or 2 million years with fission track dating, this does not per se converge the age of earth into 4,500 times older than the one million or 2,250 times older than the 2 million years. VERY few of the rocks are supposed to be among the very "oldest" ones and only those are dated as 4.5 billion years old.

It seems Phil Provaznik has been as prejudiced against the Catholic Creationist (and Bob Sungenis) as he has been prejudiced for Dalrymple. The latter basically gets to wave a magic wand and Phil Provaznik stands in awe ...

As to the rocks in question, CMI claims these were meteorites which back then were presumed to be formed from earth itself.***

Now that is of course on the own admissions of Evolution believing scientists. If we get to Creationist accusations, the fine congruence of all dates in supposed to be due to discarding dates that do not fit. Kent Hovind cited Säve-Söderbergh and I. U. Olsson, two Swedes, as having openly admitted as much. Have not yet found reference, but the two persons do exist. He did not make them up. And actually, I think Gieam and Walker have very sound reasons for their complaints.

When we get to fission crack dating, which I mentioned twice earlier, see my comment on the following video (and do watch the video, if you like, it is from ufo-tv, but this does not mean everything said there is a lie):

video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C3ZDmYCvSC0

my comment:

How high up the conspiracy to shut up a dig must come from ... there was a guy who would not believe Mexicans did it ...

Now, Latin Countries have often a freemasonry that is revolutionary and atheist and left wing. Mexico is no exception. To ALL lodges (or all I have heard of) backing Galileo against the Catholic Church is sacred, but to Grand Orient backing Darwin is sacred as well.

One direction noone looked at in this video. If a dating technique that gives 1 mill in Olduvai gives 500.000 in Hueyatlaco, BOTH dates may be too old, not only the very pre-Clovis date but also the Olduvai date. This, a kind of if not Young Earth Creationist strict implication at least Young Earth Creationism regaining possibility in face of Leakey implication may be exactly what the Mexican Masons would want to avoid. Precisely as the French ...

As anyone on the show knows, if the fission track dating was possibly usable in Olduvai, C14 was at least presumed not to be so. "Too old for carbon dating" ... how much HAS really been dated with fission track dating? Anything at all with strictly historical confirmation for dates and calibration possibilities?

Apart from that question, watch what they say about the method as such. Uranium divides into two atoms of lead which form a crack in obsidian. The cracks are counted. To find out how much uranium that could have formed cracks but has not done so yet, you expose the sample to mica and to heat. That provokes a fission of remaining uranium. Then you count how much uranium there was by counting how many cracks there are in total. Then you make the deduction of what proportion of uranium had undergone fission or decayed before the exposure hastened the process.

Wait one minute ... that means decay rate is regularly speeded up each time you use the method. And speeded up to very quick. Which is one reason I am interested in theories there might have been atomic wars before the flood.

And what about Isochrons?

I decided to investigate radiometric dating. A summary of my results may be found in Scientific Theology. Very briefly, for potassium-argon dates, the assumption that argon is driven off is demonstrably not valid, and one cannot be sure that the clock is reset. This point is underlined by multiple dates that are too old, even for the evolutionary timescale. There are also problems with "too young" dates, which are not adequately explained as the result of argon loss. These dates suggest that the evolutionary timescale is too long. There is a gradient of argon in the geologic column, with more argon in the older rocks and less in the younger rocks, regardless of their potassium content, including in minerals with no potassium content. This creates a sort of instant timescale—just add potassium.

There was also a problem with selectivity, which could be documented from the literature. Other dating methods had similar problems. Rubidium-strontium dating isochrons could be mimicked by mixing lines, which require essentially no time to form. There were multiple examples of inaccurate dates by anyone’s timescale, including ones that matched potassium-argon dates. Uranium-lead dating was also done by isochrons, and when incorrect dates were explained by discordia lines, these lines could also be reproduced by mixing lines. There were multiple examples of lower concordia ages which were not accurate by anyone’s timescale. There was the data set on uranium dates on pleiochroic haloes in coal, which seemed to indicate an age for the coal (conventional age around 100 million years) of less than 300,000 years. Uranium disequilibrium dating, fission-track dating and amino acid dating (which is not radiometric) all had their problems, as did other, less-established methods. Often the data were more easily explained on the basis of a short timescale rather than a long one.

Carbon-14 dating was the most fascinating method of all. Fossil carbon, with a conventional age of up to 350 million years, repeatedly dated to less than 55,000 radiocarbon years. This is compatible with a date of as low as 4,000 years in real time (the date of the Flood would have to be determined on other grounds). It is incompatible with an age of millions of years, or even realistically with an age of over 100,000 years or so. It basically forces one into accepting a short chronology for life on earth.

Paul Giem°, medical research, published, Scientific Theology, La Sierra University Press, Riverside, CA, 1996. Here is a bit about his credentials:

Dr. Giem is assistant professor of emergency medicine at Loma Linda University. He holds a B.A. in chemistry from Union College, Nebraska, an M.A. in religion from Loma Linda University and an M.D. from Loma Linda University. Dr. Giem has published research articles in the areas of religion and medicine. His current research includes work on carbon-14 dating methods. He is author of the book Scientific Theology, which deals with a number of science–Bible areas, including dating methodology and biblical chronology.

But apart from his credentials, can isochron lines really be mimicked by mixing lines? Tas Walker (Geologist, previously old-earth) cites Faure:°°

In his well-known textbook on isotope geology, Gunter Faure explains the various radioactive dating methods, including the so-called isochron method. When the results for a number of rock samples are plotted on a graph and form a straight line, the researcher can calculate an age for the samples. But Faure warns his readers not to accept the calculated age without question.

He gives an example of volcanic lava along the border of Uganda, Zaire and Rwanda, East Africa. That lava is known to be relatively young, possibly erupted within historical times,4 yet a rubidium-strontium straight-line isochron gave an age of 773 million years. Does this worry these scientists? No. They have total faith in the method. In their minds, the key is the way the results are interpreted. Faure says that in this case we should interpret the line, not as an isochron, but a “mixing line”. So how can we tell the difference? We can’t. The only way we can know it is a mixing line is if the calculated age is wrong—and the only way one can ‘know’ if an age is right or wrong is to have a pre-existing belief about what the age should be.

Faure, G., Principles of Isotope Geology, 2nd ed., John Wiley & Sons, New York, pp. 145–147, 1986.

In short, I think Creationists are more generous about giving references to accepted scientific material on the Evolutionists side than Phil Provaznik about giving references to them.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Bpi, Georges Pompidou
Pope St Marcellus, Martyr
16-I-2014

Footnotes:

* Phil Provaznik : Evidence for Evolution and an Old Earth
http://www.philvaz.com/apologetics/p14.htm

** CMI : How do you date a New Zealand volcano?
by Robert Doolan
http://creation.com/how-do-you-date-a-new-zealand-volcano

*** CMIcreationstation : Dating the Earth - How old is it?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3hUhFVmte0Y

° CMI : In Six Days
Why 50 Scientists Choose
to Believe in Creation
Edited by Dr. John Ashton
First published in In Six Days
Paul Giem, medical research
http://creation.com/paul-giem-medical-research-in-six-days

°° CMI : Radioactive dating methods
Ways they make conflicting results tell the same story
by Tas Walker
http://creation.com/radioactive-dating-anomalies

Quarterlife is a Bad Term

1) Newspeak in Nineteen - Eighty ... er Sorry ... Ninety-Four, 2) Mark Shea Recommended David Palm Who Misconstrues Bible Commission of 1909, 3) Would GKC have Agreed with MkSh that KH was a Bible Idolater?, 4) Correspondence of Hans-Georg Lundahl : With Jonathan Sarfati PhD on Fall and Inquisition, 5) New blog on the kid : Quarterlife is a Bad Term, 5b) Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : Answering Bill Nye, the Science Guy on a few points, 5c) New blog on the kid : Phil Provaznik/Dalrymple on Potassium-Argon and on Principle, more on Fission Track and Isochrons (a debunking of...), 6) [Back to Creation vs. Evolution :] Scenario impossible, 7) Karl Keating Out of His Depth?, 8) Three Kinds of Proposition, 9) Is Flat Earth Belief Heretical?, 10) HGL's F.B. writings : Between Palm and Sungenis, 11a) HGL's F.B. writings : On Helios in Christian Geocentrism, 11b) Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : ... on Rivers Clapping Hands, Anaximander, Greek Philosophy at time of Ecclesiasticus ... , 12) Assorted retorts : ... on Geocentrism with Raymond Doetjes and "Imdor"

What I am looking for is not when an isotope after initial set up will have only the quarter or initial amount left.

What I am looking for is the half time of a half life.

It is NOT the time after which 1/4 is gone.

Suppose 1/4 were the ratio (we are looking for an irrational proportion, really, I will be giving rational approximations). Then after another such time you would not again take away 1/4 of initial amount, but only 1/4 of new amount after first of it. So, 4*4 = 16. Take away 1/4 of 16, you are left with 12. Take away one quarter of that, this time it is three, you are left with 9. Instead of getting 8/16 after the halflife you would be getting 9/16 after the time, which in that case would not merit the name of halflife.

So, what is taken away after half of a halflife is perhaps 1/3? 3*3=9. First take away 3 of them, then 2 of them. You have taken away 5/9 and are left with 4/9. Which is not what a half life is supposed to land you with.

Now amount taken away after half a halflife must be between 1/4 and 1/3.

1/3	=	4/12
1/4	=	3/12
	=	7/24

24*24 = 576

7/24 * 7/24 =

	576
-	168
=	408
-	119
=	289

2*289=578.

Or:

	576
-	289
=	287

289 and 287 are far closer proportionally than 4 and 5 or 7 and 9.

We have taken away too much. But not so very much too much as previously. So, at half of a half life, a bit less than 7/24 is gone, a bit more than 17/24 is left. I thought until checking. Of course people dealing with radiometric dating known exactly what ratio would be left after the half of one halflife. Now, one way for an ordinary person to find out without asking them is using a calculator. If you push 0.5 and then the root sign, you get:

0,7071067811865475

And if you multiply that by itself you get back to 0.5, whereas 17:24 gives:

0,7083333333333333

Meaning that 17/24 is actually a bit too much for the half of a halflife. Here is the square of it:

0,5017361111111111

Which, as you see, is a bit more than one half.

Now, the point is, when we deal with isotopes having very long half lives, we will not be measuring the half life directly. For C14 we might be measuring the half time of one halflife directly. Suppose C14 levels have not been rising, and - given the halflife usually given for it - the time for finding 7/24 as much as in today's atmosphere (or a bit more than that), would be around historically known material from say wood beams from one city built and soon after abandoned or a wooden statue of known origin or so around 500 BC / 1000 BC. Why? Because the half life is usually given for a measure between 5000 and 6000 years. That means that - supposing C14 levels are not rising but fluctuating and we ignore that for now - we can calibrate C14 method on known historical material.

Can we calibrate it on laboratory samples revisited after a few years? Hardly. Obviously still less possible for isotopes far longer in half life than C14.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_isotopes_by_half-life

Next half life is Americium-243 which is cancer hazardous - very lucky we do not have much of that clock around us - or Curium-245, which is artificial and was not present before. For 20.300 years we have Niobium-94.

The three largest producers of niobium ore are mining pyrochlore deposits. The largest deposit in Brazil is the CBMM mine located south of Araxá, Minas Gerais, followed by the deposit of the Catalão mine east of Catalão, Goiás. The third largest deposit of niobium ore is Niobec mine west of Saint-Honore near Chicoutimi, Quebec.

Pyrochlore ore typically contains greater than 0.05% of naturally occurring radioactive uranium and thorium.

Niobium is also present in columbite:

http://www.mindat.org/min-1514.html

See map at the bottom. Click "show list of localities". I have not recognised any of the localities where fossil species are found on that list. Nor any locality with obviously datable archaeological import, where artefacts can be known from history. Even ignoring that 10.150 years ago is not exactly history either to a YEC or to an Evolutionist. To the one it is a false date pre-creation, to the other "pre-history". But I do not even know of carbon dated bones or trees from those areas which would give us a hint if 7/24 of original content of Niobium-94 was gone. So it is not a great idea to say the half life of even Niobium-94 has been measured by checking a sample old as half of its half life against some several halflives of Carbon 14.

This is even supposing the measurable halflives of Carbon 14 do not get us back beyond the time of its presence on an even level in earth's atmosphere.

You see, the even level of Carbon 14 depends mainly on the balance of two factors: the cosmic radiation which is building it up and the radioactive decay which is pulling the level down. Suppose at any point of time levels were above the balancing level, it would decay faster than getting renewed and approach the balancing level. Suppose on the other hand it were at any point lower than the balancing level, it would build up faster than it decayed and approach the balancing level. This is so because the level of decay is not a constant per se, but a percentage of the total amount.

This means that the Young Earth Creationist standpoint on Carbon 14 is that dates "older than creation" (like pretty obviously post-flood Göbekli Tepe being dated 15.000 years or something before present) only point to the fact that when organic material was alive, the Carbon 14 level was not yet completely up to the balancing level but still rising and still at a lower level.

That in its turn means that if you obtained 17/24 of present Carbon 14 level in a historically dated remain of organic material from the millennium before Christ, this could EITHER mean that the time from when it was alive to the present was half the time of a half life OR that if Carbon 14 was still building up (and historical dating is sure, like being the traditional date, not doubted by historians) the half life is longer.

But on the other hand if instead it is history that is reassessed according to Carbon 14, and it was in the buildup, that would imply that historical material would be carbondated as too old and the history unduly rewritten. I think the carbondated age of Troy VI (?) is one hundred years older than the historical date of the fall of Troy. But what if instead another one of the Troy cities on top of each other was the real one, then the carbondate would be even further off than 32:31. As late as 1000 BC.

Now this has consequences for our ability to calibrate longer halflives on carbondated material.

Now we come to a page quoted by David Palm, the one with the eight questions from 1909. In the bottom it linked to another page* with supposed evidence for an old earth. I refuse to quote Ratzinger and Wojtyla or even the slight misrepresentation of what Pius XII' Humani generis amounts to. We go to its main number of scientific argumentation, or what seemed to me to be the main number, and I will intersperse the quotes with my critical comments:

The half-life of an element (if you remember from your high school or college chemistry courses) is the time it takes for one-half of the atoms of an unstable element or nuclide to decay radioactively into another stable element or nuclide.

The other element need not per se be stable. It could be another isotope of radioactive material with another half life.

When we strike from the list every nuclide that is continually produced by natural processes,

Meaning obviously Carbon fourteen (¹⁴C). Plus any element formed by radioactive decay.

[When we strike from the list etc.] we are left only with those that persist from the date of the formation of our solar system (from Kenneth Miller, page 69-72). What does this list tell us?

... ²⁴⁴Pu 8.2 x 10⁷ yes (and so on for all above)
¹⁴⁶Sm 7.0 x 10⁷ no (and so on for all below) ...

As seen above, every nuclide with a half-life less than 80 million years (8.0 x 107) is missing from our region of the solar system, and every nuclide with a half-life greater than 80 million years is present. That means the solar system is much older than 80 million years, since the shorter-lived nuclides have simply decayed themselves out of existence. Since a nuclide becomes undetectable after about 10 to 20 half-lives (Dalrymple, page 378), multiplying 80 million times 10 (or 20) gives us about 800 million years (or 1.6 billion years). The earth must be at least that old since these nuclides have disappeared from nature.

A very relevant question would of course be, whether they ever were present in nature. The Pink Unicorns must have reached a total of thirteen since they were able to form a coven and make themselves invisible ... which we know since we see no Pink Unicorns. Wait ... there might have been no Pink Unicorns there in the FIRST PLACE?

But if we get to the bottom of this list, we get to "¹⁵⁴Dy 1.0 x 10⁶ no".

Even the least of all these half lives is one million years.

How do you measure such a half life? The half lives of Zirconium 86, 88 and 89 are very short.** The half life of Zr-93 (which is on the no-part of the list above that I am not quoting in full) is 1,530,000.0 years. Isotopes 95 and 97 are also with short halflives. But five isoptopes of Zirconium are stable. So, if 93 has such a long halflife and does not form and is therefore absent from nature, how do we get at it having existed? Zirconium 87 is not enumerated among the isotopes. Thus we have no need to assume 93 must have gotten away because it is not there. It could like "Zirconium 87" not have been there in the first place.

And the same applies to the other ones on the list. We have thus no scientific ground in the number of isotopes present or absent or in their halflives to assume earth older than 800,000,000 years.

The long halflives are also relevant for other datings that contradict Genesis as taken literally as history - which according to questions 1 and 2 from 1909 we must do. They are not the only relevant factor for such datings, but they are one of the factors. I do not know how they were measured. I do know that of such long halflives not only is there no sample measured before and after a full halflife, as with Carbon 14 anyway, but not even a sample with calibration on half of a halflife or quarter of it.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Bpi, Georges Pompidou
St Tatiana of Rome, Martyr
12-I-2014

[Appendix A:] Bill Nye*** when "answering" Marco Rubio claimed Rubidium Strontium transmutation has had its speed measured by watching it in laboratories for "sometmes as long as fifteen years just to get it exactly right". Obviously that gets nowhere near the kind of certainty we can have for Carbon dating the last two thousand years when it can be checked against historically certain objects.

Appendix [B]: By "Quarterlife," bad as the term is, I meant "when a quarter is gone and three quarters left" = half of a half-life, when one half is gone and one half is left. But half that time corresponds rather to the diminution of "71 %" on copy machines, like A3 > A4. Not to the 75% that two quarters are. Here is a little table, using also the calculator results, which will give the different approximations and show their respective exactness:

(3/4)² = 9/16 =

0.5625

(17/24)² = 289/576 =

0.50173611111111111111111111111111

(577/816)² = 332,929/665,856

0.5000015018262206843521722414456

(12/17)² = 144/289 = 288/578 =

0.49826989619377162629757785467128

1/2 = 0.5 =

288/576 = 289/578 = 332,928/665,856

3/4 = 75%

0.75

17/24 = "71 %" =

0.70833333333333333333333333333333

577/816 = "71 %" =

0.70710784313725490196078431372549

12/17 = "71 %" =

0.70588235294117647058823529411765

sqrt(1/2) = "71 %" =

0.70710678118654752440084436210485

* Evidence for Evolution and an Old Earth
subtitled: Evidence for Evolution and an Old Earth, a Catholic Perspective
http://www.philvaz.com/apologetics/p14.htm

** Bentor, Yinon. Chemical Element.com - Zirconium. Jan. 12, 2014
http://www.chemicalelements.com/elements/zr.html

*** The video: CRUClEFICTION : Bill Nye: Creationism Is Just Wrong!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aaKMAhPQ54g

"je ne vois pas le désaccord entre la possibilité de jours plus longs au commencement et Mc 10,6"

Si Dieu a créé l'humanité physiquement au début, ça veut certainement dire qu'Il ne l'a pas créé au milieu ou à la fin de la création.

Il y a des livres de l'évolution où l'on explique l'échelle temporelle avec une parallèle. Soit on met le début de la terre, soit on met la première cellule vivante à minuit 00:00 heures un 1 janvier. Alors on n'arrive à Homo Erectus qu'avec 31 décembre à 20:00 ou encore à la II G. M. qu'avec quelques minutes avant minuit.

C'est bien depuis le début de la création, et non seulement du monde ou de l'humanité que Notre Seigneur précise en Marc 10,6./HGL

Certains veulent des réponses simples quand à qui est en charge

Il y a quelque temps, une Sénégalais que je vois de temps en temps à Georges Pompidou mettait la conversation à côté de moi dans la file d'attente sur la question du Sédisvacantisme.

Un Pape qui est hérétique, est-il un vrai Pape?

La réponse correcte est non.

Lui il pensait que même si c'était le cas, les Catholiques seraient obligés de reconnaître le faux pape comme Pape quand même, pour que ne s'ensuivent aucun désordre.

De la suite je le vois souvent penché sur les Actes des Conciles reconnus par l'Église Catholique (si, ça existe à Georges Pompidou, étagère Théologie, mais il y a un hic sur le huitième Concile peut-être, je n'ai pas les volumes devant moi et il y a des Orthodoxes qui reconnaissent 879 comme Huitième Concile, tandis que traditionnellement depuis le Schisme l'Occident reconnait 869 comme Huitième Concile, je me souviens avoir vu que le volume donne celui de 879, quand même).

Il n'a certainement jamais trouvé un seul texte qui dit "un concile ne peut pas décider qui est le pape entre plusieurs qui reclament de l'être" ni un texte qui dit explicitement "il est toujours clair qui est pape", car il n'y en a pas tel texte, et il y a eu une époque où il était disputé qui est le Pape. Fin 14. début 15. Siècles. Celui d'Avignon ou celui de Rome?

Bon, aujourd'hui je l'entends discuter avec un autre, il n'a toujours pas laissé le sujet de sédisvacantisme. Il parle avec un autre autour d'une table. Il est aussi audible par quelques phrases pour moi. Il dit quelque chose sur "sédisvacantisme" sur ceux qui disent que Benoît XVI n'était pas Pape*. Encore je l'entends dire à l'autre quelque chose sur Figaro qui serait fiable par le fait de risquer un procès, de tout perdre en disant un faux, et encore quelque chose un peu plus tard sur un homme dont les deux parents sont suicidés. Je ne sais pas s'il parle toujours de sédisvacantisme.

Alors, je me met à écrire un petit truc aux deux. Quand je suis prêt de le leur donner - donc à donner au Sénégalais bien sous les yeux de l'autre - ils sont déjà partis.

Ma réplique écrite comprend rien sur le Sédisvacantisme en tant que tel, j'ai essayé de faire vite. J'ai observé dedans:

À propos l'argument "rien à perdre" quand aux écrivains petits, mes blogs sont publics, et je peux être cité en procès en écrivant un faux déragotoire à qqn. Même si vous parliez d'un autre.* nov9blogg9. blogspot.com *Mes parents vivent.

Ce qui est vrai sur mes parents en connexion avec suicide est que les deux ont épousé chaque sa personne ayant menacé de commettre autrement suicide. Les personnes ne se sont pas suicidés de la suite et mes parents non plus.

Mais de faire de cette histoire là une histoire où mes deux parents seraient suicidés est assez typique pour certains réseaux ou un bruit court de bouche à bouche. Non, les miracles bibliques ne sont pas explicables par des bruits qui courent, ils sont miraculeux et non honteux. Ce sont des récits honteux sur quelqu'un qui surgissent par le bruit de bouche en bouche. Y compris par les réseaux que je compte comme possibles comme sources pour ce Sénégalais.

Comme je viens de dire, le Sénégalais et son interlocuteur étaient déjà partis quand j'avais finie cette note. Et l'interlocuteur ne l'a pas reçu, ni le Sénégalais donc.

Précisons que Sédisvacantisme n'est pas du tout une théorie que j'écarte totalement, ni "Orthopapisme" non plus (le vrai pape serait-il Michel ou Alexandre, vivrait-il au Kansas ou en Argentine?), mais ce ne sont pas non plus mes lieux favoris pour trouver un thème d'écrire, je préfère des thèmes où je suis plus sûr.

Comme le thème qu'un homme qui prend l'évolutionnisme et le géocentrisme comme de la foi catholique et le créationnisme ou le géocentrisme pour une hérésie ne peut pas être catholique (et donc non plus évêque ou pape non plus). Ou tout simplement que l'évolutionnisme et l'héliocentrisme manquent de preuves et souffrent des preuves pour géocentricité absolue et pour la création spéciale de chaque espèce (dans le sens large, pas toujours dans le sens zoologique actuel) et pour le Déluge de toute la Terre. Ce sont là des questions beaucoup moins épineuses que celle où je trouve auojurd'hui le Magistère Catholique.

Ou le fait qu'il est faux et hypocrite de prôner la confiance en des publications comme "Figaro" qui "ont quelque chose à perdre", comme si un bloggueur ne l'avait pas, ou de prôner un "faire-semblant" (comme le disait ce Sénégalais à cette autre occasion avant) en faveur d'un Pape largément accepté comme tel mais hérétique.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Bpi, Georges Pompidou
IV. Dimanche d'Avent
22-XII-2013

*J'avais des doutes, mais on vient de mettre un article de Jerusalem Post devant mes yeux et l'article confirme malheureusement mes doutes: il trouvait la phrase de Jean Paul II sur les Juifs insuffisant, quand celui-ci avait dit que les Juifs sont "nos frères aînés dans la foi". Pourquoi insuffisant? Parce qu'il y a eu des gens - il aurait pu me citer! - qui avaient dit que cette phrase se peut comprendre à propos les frères aînés qui sont escomptés. Alors, selon Jerusalem Post, il avait préféré parler de parentalité (parentage en anglais). Un Catholique peut comparer les successeurs de Hanne et Caïphe, du roi Hérode et des Pharisiens et des Sadducéens à ces "frères aînés", escomptés. Il ne peut pas les comparer à ce que sont Abraham, Isaac et Jacob pour nous, des vrais pères, des patriarches. Encore, quand Jean Paul II parlait de "frères aînés" il n'aurait pas dû ajouter "dans la foi".