The date for the death of Herod the Great is usually thought to be 4 B.C. This is based on a chronology provided by the Jewish historian Josephus, who was usually accurate about such things and wrote in great detail about Herod's life. It is possible to use a chronology provided by Josephus and arrive at a date of 4 B.C. for Herod's death. In fact I would suggest that Josephus, writing about 100 years after Herod, thought Herod died in 4 B.C. However, other information provided by Josephus makes the 4 B.C. date implausible. I think 1 B.C. is the more likely date. This affects estimates for the date of the birth of Jesus, who was born before Herod died.
Josephus describes a series of events leading to Herod's death. On a day when Herod has a man named Mathias killed and appoints a new high priest, Josephus says "And that very night there was an eclipse of the moon." [Josephus: Antiquities 17:6:4] A sequence of events then leads up to Herod's death, which is followed shortly afterwards by a Passover. Eclipses make excellent dating markers, because today we can know precisely when they occurred, even in the distant past. The standard understanding is that this was the eclipse of March 13, 4 B.C. Passover was exactly one month later. Lunar eclipses occur only during full moons, and Passover is also always on a full moon. (For a tool to see when past eclipses occurred, see http://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/JLEX/JLEX-AS.html, set the city to Jerusalem and dial in the century before Christ. Because there was no year 0 B.C., in this tool the year 0 is 1 B.C., -1 is 2 B.C., etc.) Using the eclipse described by Josephus, there are three problems with a 4 B.C. date - a minor problem, a major problem, and an enormous problem.
The minor problem with identifying the 4 B.C eclipse as the one mentioned by Josephus is that it wasn't much of an eclipse. The 4 B.C. eclipse was only a partial eclipse, it did not begin until after midnight (12:03 a.m) Jerusalem time, and at its maximum extent it covered less than half of the moon. As astronomical events go, this was a minor event that would not be widely noticed, and it would seem surprising to find it noted by a historian - it is the only eclipse Josephus mentions in all his writings.
The major problem is that there was exactly one lunar month between the eclipse and Passover. During that time Josephus says the following things happened. I have placed next to these events what I think would be a minimum time duration for each.
1. Herod slowly got sick with worms and sent for physicians (2 days) [Antiquities 17:6:5]
2. At his physicians' recommendation, he traveled to a warm bath spot beyond the Jordan to bathe (2 days)
3. He got sicker and returned to Jericho. He now believes he will die (2 days)
4. He called to him all the leading men of the Jewish nation, and they came. He imprisons them, ordering that they be executed when he dies, so that men would mourn his death (4 days)
5. Herod receives from Rome a letter, Herod briefly revives and he orders Antipater killed (1 day) [Antiquities 17:7:1]
6. He makes numerous appointments, and five days after having Antipater killed, Herod dies (5 days) [Antiquities 17:8:1]
7. Salome and Alexas release the imprisoned officials, saying this was Herod's order, and then afterward announce that Herod has died (1 day) [Antiquities 17:8:2]
8. Herod's body is moved from Jericho to Herculaneum, where a very elaborate funeral for Herod is held and he was buried (2 days) [Antiquities 17:8:3]
9. Archelaus mourns for 7 days as prescribed by tradition (7 days) [Antiquities 17:8:4]
10. Archelaus goes up to the Temple and is installed as the new head of government, and greets the people (1 day)
11. Some Jewish leaders petition Archelaus to appoint a different high priest and punish some of Herod's friends (1 day)[Antiquities 17:9:1]
12. Archelaus sends many messengers to argue with the people about this, all of whom are badly received (3 days)
13. Passover approaches, and Archelaus has to break up a seditious group gathering ahead of the feast. During the feast of Passover itself, violence is extreme and 3000 men are killed. (2 days) [Antiquities 17:9:3]
The total days in this sequence is 33, which is longer than the one lunar month between the eclipse and Passover. Furthermore, the times I have listed for these events are minimums, and for some of them one would naturally assume they took much longer. The slow sickness and attempted treatment read as if they took longer than I have allowed, and there is no good reason to cram the letter from Rome, brief recovery, and execution of Antipater all into 1 day. Finally, the rebellion against Archelaus probably took much longer than the total of 6 days I have allowed. In conclusion, in 4 B.C., there was not enough time between the eclipse and the Passover.
And yet, there is still a bigger problem. The date for the 4 B.C. eclipse, March 3, fell on the Jewish holiday of Purim. The reason Josephus mentions the eclipse is to tie it to Herod's execution of 40 Jewish zealots who tore down statues of Roman eagles that Herod set up at the gate of the temple. It is unlikely that Herod was so politically tone-deaf as to execute Jewish patriots on the holiday that celebrates the fact that Jews were saved from execution in the days of Esther. Furthermore, Herod apparently convened a court to make the sentence, and it is more unlikely that a court would be convened on a holiday. Finally, Josephus says this happened on a Jewish "fast day" [Antiquities 17:6:3 and 17:6:4]. But Purim could not be a fast day - it was a feast day, a celebration day. The March 3 day must be wrong. This all could not have happened on Purim.
A better candidate eclipse is the eclipse of January 9, 1 B.C. This was a total eclipse beginning in Jerusalem at 10:26 p.m., with totality of the eclipse lasting for 79 minutes. In 1 B.C., Passover came three months later, allowing enough time for the events described in Josephus to occur. One can read Josephus online here, beginning with the passages I have cited: http://www.biblestudytools.com/history/flavius-josephus/antiquities-jews/book-17/chapter-6.html?p=3
Saturday, November 19, 2011
The Sovereign Debt Waterfall Part 3 - Over the Edge
It's hard to make predictions about the economy, because the economy is the sum of an enormous number of factors, not all of which can be known or understood. However, I think the idea that the United States is approaching the sovereign debt waterfall is a safer prediction than most. The reason is that the current in the river is so strong that it will overwhelm everything else that happens. In this metaphor, the river's current is the greater than $1 trillion annual deficit the United States is running, along with the difficulty of doing anything that can meaningfully reduce it. I still guesstimate that it will take a few years to get there, but on the timing of the prediction I have no confidence at all.
The U.S. funds its budget deficit with auctions of Treasury Bills and Bonds. These are government IOU's ranging from 3 months to 30 years. The buyer of a 3 month Treasury Bill is loaning the government money for 3 months. The interest rates are low, since the U.S. government is presumed to be a safe borrower - 3 month interest rates as of October 31, 2011 are 0.01%, 30 year interest rates are 3.25%, while 1 year, 2 year, 10 year, etc. rates are somewhere in between. The U.S. Treasury auctions this debt weekly usually on Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday, and usually auctions about $60 billion a week. This is enough to cover the U.S. deficit, along with rolling over previous U.S. debt that comes due.
Interest rates typically rise or fall based on several factors, mostly expectations of inflation - investors want their money to earn more than the inflation rate. But when a country approaches the waterfall, the interest rates begin to rise for an entirely different reason - investors begin to fear that the country will not pay back its debt. This can be easily observed in Europe today, since all the countries in the European Union use the same currency, and a Euro is a Euro is a Euro; the value of the Euro and the inflation rate are the same for all Euro countries. A Euro in Greece buys the same amount of gold, or oil, or whatever as a Euro in Germany. However, German 10 year bonds, denominated in Euros, have an interest rate of a 1.7%, while Italian 10 year bonds, also denominated in Euros, are 6.1% (October 31, 2011 figures). The reason for the difference is that investors have a sneaking suspicion that Italy just might default on its debt, and the increased risk causes them to demand a higher interest rate. In March 2010, Greek bonds and German bonds had almost the same interest rate in the 3% range. Then Greece reached the edge of the waterfall and Greek interest rates rapidly shot to the moon, eventually going over 180%.
This is what I believe it will look like when the U.S. reaches the edge of the waterfall. In a very short period of time - just days or weeks - we will go from smooth sailing as far as interest rates are concerned to completely unmanageable. This is what happened to Greece. It will happen suddenly, because it will be triggered by a panic. We won't be able to undo the panic, because the panic will be for good reason. There are already people who invest in long term government bonds who do not expect the government to honor the debt many years from now, but instead believe they will be able to sell to someone else between now and then. When those people change their minds, they will try to sell and interest rates will shoot up. It is happening in slower motion in Europe, since the European Union is working on all kinds of plans, schemes and devices to try to bail out member countries, and some of the plans will work at least for a little while. The U.S. is too big for anyone to bail out.
When interest rates hit unmanageable levels, we are at the edge of the waterfall. No government, U.S., Greece, or anyone else, will sell its debt at rates like 50% or 100%, because if it did, interest rates would soon soak up all the money the government takes in. So at this time, business as usual, as we have done it for more than 80 years, will stop. What happens next depends on the government's decisions. Below I will describe what I think is the default case. This is what will happen if the government takes the least action, either out of choice, or a lack of will, or political gridlock.
The government can't issue debt any more, so the debt stops growing, deficit spending stops immediately. The government can't roll over its previous debt either, so we actually will start paying down the debt. This will give us what Charles called the "draconian Bachmann" solution on steroids. Without new debt, we will be able to service all existing debt (which will still have low interest rates). If we try to pay for all our entitlement programs, we will not have quite enough money to do it. We will then have zero money left over to fund all the rest of the government programs - no money for defense, NASA, pay for any government employees, etc. Of course that won't work, so we will figure out some way to cut entitlements and ongoing programs both and fund them both at low levels. The overall scope of the cutbacks will be much more than the $1 trillion annual deficits we currently run. This will plunge the economy into its worst short term downturn ever, as ripple effects of unemployment, etc. spread throughout. This will be a deflationary event. It won't last forever, but will last for several years and be enormously painful.
The paragraph above describes the default case, which is what happens if government doesn't do much. However, I suspect the government will find the above scenario intolerable and will inject itself vigorously into the process, changing the situation in ways that are less predictable. The government could decide not to honor its external debt. Can't you just hear it: "Why should our government pay China when it won't pay its own veterans?" This would allow more money to be used to fund ongoing operations, but would harm trade and hurt the value of savings accounts that include U.S. debt. The government could try to print money to fund its operations, although it would have to be done via real printing (you get your money in physical $20 dollar bills) rather than the current fractional lending approach won't work on the waterfall's edge. That could lead to hyperinflation. Or it could try something we haven't even though of. There is no painless solution, though.
The U.S. funds its budget deficit with auctions of Treasury Bills and Bonds. These are government IOU's ranging from 3 months to 30 years. The buyer of a 3 month Treasury Bill is loaning the government money for 3 months. The interest rates are low, since the U.S. government is presumed to be a safe borrower - 3 month interest rates as of October 31, 2011 are 0.01%, 30 year interest rates are 3.25%, while 1 year, 2 year, 10 year, etc. rates are somewhere in between. The U.S. Treasury auctions this debt weekly usually on Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday, and usually auctions about $60 billion a week. This is enough to cover the U.S. deficit, along with rolling over previous U.S. debt that comes due.
Interest rates typically rise or fall based on several factors, mostly expectations of inflation - investors want their money to earn more than the inflation rate. But when a country approaches the waterfall, the interest rates begin to rise for an entirely different reason - investors begin to fear that the country will not pay back its debt. This can be easily observed in Europe today, since all the countries in the European Union use the same currency, and a Euro is a Euro is a Euro; the value of the Euro and the inflation rate are the same for all Euro countries. A Euro in Greece buys the same amount of gold, or oil, or whatever as a Euro in Germany. However, German 10 year bonds, denominated in Euros, have an interest rate of a 1.7%, while Italian 10 year bonds, also denominated in Euros, are 6.1% (October 31, 2011 figures). The reason for the difference is that investors have a sneaking suspicion that Italy just might default on its debt, and the increased risk causes them to demand a higher interest rate. In March 2010, Greek bonds and German bonds had almost the same interest rate in the 3% range. Then Greece reached the edge of the waterfall and Greek interest rates rapidly shot to the moon, eventually going over 180%.
This is what I believe it will look like when the U.S. reaches the edge of the waterfall. In a very short period of time - just days or weeks - we will go from smooth sailing as far as interest rates are concerned to completely unmanageable. This is what happened to Greece. It will happen suddenly, because it will be triggered by a panic. We won't be able to undo the panic, because the panic will be for good reason. There are already people who invest in long term government bonds who do not expect the government to honor the debt many years from now, but instead believe they will be able to sell to someone else between now and then. When those people change their minds, they will try to sell and interest rates will shoot up. It is happening in slower motion in Europe, since the European Union is working on all kinds of plans, schemes and devices to try to bail out member countries, and some of the plans will work at least for a little while. The U.S. is too big for anyone to bail out.
When interest rates hit unmanageable levels, we are at the edge of the waterfall. No government, U.S., Greece, or anyone else, will sell its debt at rates like 50% or 100%, because if it did, interest rates would soon soak up all the money the government takes in. So at this time, business as usual, as we have done it for more than 80 years, will stop. What happens next depends on the government's decisions. Below I will describe what I think is the default case. This is what will happen if the government takes the least action, either out of choice, or a lack of will, or political gridlock.
The government can't issue debt any more, so the debt stops growing, deficit spending stops immediately. The government can't roll over its previous debt either, so we actually will start paying down the debt. This will give us what Charles called the "draconian Bachmann" solution on steroids. Without new debt, we will be able to service all existing debt (which will still have low interest rates). If we try to pay for all our entitlement programs, we will not have quite enough money to do it. We will then have zero money left over to fund all the rest of the government programs - no money for defense, NASA, pay for any government employees, etc. Of course that won't work, so we will figure out some way to cut entitlements and ongoing programs both and fund them both at low levels. The overall scope of the cutbacks will be much more than the $1 trillion annual deficits we currently run. This will plunge the economy into its worst short term downturn ever, as ripple effects of unemployment, etc. spread throughout. This will be a deflationary event. It won't last forever, but will last for several years and be enormously painful.
The paragraph above describes the default case, which is what happens if government doesn't do much. However, I suspect the government will find the above scenario intolerable and will inject itself vigorously into the process, changing the situation in ways that are less predictable. The government could decide not to honor its external debt. Can't you just hear it: "Why should our government pay China when it won't pay its own veterans?" This would allow more money to be used to fund ongoing operations, but would harm trade and hurt the value of savings accounts that include U.S. debt. The government could try to print money to fund its operations, although it would have to be done via real printing (you get your money in physical $20 dollar bills) rather than the current fractional lending approach won't work on the waterfall's edge. That could lead to hyperinflation. Or it could try something we haven't even though of. There is no painless solution, though.
The Sovereign Debt Waterfall Part 2 - The United States
In my previous article, I introduced the metaphor of a country's sovereign debt as being like a canoe on a river approaching a waterfall. Greece was described as being perched half-on, half-off the edge of the waterfall, with bailouts from other European countries keeping it from going over the edge, but not pulling it back upstream. In April of 2010, when Greece reached the edge of the waterfall, their national debt was about 140% of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP), and their annual budget deficit was 11%. Austerity measures imposed by Greece have brought their deficit down to 8% of GDP, and this week's European bailout agreement specified that private investors would only get half of their money back on Greek bonds. The result is that Greek debt is now 120% of GDP. So is 120% debt and 8% annual deficit enough to escape the debt waterfall? Probably not, especially when Greek GDP is currently contracting in a recession. To back away from the waterfall, a country's annual GDP growth plus its inflation rate has to exceed its deficit.
Let's talk about that equation a bit: deficit must be less than GDP growth plus inflation if you want to back away from the waterfall. The first thing to emphasize is that inflation is not a good tool to solve a deficit problem, despite what the equation seems to imply. In the United States, the entitlements which make up most of the government's spending are indexed to inflation. So if inflation increases, that spending area increases just as fast, and no progress is made on reducing the deficit. Inflation also causes stuff to cost more, so all the stuff the government buys costs more and as a result, very little progress can be made on the debt problem by trying to produce inflation. To realistically make the equation work in a country's favor, a country must make its GDP growth rate larger than its deficit.
Here is a comparison of some countries' debts and deficits. These are 2010 figures except for Greece and the U.S. For the other countries, the situation is a little worse in 2011 but I don't have the latest figures. These figures are from CIA Factbook.
Country Debt Deficit
Japan 197% -7.7%
Greece 120% -8.0%
Italy 119% -4.6%
United States 99% -9.0%
Ireland 96% -32.4% (not a typo)
Portugal 93% -9.2%
France 82% -6.9%
Germany 83% -3.3%
United Kingdom 76% -10.2%
Israel 74% -3.8%
Spain 61% -9.2%
South Korea 22% 1.2 (surplus)
Each country in the table has its own unique factors, so the table by itself doesn't tell everything one needs to know. But this can be said: only two countries on this list are moving away from the waterfall. They are South Korea, the star of the lineup, with the lowest debt and an actual surplus. Israel is an example of a country that used to have a debt at 100% of GDP and has run a deficit every year since, but the country's GDP has grown faster than its debt and it continues to do so. I did not put China on the list, because although it looks good, its finances are so opaque that the numbers might be misleading or simply false.
Here are a few other comments. Japan by all measures should have gone over the waterfall already, but they haven't due to some unique factors. They continue to be able to finance their debt at very low interest rates, but it cannot continue forever. The so called PIIGS (Portugal, Ireland, Italy, Greece, Spain) countries are in trouble for varying reasons. Ireland was doing OK until they chose to bail out their banking system. If they had let it fail, there would have been repercussions to be sure, but by moving their bank's debt onto their national balance sheet they increased the risk to their government balance sheet (this is why their deficit was -32% last year). The healthiest major European country is Germany, but even they are moving toward the waterfall, just at a slower rate and with a bit more distance than the others.
So can the U.S. avoid the waterfall? I wish we could, but I doubt it. At the current pace, we will catch up with Greece in a little over two years. While one would hope that the Republican majority in the House of Representatives would exercise spending restraint, this year's government spending (fiscal year 2011) was 5.4% larger than last year's. And that was with all the fuss over government shutdowns, debt ceilings, etc. We can't reduce the deficit if we spend a lot more each year than the year before. The reason we spend more each year despite all that is that our entitlement system (mostly Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid) is locked into fixed payments to qualifying people, and the pool of qualifying people is growing rapidly as the population ages.
The Republican Presidential candidates are not campaigning on specific plans to cut spending, preferring to focus more on exciting tax plans like 9-9-9 or a flat tax. Neither of those will help the spending problem. The Republicans tend to address spending only in the abstract, such as favoring a balanced budget amendment. By the time we ratify a balanced budget amendment, it will be too late. We will have already gone over the edge.
So my conclusion is that we are headed over the edge of the waterfall. I don't know how long it will take to get there, and suspect that a number of the Europeans will get there first. I would guess it might take three years, but if we slip into a strong recession we will get there more quickly. A strong economic recovery would postpone the day of reckoning. There are a lot of government proposals that are scored in terms of what it means for our budget situation by 2020. I can't imagine we will make it to 2020 before encountering the crisis.
Let's talk about that equation a bit: deficit must be less than GDP growth plus inflation if you want to back away from the waterfall. The first thing to emphasize is that inflation is not a good tool to solve a deficit problem, despite what the equation seems to imply. In the United States, the entitlements which make up most of the government's spending are indexed to inflation. So if inflation increases, that spending area increases just as fast, and no progress is made on reducing the deficit. Inflation also causes stuff to cost more, so all the stuff the government buys costs more and as a result, very little progress can be made on the debt problem by trying to produce inflation. To realistically make the equation work in a country's favor, a country must make its GDP growth rate larger than its deficit.
Here is a comparison of some countries' debts and deficits. These are 2010 figures except for Greece and the U.S. For the other countries, the situation is a little worse in 2011 but I don't have the latest figures. These figures are from CIA Factbook.
Country Debt Deficit
Japan 197% -7.7%
Greece 120% -8.0%
Italy 119% -4.6%
United States 99% -9.0%
Ireland 96% -32.4% (not a typo)
Portugal 93% -9.2%
France 82% -6.9%
Germany 83% -3.3%
United Kingdom 76% -10.2%
Israel 74% -3.8%
Spain 61% -9.2%
South Korea 22% 1.2 (surplus)
Each country in the table has its own unique factors, so the table by itself doesn't tell everything one needs to know. But this can be said: only two countries on this list are moving away from the waterfall. They are South Korea, the star of the lineup, with the lowest debt and an actual surplus. Israel is an example of a country that used to have a debt at 100% of GDP and has run a deficit every year since, but the country's GDP has grown faster than its debt and it continues to do so. I did not put China on the list, because although it looks good, its finances are so opaque that the numbers might be misleading or simply false.
Here are a few other comments. Japan by all measures should have gone over the waterfall already, but they haven't due to some unique factors. They continue to be able to finance their debt at very low interest rates, but it cannot continue forever. The so called PIIGS (Portugal, Ireland, Italy, Greece, Spain) countries are in trouble for varying reasons. Ireland was doing OK until they chose to bail out their banking system. If they had let it fail, there would have been repercussions to be sure, but by moving their bank's debt onto their national balance sheet they increased the risk to their government balance sheet (this is why their deficit was -32% last year). The healthiest major European country is Germany, but even they are moving toward the waterfall, just at a slower rate and with a bit more distance than the others.
So can the U.S. avoid the waterfall? I wish we could, but I doubt it. At the current pace, we will catch up with Greece in a little over two years. While one would hope that the Republican majority in the House of Representatives would exercise spending restraint, this year's government spending (fiscal year 2011) was 5.4% larger than last year's. And that was with all the fuss over government shutdowns, debt ceilings, etc. We can't reduce the deficit if we spend a lot more each year than the year before. The reason we spend more each year despite all that is that our entitlement system (mostly Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid) is locked into fixed payments to qualifying people, and the pool of qualifying people is growing rapidly as the population ages.
The Republican Presidential candidates are not campaigning on specific plans to cut spending, preferring to focus more on exciting tax plans like 9-9-9 or a flat tax. Neither of those will help the spending problem. The Republicans tend to address spending only in the abstract, such as favoring a balanced budget amendment. By the time we ratify a balanced budget amendment, it will be too late. We will have already gone over the edge.
So my conclusion is that we are headed over the edge of the waterfall. I don't know how long it will take to get there, and suspect that a number of the Europeans will get there first. I would guess it might take three years, but if we slip into a strong recession we will get there more quickly. A strong economic recovery would postpone the day of reckoning. There are a lot of government proposals that are scored in terms of what it means for our budget situation by 2020. I can't imagine we will make it to 2020 before encountering the crisis.
The Sovereign Debt Waterfall Part 1 - Greece
The nature of the debt problem in many countries of the world can be compared to canoes on a fast moving river, approaching a waterfall. In this analogy, Greece is the lead canoe, now dangling on the edge of the waterfall. The United States is three years away from the waterfall, I would guess. Closer to the waterfall are Portugal, Ireland, Spain and Italy. Japan is also closer to the waterfall, but seems to be approaching it in asymptotic fashion. France and German are six and eight years away from the waterfall, but are attempting to throw ropes to the European nations closer to the edge, and may thereby get to the edge before the U.S. China is on the river somewhere, but its finances are sufficiently opaque as to make it hard to tell where. Israel used to be close to the edge, but has moved upstream and now passed Germany going the other direction. South Korea is a rare model of fiscal discipline which can be said to be not on the river at all. Iceland is an example of a country that jumped out of its canoe and let it go over the edge. This article, part 1 in a series, will focus on Greece.
Greece is on the edge of the waterfall, half way off and half way on. Greece had smooth cruising until they reached the waterfall in April 2010. Normally, a country could not stay on the edge of the waterfall so long, but Greece is a special case because it was first, and it is small enough to be bailed out for as long as the European Nations have the will to do so. That may not be much longer, but in theory Greece is small enough that it could go on for a long time. No one else will stay on the edge but for a short time. The European Union has not forgiven Greek debt or let them default, but instead has extended additional loans (which cannot be paid) on conditions that Greece takes austerity measures sufficient to reduce its deficit. But when one is on the edge of the waterfall, it doesn't matter how hard you paddle in reverse, you are still going over.
Here are some of the financial conditions in Greece. First, their one year treasury bond pays 183% on the open market, as of today (October 25, 2011). Now 183% is not a realistic interest rate for an investment - if it was we should sell our homes and buy Greek treasury bonds. The 183% is instead a gamble on how long Greece will last before reneging on their debt, or until someone decides they will pay only 40 cents on the dollar, or something like that. Furthermore, the 183% is the open market rate, not the rate the Greek government will pay when it issues new treasury notes next month. Next month (unless things fall apart before then), Greece will sell new notes for a very low rate, which no one would normally buy, but they will be bought using the bailout money provided earlier by the other members of the European Union. This is instructive for when the U.S. reaches the edge of the waterfall. The market will spike our interest rates too, but no one will bail us out - we are too big. Our government then will not be able to issue new debt, because we will not be willing to pay 183% interest or anything approaching that. What this means is that when we reach the edge, the government will not participate in further deficit spending. If we think it would be tough to not raise the debt ceiling now, well, the day will come when we no longer raise it due to market conditions.
Second, Greece is going through stringent austerity measures to try to get its deficit down to a manageable level. They won't make it, but they can go through the agony of trying. This has led to major layoffs, cuts in government services, etc. The austerity program has driven Greece deep into recession. Thus it will do to everyone who reaches the edge of the waterfall.
Third, consider Greek pensions. If they are like pension plans in most countries, like Social Security in the U.S., they are heavily invested in Greek treasury notes. If those notes do decide to pay 40 cents on the dollar, then that means Greek pensions will take a 60% cut.
This is how things look on the edge of the waterfall. Greece has not yet gone over the edge. That will be the subject of a later article.
Greece is on the edge of the waterfall, half way off and half way on. Greece had smooth cruising until they reached the waterfall in April 2010. Normally, a country could not stay on the edge of the waterfall so long, but Greece is a special case because it was first, and it is small enough to be bailed out for as long as the European Nations have the will to do so. That may not be much longer, but in theory Greece is small enough that it could go on for a long time. No one else will stay on the edge but for a short time. The European Union has not forgiven Greek debt or let them default, but instead has extended additional loans (which cannot be paid) on conditions that Greece takes austerity measures sufficient to reduce its deficit. But when one is on the edge of the waterfall, it doesn't matter how hard you paddle in reverse, you are still going over.
Here are some of the financial conditions in Greece. First, their one year treasury bond pays 183% on the open market, as of today (October 25, 2011). Now 183% is not a realistic interest rate for an investment - if it was we should sell our homes and buy Greek treasury bonds. The 183% is instead a gamble on how long Greece will last before reneging on their debt, or until someone decides they will pay only 40 cents on the dollar, or something like that. Furthermore, the 183% is the open market rate, not the rate the Greek government will pay when it issues new treasury notes next month. Next month (unless things fall apart before then), Greece will sell new notes for a very low rate, which no one would normally buy, but they will be bought using the bailout money provided earlier by the other members of the European Union. This is instructive for when the U.S. reaches the edge of the waterfall. The market will spike our interest rates too, but no one will bail us out - we are too big. Our government then will not be able to issue new debt, because we will not be willing to pay 183% interest or anything approaching that. What this means is that when we reach the edge, the government will not participate in further deficit spending. If we think it would be tough to not raise the debt ceiling now, well, the day will come when we no longer raise it due to market conditions.
Second, Greece is going through stringent austerity measures to try to get its deficit down to a manageable level. They won't make it, but they can go through the agony of trying. This has led to major layoffs, cuts in government services, etc. The austerity program has driven Greece deep into recession. Thus it will do to everyone who reaches the edge of the waterfall.
Third, consider Greek pensions. If they are like pension plans in most countries, like Social Security in the U.S., they are heavily invested in Greek treasury notes. If those notes do decide to pay 40 cents on the dollar, then that means Greek pensions will take a 60% cut.
This is how things look on the edge of the waterfall. Greece has not yet gone over the edge. That will be the subject of a later article.
Saturday, October 8, 2011
Modern Culture vs Bible Culture - Canaanite Religion
There are many ways in which our culture is different from the culture of the Bible times. This can cause difficulty for us in understanding the Bible. In many cases, we know things that people in the Bible times did not know. In some cases, they knew things that we no longer know. This article discusses a subject well understood by everyone knew in Old Testament times, but which was lost to us until recently.
The Bible is not interested in teaching the reader anything about pagan Canaanite religion. Canaanite religion exists in the Bible only as a detestable alternative to the worship of God. Nevertheless, contemporaries of Elijah through Jeremiah understood Canaanite religion very well, and some understanding of it enlightens some of the Bible's most interesting stories.
Near modern Latakia, Syria, lay the ancient port city of Ugarit. In 1929 an ancient library was discovered there, containing a rich collection of semitic language literature from around 1300 B.C. Among other things, this library shed much light on the ancient Canaanite religion. It explains much about Baal, Asherah, and other Canaanite gods.
The god Baal was the god of the thunderstorm. Each spring, Baal would die, leading to the dry season (in Israel it does not rain in the summer). Each fall he would return to life, bringing the rainy season with him. This process would involve relations with his female consort, Asherah, who was a goddess of fertility, and humans could participate in and encourage the process by involving themselves with priests or priestesses of these Canaanite religions. Now one could memorize the whole Bible and never know this, but it sheds extra light on the story of Elijah on Mount Carmel. Thunderstorms are more common on a mountain than a plain. Elijah set up a contest during a drought to see which god would answer by fire from heaven on Mount Carmel. In so doing, he was challenging Baal, the thunderstorm god, at his own game and giving him the home field advantage.
Hebrew is very closely related to the other Canaanite languages (Isaiah 19:18). Biblical scholars figured this out even prior to modern archeology, since the names of Canaanite kings often are Hebrew names. In Hebrew, the word "baal" means husband. Hebrew scholars prior to the discovery of the Ugarit library probably believed this was a coincidence, just as in English the word "bear" can be a verb meaning "to carry" or a noun meaning a large furry mammal. In reality, though, the words are connected - Baal is the husband or consort of Asherah. The Ugaritic library also revealed that the Canaanite god of the sea was named "Yam." The Hebrew word for sea is "yam." The Canaanite god of death is named "Mot." The Hebrew word for death is "mot." In retrospect, it is remarkable that one could read the Bible through and never get even a hint that these Hebrew words for sea and death are also names for Canaanite gods of those things. The Bible's emphasis on monotheism is so pronounced that those Canaanite gods do not even get a nod. These words also show how deeply religious, in a pagan sense, the non-Israelite Canaanite culture of the day was, and shed some light on how difficult it must have been to be faithful to God in such a pervasive pagan climate.
The Bible is not interested in teaching the reader anything about pagan Canaanite religion. Canaanite religion exists in the Bible only as a detestable alternative to the worship of God. Nevertheless, contemporaries of Elijah through Jeremiah understood Canaanite religion very well, and some understanding of it enlightens some of the Bible's most interesting stories.
Near modern Latakia, Syria, lay the ancient port city of Ugarit. In 1929 an ancient library was discovered there, containing a rich collection of semitic language literature from around 1300 B.C. Among other things, this library shed much light on the ancient Canaanite religion. It explains much about Baal, Asherah, and other Canaanite gods.
The god Baal was the god of the thunderstorm. Each spring, Baal would die, leading to the dry season (in Israel it does not rain in the summer). Each fall he would return to life, bringing the rainy season with him. This process would involve relations with his female consort, Asherah, who was a goddess of fertility, and humans could participate in and encourage the process by involving themselves with priests or priestesses of these Canaanite religions. Now one could memorize the whole Bible and never know this, but it sheds extra light on the story of Elijah on Mount Carmel. Thunderstorms are more common on a mountain than a plain. Elijah set up a contest during a drought to see which god would answer by fire from heaven on Mount Carmel. In so doing, he was challenging Baal, the thunderstorm god, at his own game and giving him the home field advantage.
Hebrew is very closely related to the other Canaanite languages (Isaiah 19:18). Biblical scholars figured this out even prior to modern archeology, since the names of Canaanite kings often are Hebrew names. In Hebrew, the word "baal" means husband. Hebrew scholars prior to the discovery of the Ugarit library probably believed this was a coincidence, just as in English the word "bear" can be a verb meaning "to carry" or a noun meaning a large furry mammal. In reality, though, the words are connected - Baal is the husband or consort of Asherah. The Ugaritic library also revealed that the Canaanite god of the sea was named "Yam." The Hebrew word for sea is "yam." The Canaanite god of death is named "Mot." The Hebrew word for death is "mot." In retrospect, it is remarkable that one could read the Bible through and never get even a hint that these Hebrew words for sea and death are also names for Canaanite gods of those things. The Bible's emphasis on monotheism is so pronounced that those Canaanite gods do not even get a nod. These words also show how deeply religious, in a pagan sense, the non-Israelite Canaanite culture of the day was, and shed some light on how difficult it must have been to be faithful to God in such a pervasive pagan climate.
Sunday, October 2, 2011
Bible Culture vs Modern Culture - Numbers
There are many ways in which our culture is different from the culture of the Bible times. This can cause difficulty for us in understanding the Bible. In many cases, we know things that people in the Bible times did not know. In some cases, they knew things that we no longer know.
One way in which our culture differs from the Bible is in a simple but important aspect of elementary math. In the Bible, they did not have a number zero. In fact, no one made wide use of the number zero until about the 12th century A.D. However, in today's world children are introduced to the number zero in first grade if not before, and we are so comfortable with zero that it is almost impossible for us to think of even simple arithmetic without it. It is also true that math with a zero is vastly superior to math without it, and so we have no motivation to try to think without it - our brain rebels at the attempt. But in Biblical times, there was no number zero.
Many people are already familiar with one implication of the absence of a zero - the fact that there was no year zero, no 0 A.D. The year 1 A.D. immediately followed the year 1 B.C. This tends to make our math not work like we would think: we would assume that going from 5 B.C. to 5 A.D. can be calculated as 5 - (-5) = 10, but that is not right. The absence of the year zero means that there are nine years between 5 B.C. and 5 A.D., not ten.
In Biblical Hebrew, a common way of saying "previously" is by saying "yesterday or three days ago" (Gen 31:2, Exod 5:8, etc.). But in this reckoning yesterday is two days ago, so the saying "yesterday or three days ago" can be rendered two or three days ago, with today being day one. You will never read yesterday or two days ago, because two days ago was yesterday. Just remember there was no zero, so they had to count that way. The same thing happens counting time forward. In Exodus 19:10-11, the LORD tells Moses to have the people consecrate themselves "today [day one] and tomorrow [day two]... and be ready on the third day."
Probably something strange just happened in your mind. The counting backward case where yesterday was two days ago seems so strange that it hurts one's head. But the counting forward example, with tomorrow being the second day, was not strange; we might have even counted the days the same way. Why is that? The answer is that when we use cardinal numbers (three two one), we have a cardinal number zero. But when we use ordinal numbers (third, second, first) we do not have a zero (zeroith?) so suddenly we too do math without a zero, just like they did in Bible times.
This explains why the Bible says that Jesus rose on the third day, even though He was in the tomb less than 48 hours. Crucifixion day - Friday - was day one, Saturday was day two, and Sunday was the day three. We are comfortable with this wording. The Bible uses the formulation that Jesus was or will be raised on the "third day" 13 times (Matt 16:21, 17:23, 20:19, 27:64, Mark 9:31, 10:34, Luke 9:22, 18:33, 24:7, 24:21, 24:46, Acts 10:40, 1 Cor 15:4). The Bible on eight occasions uses a formulation that counts three days to the resurrection, or says "after three days" (Matt 12:40, 26:61, 27:40, 27:63, Mark 8:31, 14:58, 15:29, John 2:19-20). The two different formulations are used in the same books and even in the mouths of the same people. We today might feel that "on the third day" and "after three days" do not mean the same thing, but this is because we have a cardinal number zero, but not an ordinal zero. In the Bible they do mean the same thing.
One way in which our culture differs from the Bible is in a simple but important aspect of elementary math. In the Bible, they did not have a number zero. In fact, no one made wide use of the number zero until about the 12th century A.D. However, in today's world children are introduced to the number zero in first grade if not before, and we are so comfortable with zero that it is almost impossible for us to think of even simple arithmetic without it. It is also true that math with a zero is vastly superior to math without it, and so we have no motivation to try to think without it - our brain rebels at the attempt. But in Biblical times, there was no number zero.
Many people are already familiar with one implication of the absence of a zero - the fact that there was no year zero, no 0 A.D. The year 1 A.D. immediately followed the year 1 B.C. This tends to make our math not work like we would think: we would assume that going from 5 B.C. to 5 A.D. can be calculated as 5 - (-5) = 10, but that is not right. The absence of the year zero means that there are nine years between 5 B.C. and 5 A.D., not ten.
In Biblical Hebrew, a common way of saying "previously" is by saying "yesterday or three days ago" (Gen 31:2, Exod 5:8, etc.). But in this reckoning yesterday is two days ago, so the saying "yesterday or three days ago" can be rendered two or three days ago, with today being day one. You will never read yesterday or two days ago, because two days ago was yesterday. Just remember there was no zero, so they had to count that way. The same thing happens counting time forward. In Exodus 19:10-11, the LORD tells Moses to have the people consecrate themselves "today [day one] and tomorrow [day two]... and be ready on the third day."
Probably something strange just happened in your mind. The counting backward case where yesterday was two days ago seems so strange that it hurts one's head. But the counting forward example, with tomorrow being the second day, was not strange; we might have even counted the days the same way. Why is that? The answer is that when we use cardinal numbers (three two one), we have a cardinal number zero. But when we use ordinal numbers (third, second, first) we do not have a zero (zeroith?) so suddenly we too do math without a zero, just like they did in Bible times.
This explains why the Bible says that Jesus rose on the third day, even though He was in the tomb less than 48 hours. Crucifixion day - Friday - was day one, Saturday was day two, and Sunday was the day three. We are comfortable with this wording. The Bible uses the formulation that Jesus was or will be raised on the "third day" 13 times (Matt 16:21, 17:23, 20:19, 27:64, Mark 9:31, 10:34, Luke 9:22, 18:33, 24:7, 24:21, 24:46, Acts 10:40, 1 Cor 15:4). The Bible on eight occasions uses a formulation that counts three days to the resurrection, or says "after three days" (Matt 12:40, 26:61, 27:40, 27:63, Mark 8:31, 14:58, 15:29, John 2:19-20). The two different formulations are used in the same books and even in the mouths of the same people. We today might feel that "on the third day" and "after three days" do not mean the same thing, but this is because we have a cardinal number zero, but not an ordinal zero. In the Bible they do mean the same thing.
Sunday, September 25, 2011
About Those Mammoths
In this article we will address the riddle of the northern mammoths. How could those mammoths survive the cold dark Siberian north? Much of Siberia today is frozen seven months out of the year, and even when it thaws much of it is a bog not favorable for habitation by large animals. And mammoths are (were) very large animals. They eat (ate) a lot, too. In fact, their near relative, the African Bush Elephant, eats more than 500 pounds of green food each day. Elephants are not very efficient eaters - much of what they eat passes through without being digested, and the elephant sleeps only three hours a day, because it needs to devote most of its waking time to food. So how would mammoths get enough food to eat?
Perhaps before we get too far, we should discuss the evidence for mammoths living in the far north. Actually, let's start with just the topic of mammoths living, period. According to Wikipedia, mammoths lived from about 4.8 million years ago until about 4500 years ago, with a few surviving up to 1650 B.C. They were widely dispersed, living not only in the far north, but in locations as diverse as the channel islands of California and in the Mediterranean island of Sardinia. The first question might ought to be why they lived four million years and then died off only in the 0.1% of the time range that includes the present. In other words, how did they live through umpteen ice ages and then die only at the end of the most recent one? The dates alone ought to arouse suspicion from the inquisitive.
Next, we should wonder at the mammoths living in the far north. How far north? Mammoth remains have been found not only in Siberia, but on Wrangle Island, which is north of Siberia in the Arctic ocean - above 71 degrees north latitude - farther north than any portion of Alaska.
The Mammoth pictured above is named Lyuba. She is a young female found frozen in the Siberian permafrost, and estimated to be 40,000 years old. (Actually, she looks pretty good for a 40,000 year old.) So many mammoth tusks have been found in Siberia that it is certain that at one time there was a considerable population there.
So that's the story. Mammoths lived over a broadly dispersed portion of the earth, and especially in the far north. They became extinct by around 1650 B.C., and probably earlier in some places. Now it is easy enough to understand why they became extinct, at least in the far north. The climate in places like Siberia and Wrangel Island is totally incompatible with a large elephant-like creature that needs to eat hundreds of pounds of plant food each day. Of course they became extinct. The hard question isn't why they became extinct, it's how they ever lived there in the first place.
The Genesis Flood and the Climate After the Flood
I believe the answer to the question about the mammoths and the far north can be found in an understanding of the earth's climate in the initial aftermath of the Genesis flood. The first physical cause for the Genesis flood mentioned in the Bible is that "all the fountains of the great deep were broken up" (Genesis 7:11). Rain followed. The fountains of the great deep probably refers to water deep below the earth's surface. There is still today a great deal of water below the earth's surface, and the key point for this discussion is that it is very hot. If the Genesis flood released a substantial amount of this water into the ocean, the ocean water temperature would rise a great deal, and that rise would be worldwide and well mixed (both deep and shallow water would be warm). In fact, many Christian flood geologists who have modeled the flood have trouble with the flood water being too warm. In any case, the ocean water after the flood would be very warm, both shallow and deep, polar and equatorial. Such an ocean would be dramatically different from today's ocean. Because water holds heat so well, the ocean water temperature would take hundreds of years after the flood before it reached anything approaching its current state, where the average ocean water temperature worldwide is only 39 degrees fahrenheit.
How would the warm ocean affect the climate? It would be very different. Although direct sunlight does most of the heating of the atmosphere, the air over the water and near the coast would be abnormally warm all over the world, even in the far north. However, warm moist air in the far north moving inland would result in greatly increased cloud cover and precipitation inland, well away from the coast. In places like the north central U.S. and southern Canada, the increased cloud cover would make the climate much colder, especially in the summer, when the sun wouldn't warm it up as much as it does today. Thus - the ice age. And yet, along the coast of Siberia in close proximity to the warm Arctic Ocean (it is almost hard to write "warm Arctic Ocean"), the warm water would keep the climate temperate, even in the winter. Wrangel Island, north of Siberia, might be a nice place to live. Plant life could flourish, along with the mammoths. One can even imagine Siberian mammoth herds becoming conditioned to migrate north for the winter, since north would bring them closer to the warm ocean. Of course, if they did develop such an instinct it would only hasten their extinction as the climate changed to what it is today.
Perhaps before we get too far, we should discuss the evidence for mammoths living in the far north. Actually, let's start with just the topic of mammoths living, period. According to Wikipedia, mammoths lived from about 4.8 million years ago until about 4500 years ago, with a few surviving up to 1650 B.C. They were widely dispersed, living not only in the far north, but in locations as diverse as the channel islands of California and in the Mediterranean island of Sardinia. The first question might ought to be why they lived four million years and then died off only in the 0.1% of the time range that includes the present. In other words, how did they live through umpteen ice ages and then die only at the end of the most recent one? The dates alone ought to arouse suspicion from the inquisitive.
Next, we should wonder at the mammoths living in the far north. How far north? Mammoth remains have been found not only in Siberia, but on Wrangle Island, which is north of Siberia in the Arctic ocean - above 71 degrees north latitude - farther north than any portion of Alaska.
The Mammoth pictured above is named Lyuba. She is a young female found frozen in the Siberian permafrost, and estimated to be 40,000 years old. (Actually, she looks pretty good for a 40,000 year old.) So many mammoth tusks have been found in Siberia that it is certain that at one time there was a considerable population there.
So that's the story. Mammoths lived over a broadly dispersed portion of the earth, and especially in the far north. They became extinct by around 1650 B.C., and probably earlier in some places. Now it is easy enough to understand why they became extinct, at least in the far north. The climate in places like Siberia and Wrangel Island is totally incompatible with a large elephant-like creature that needs to eat hundreds of pounds of plant food each day. Of course they became extinct. The hard question isn't why they became extinct, it's how they ever lived there in the first place.
The Genesis Flood and the Climate After the Flood
I believe the answer to the question about the mammoths and the far north can be found in an understanding of the earth's climate in the initial aftermath of the Genesis flood. The first physical cause for the Genesis flood mentioned in the Bible is that "all the fountains of the great deep were broken up" (Genesis 7:11). Rain followed. The fountains of the great deep probably refers to water deep below the earth's surface. There is still today a great deal of water below the earth's surface, and the key point for this discussion is that it is very hot. If the Genesis flood released a substantial amount of this water into the ocean, the ocean water temperature would rise a great deal, and that rise would be worldwide and well mixed (both deep and shallow water would be warm). In fact, many Christian flood geologists who have modeled the flood have trouble with the flood water being too warm. In any case, the ocean water after the flood would be very warm, both shallow and deep, polar and equatorial. Such an ocean would be dramatically different from today's ocean. Because water holds heat so well, the ocean water temperature would take hundreds of years after the flood before it reached anything approaching its current state, where the average ocean water temperature worldwide is only 39 degrees fahrenheit.
How would the warm ocean affect the climate? It would be very different. Although direct sunlight does most of the heating of the atmosphere, the air over the water and near the coast would be abnormally warm all over the world, even in the far north. However, warm moist air in the far north moving inland would result in greatly increased cloud cover and precipitation inland, well away from the coast. In places like the north central U.S. and southern Canada, the increased cloud cover would make the climate much colder, especially in the summer, when the sun wouldn't warm it up as much as it does today. Thus - the ice age. And yet, along the coast of Siberia in close proximity to the warm Arctic Ocean (it is almost hard to write "warm Arctic Ocean"), the warm water would keep the climate temperate, even in the winter. Wrangel Island, north of Siberia, might be a nice place to live. Plant life could flourish, along with the mammoths. One can even imagine Siberian mammoth herds becoming conditioned to migrate north for the winter, since north would bring them closer to the warm ocean. Of course, if they did develop such an instinct it would only hasten their extinction as the climate changed to what it is today.
Thursday, September 15, 2011
Adventures with Carbon-14
Carbon-14 dating, also called radiocarbon dating, is commonly used to date objects containing carbon that are not considered extremely old. For example, the Shroud of Turin was dated to 1260-1390 A.D. using radiocarbon dating.
This is how Carbon-14 (C-14 for short) dating works. The normal atomic isotope of carbon is carbon-12 (C-12). However, nitrogen (nitrogen-15) in the atmosphere receives radiation from the sun, and this radiation causes a very small percentage of the nitrogen to lose a proton, forming C-14. The ratio of C-14 to C-12 is very small, about one to a trillion. Every living thing interacts with the atmosphere, so as long as an animal breathes or a plant lives, that animal or plant also has about one part per trillion of C-14 in every cell. C-14 is radioactive and decays exponentially with a half life of 5730 years. When an animal dies, it no longer breathes, and the C-14 in its body begins to decay. By measuring the ratio of C-14 to C-12, it is possible to determine how long ago the animal died. This process works for plants and animals, and can usually be used to also find the formation date of anything that contains carbon, such as petroleum, coal or diamonds.
Because the half-life is 5730 years, C-14 dating cannot be used to date things that are more than about 100,000 years old. The already tiny percentage of C-14 will have decayed to a percentage too small to be detected. Therefore, scientists will not usually try to date something like a dinosaur bone with C-14, since the conventional timeline has dinosaurs dying out 65 million years ago. The expectation is that if one dated a dinosaur's bone using C-14, no C-14 would be present and the age of the bone would be calculated to be infinite. Now here is where the fun begins. One of the nasty little secrets of C-14 dating is that whenever anything containing carbon is tested, C-14 is always found. When the sample is supposed to be extremely old, like a dinosaur bone, it will contain some C-14 and date to say, 50,000 years old. This produces one kind of problem for young earth creationists, who do not believe the earth is 50,000 old, meaning the date has to be off by a factor of 10 or so. It creates a more serious problem for evolutionists, who expect the dinosaur bone to be more than 65 million years old, meaning the date is off by a factor of more than 1000. What to do with this conundrum? Let's come back to it in a minute. Before we go further we need to discuss dating methods in general.
Dating Methods in General - An Example and Four Assumptions
All dating methods work in essentially the same way: they measure the rate a process operates, then calculate how long that process would take to arrive at the current state from some projected initial state. An example will help. Suppose we saw Chris peeling apples, and noticed that he took one minute to peel one apple. We then looked and saw a barrel of unpeeled apples on his left and a barrel of peeled apples on his right, with ten peeled apples in the right barrel. How long has the Chris been peeling apples? The answer is ten apples divided by one apple per minute, equalling ten minutes. So Chris has been peeling apples for ten minutes. Or has he? Perhaps he has improved his technique, having peeled the first few apples more slowly. Or perhaps he is tired and has slowed down, having peeled the first apples more quickly. We have been making an assumption, the first assumption in any dating method: (1) The rate of the process has remained constant. Here's another point - are we sure we counted the peeled apples correctly? If not, we will get the wrong answer. Therefore, the second assumption in any dating method is that (2) we have accurately measured the current state of the system. Also, what would have happened if just before we looked at Chris, Naomi's cheerleading squad arrived and they all ate some peeled apples? This illustrates the third assumption, (3) we are looking at a closed system, with no external contamination of inputs or outputs. Finally, are we sure that Chris peeled all ten apples? Perhaps Anne peeled eight apples before Chris sat down to peel his first one. This illustrates the fourth assumption: (4) We know what the initial state of the system is.
These four assumptions should be considered when we evaluate any dating method. (1) Has the rate of the process always remained constant? One might suppose with C-14 dating that it has, although we can't prove it beyond all doubt. It at least appears to be constant today even in varieties of temperatures, pressures, etc. However, there are dating methods where we are less confident about the rate. For example, one can calculate the age of the ocean by measuring the rate at which salt is swept into the ocean by erosion, but that rate probably has changed some as earth's climate and geography changed. (2) Have we accurately measured the current state of the system? Of all the assumptions, this is usually the most solid. Certainly with C-14 dating we can expect to get an accurate measurement, barring any incompetence in the labs. However, there are some dating methods where an accurate measurement of the current state of the system is questionable. For example, some models for estimating the age of the universe rely on estimates of the total mass of the universe. Whether we have accurate readings of universal mass is doubtful. (3) The assumption that we have a closed system is often dicey. In fact, when C-14 is present in samples thought to be too old, like a dinosaur bone, the evolutionary explanation will be that the sample has been contaminated, i.e., the system was not closed. (4) Do we know the initial state of the system? For young earth creationists, a 50,000 year old date for a dinosaur bone is still too old. The young earth explanation is that the initial state of the system is not what the C-14 labs believe; the atmosphere when the dinosaur died was not the same as it was today. Instead, there was less C-14 in the atmosphere, and anything that died at that time would date older than it really was.
Some C-14 Dating Results
C-14 dates seem to be pretty reliable going back to 1000 B.C. or so. C-14 accurately dated the Dead Sea Scrolls, scrolls which can be dated in several other ways. These scrolls were written at about the time of Christ. The Bible and Egyptian chronology agree on the date for an invasion of Judah by Pharaoh Shishak (Egyptian: Shoshenq) during the reign of Rehoboam around 925 B.C. C-14 dates at Tel Rehov (Rehov is mentioned in the Egyptian account) seem to match this date. However, moving back before 1000 B.C., problems emerge. Renown archeologist Katherine Kenyon verified that Jericho was destroyed and lay ruined for many years, as the Bible says. However, multiple C-14 tests put its destruction at about 1550 B.C, around 150 years before Joshua got there (my best estimate for the fall of Jericho using a Bible chronology would put it at 1406 B.C.). Similarly, Egyptologists were confident that the date of the eruption of the Thera volcano, the largest volcanic eruption in the Mediterranean in recorded history, was about 1500 B.C. However, C-14 dates pushed it back to a range between 1600-1627 B.C. Notice what has happened here: Recorded history for these two events, near in time to each other, give dates more recent than C-14 dates by 100-150 years. Something has begun to go wrong with the C-14 dates.
Moving back in time to events before this, but which a young earth creationist would place after the flood of Noah, the C-14 dates get older at an exponential rate. Many mammoth bones are frozen in the permafrost of Siberia and a few other locations in the far north. Permafrost must be post-flood. And these Mammoths often date around 12,000 years old or so, with dates ranging from around 40,000 B.C. to as recent as 1700 B.C. Now one wonders how mammoths, which need to ingest a massive amount of green food, can survive in Siberia, which is frozen for seven months a year. Of course they can't - they would go extinct. Yet somehow they once did, and during the ice age!? but that is a subject for another paper. For now let us just note that Mammoth dates and similar post-flood artifacts often date between 4000-40,000 years old.
Finally, what about samples which evolutionists would state are millions of years old, and which creationists would claim are pre-flood? As I mentioned before, it's a dirty little secret that all samples containing carbon also have some C-14, implying an age less than 100,000 years old. These samples have included dinosaur bones, diamonds, coal, and petroleum. At first glance, these samples seemed to measure with random very old but not infinite ages, ages that no one believes, so they have not until recently been analyzed systematically. Recently though, Rick Sanders wrote an article in the Creation Research Society Quarterly (Winter 2011 edition) that showed that the ages of these samples follow the lognormal model, with a mean age of 51,155 years and a standard deviation of 6997 years. The results are meaningful. They imply a "C-14 flood date" of 51,155 years before present.
So what does all this mean? I suggest that prior to the flood, the C-14 concentration in the atmosphere was only about one tenth of its present concentration. There can be several reasons why this may have been so - perhaps less radiation from the sun due to a slightly different atmosphere, more carbon in the biosphere, etc. This would calibrate the C-14 flood date from 51,155 years before present to a date about ten times more recent than that. After the flood, C-14 concentration in the atmosphere increased over a period of around a thousand years, reaching its modern equilibrium some time prior to 1000 B.C. I believe it was not quite at equilibrium at the time of the Thera eruption or the destruction of Jericho, explaining why those C-14 dates are a little too old. In between the flood and Jericho there were mammoths, whose bones have dates spanning the time period between the two.
I believe this is an area that would benefit from more study.
This is how Carbon-14 (C-14 for short) dating works. The normal atomic isotope of carbon is carbon-12 (C-12). However, nitrogen (nitrogen-15) in the atmosphere receives radiation from the sun, and this radiation causes a very small percentage of the nitrogen to lose a proton, forming C-14. The ratio of C-14 to C-12 is very small, about one to a trillion. Every living thing interacts with the atmosphere, so as long as an animal breathes or a plant lives, that animal or plant also has about one part per trillion of C-14 in every cell. C-14 is radioactive and decays exponentially with a half life of 5730 years. When an animal dies, it no longer breathes, and the C-14 in its body begins to decay. By measuring the ratio of C-14 to C-12, it is possible to determine how long ago the animal died. This process works for plants and animals, and can usually be used to also find the formation date of anything that contains carbon, such as petroleum, coal or diamonds.
Because the half-life is 5730 years, C-14 dating cannot be used to date things that are more than about 100,000 years old. The already tiny percentage of C-14 will have decayed to a percentage too small to be detected. Therefore, scientists will not usually try to date something like a dinosaur bone with C-14, since the conventional timeline has dinosaurs dying out 65 million years ago. The expectation is that if one dated a dinosaur's bone using C-14, no C-14 would be present and the age of the bone would be calculated to be infinite. Now here is where the fun begins. One of the nasty little secrets of C-14 dating is that whenever anything containing carbon is tested, C-14 is always found. When the sample is supposed to be extremely old, like a dinosaur bone, it will contain some C-14 and date to say, 50,000 years old. This produces one kind of problem for young earth creationists, who do not believe the earth is 50,000 old, meaning the date has to be off by a factor of 10 or so. It creates a more serious problem for evolutionists, who expect the dinosaur bone to be more than 65 million years old, meaning the date is off by a factor of more than 1000. What to do with this conundrum? Let's come back to it in a minute. Before we go further we need to discuss dating methods in general.
Dating Methods in General - An Example and Four Assumptions
All dating methods work in essentially the same way: they measure the rate a process operates, then calculate how long that process would take to arrive at the current state from some projected initial state. An example will help. Suppose we saw Chris peeling apples, and noticed that he took one minute to peel one apple. We then looked and saw a barrel of unpeeled apples on his left and a barrel of peeled apples on his right, with ten peeled apples in the right barrel. How long has the Chris been peeling apples? The answer is ten apples divided by one apple per minute, equalling ten minutes. So Chris has been peeling apples for ten minutes. Or has he? Perhaps he has improved his technique, having peeled the first few apples more slowly. Or perhaps he is tired and has slowed down, having peeled the first apples more quickly. We have been making an assumption, the first assumption in any dating method: (1) The rate of the process has remained constant. Here's another point - are we sure we counted the peeled apples correctly? If not, we will get the wrong answer. Therefore, the second assumption in any dating method is that (2) we have accurately measured the current state of the system. Also, what would have happened if just before we looked at Chris, Naomi's cheerleading squad arrived and they all ate some peeled apples? This illustrates the third assumption, (3) we are looking at a closed system, with no external contamination of inputs or outputs. Finally, are we sure that Chris peeled all ten apples? Perhaps Anne peeled eight apples before Chris sat down to peel his first one. This illustrates the fourth assumption: (4) We know what the initial state of the system is.
These four assumptions should be considered when we evaluate any dating method. (1) Has the rate of the process always remained constant? One might suppose with C-14 dating that it has, although we can't prove it beyond all doubt. It at least appears to be constant today even in varieties of temperatures, pressures, etc. However, there are dating methods where we are less confident about the rate. For example, one can calculate the age of the ocean by measuring the rate at which salt is swept into the ocean by erosion, but that rate probably has changed some as earth's climate and geography changed. (2) Have we accurately measured the current state of the system? Of all the assumptions, this is usually the most solid. Certainly with C-14 dating we can expect to get an accurate measurement, barring any incompetence in the labs. However, there are some dating methods where an accurate measurement of the current state of the system is questionable. For example, some models for estimating the age of the universe rely on estimates of the total mass of the universe. Whether we have accurate readings of universal mass is doubtful. (3) The assumption that we have a closed system is often dicey. In fact, when C-14 is present in samples thought to be too old, like a dinosaur bone, the evolutionary explanation will be that the sample has been contaminated, i.e., the system was not closed. (4) Do we know the initial state of the system? For young earth creationists, a 50,000 year old date for a dinosaur bone is still too old. The young earth explanation is that the initial state of the system is not what the C-14 labs believe; the atmosphere when the dinosaur died was not the same as it was today. Instead, there was less C-14 in the atmosphere, and anything that died at that time would date older than it really was.
Some C-14 Dating Results
C-14 dates seem to be pretty reliable going back to 1000 B.C. or so. C-14 accurately dated the Dead Sea Scrolls, scrolls which can be dated in several other ways. These scrolls were written at about the time of Christ. The Bible and Egyptian chronology agree on the date for an invasion of Judah by Pharaoh Shishak (Egyptian: Shoshenq) during the reign of Rehoboam around 925 B.C. C-14 dates at Tel Rehov (Rehov is mentioned in the Egyptian account) seem to match this date. However, moving back before 1000 B.C., problems emerge. Renown archeologist Katherine Kenyon verified that Jericho was destroyed and lay ruined for many years, as the Bible says. However, multiple C-14 tests put its destruction at about 1550 B.C, around 150 years before Joshua got there (my best estimate for the fall of Jericho using a Bible chronology would put it at 1406 B.C.). Similarly, Egyptologists were confident that the date of the eruption of the Thera volcano, the largest volcanic eruption in the Mediterranean in recorded history, was about 1500 B.C. However, C-14 dates pushed it back to a range between 1600-1627 B.C. Notice what has happened here: Recorded history for these two events, near in time to each other, give dates more recent than C-14 dates by 100-150 years. Something has begun to go wrong with the C-14 dates.
Moving back in time to events before this, but which a young earth creationist would place after the flood of Noah, the C-14 dates get older at an exponential rate. Many mammoth bones are frozen in the permafrost of Siberia and a few other locations in the far north. Permafrost must be post-flood. And these Mammoths often date around 12,000 years old or so, with dates ranging from around 40,000 B.C. to as recent as 1700 B.C. Now one wonders how mammoths, which need to ingest a massive amount of green food, can survive in Siberia, which is frozen for seven months a year. Of course they can't - they would go extinct. Yet somehow they once did, and during the ice age!? but that is a subject for another paper. For now let us just note that Mammoth dates and similar post-flood artifacts often date between 4000-40,000 years old.
Finally, what about samples which evolutionists would state are millions of years old, and which creationists would claim are pre-flood? As I mentioned before, it's a dirty little secret that all samples containing carbon also have some C-14, implying an age less than 100,000 years old. These samples have included dinosaur bones, diamonds, coal, and petroleum. At first glance, these samples seemed to measure with random very old but not infinite ages, ages that no one believes, so they have not until recently been analyzed systematically. Recently though, Rick Sanders wrote an article in the Creation Research Society Quarterly (Winter 2011 edition) that showed that the ages of these samples follow the lognormal model, with a mean age of 51,155 years and a standard deviation of 6997 years. The results are meaningful. They imply a "C-14 flood date" of 51,155 years before present.
So what does all this mean? I suggest that prior to the flood, the C-14 concentration in the atmosphere was only about one tenth of its present concentration. There can be several reasons why this may have been so - perhaps less radiation from the sun due to a slightly different atmosphere, more carbon in the biosphere, etc. This would calibrate the C-14 flood date from 51,155 years before present to a date about ten times more recent than that. After the flood, C-14 concentration in the atmosphere increased over a period of around a thousand years, reaching its modern equilibrium some time prior to 1000 B.C. I believe it was not quite at equilibrium at the time of the Thera eruption or the destruction of Jericho, explaining why those C-14 dates are a little too old. In between the flood and Jericho there were mammoths, whose bones have dates spanning the time period between the two.
I believe this is an area that would benefit from more study.
Sunday, August 28, 2011
Living Fossils?
What would the world think if we suddenly discovered a living dinosaur? I can imagine there would be shock, confusion, and then a negative reaction against the scientific establishment, which assured us that dinosaurs became extinct 65 million years ago. I doubt we will ever find a living dinosaur. However, we have discovered a number of species which were thought to have become extinct with or even before the time of dinosaurs. This ought to call into question not only the theory of evolution, but the supposed great ages for the earth itself.
Let us introduce a few of these animals. The most famous example is a fish called the coelacanth. It was presumed to have died off 65 million years ago with the dinosaurs, but was found in 1938 off the coast of South Africa. These fish live today along the shoreline of the Indian Ocean. It has an unusual two-lobed tail.
The discovery of a fish thought to be extinct for so long is more than just an "oops, my bad" moment for evolutionists. A fish reaches an age of reproductive maturity in less than two years. Therefore, the living coelacanth is, according to the evolutionary timeline, 30 million generations descended from the 65 million year old fossil coelacanth that evolutionists see in the fossil record. That means 30 million generations and it didn't evolve at all. The ancestors of humans, according to the evolutionary timeline, were an unrecognizable mammal 65 million years ago, and that was a lot less than 30 million generations. There is another problem for the evolutionists. There are many fossil coelacanths (search "fossil coelacanths" on google images to see a fair sample). Yet somehow, the story goes, we have recovered many fossil coelacanths of more than 65 million years in age, but no fossil coelacanths that are less than 65 million years old. This is so implausible that it should call into question the existence of the 65 million years.
If the coelacanth were the only example of this kind, that would be one thing, but there are more. Wikipedia lists under "Lazarus taxon" 12 different plants and animals known previously only from the fossil record, then discovered alive. A hat-shaped clam known as monoplacophora was originally thought to have gone extinct during the Devonian period (370 million years ago, by the conventional timeline) but discovered off Costa Rico in 1952. For evolutionists, this is even worse than the fish, because the years are greater, and the fossil record is full of clams.
Let us introduce a few of these animals. The most famous example is a fish called the coelacanth. It was presumed to have died off 65 million years ago with the dinosaurs, but was found in 1938 off the coast of South Africa. These fish live today along the shoreline of the Indian Ocean. It has an unusual two-lobed tail.
The discovery of a fish thought to be extinct for so long is more than just an "oops, my bad" moment for evolutionists. A fish reaches an age of reproductive maturity in less than two years. Therefore, the living coelacanth is, according to the evolutionary timeline, 30 million generations descended from the 65 million year old fossil coelacanth that evolutionists see in the fossil record. That means 30 million generations and it didn't evolve at all. The ancestors of humans, according to the evolutionary timeline, were an unrecognizable mammal 65 million years ago, and that was a lot less than 30 million generations. There is another problem for the evolutionists. There are many fossil coelacanths (search "fossil coelacanths" on google images to see a fair sample). Yet somehow, the story goes, we have recovered many fossil coelacanths of more than 65 million years in age, but no fossil coelacanths that are less than 65 million years old. This is so implausible that it should call into question the existence of the 65 million years.
If the coelacanth were the only example of this kind, that would be one thing, but there are more. Wikipedia lists under "Lazarus taxon" 12 different plants and animals known previously only from the fossil record, then discovered alive. A hat-shaped clam known as monoplacophora was originally thought to have gone extinct during the Devonian period (370 million years ago, by the conventional timeline) but discovered off Costa Rico in 1952. For evolutionists, this is even worse than the fish, because the years are greater, and the fossil record is full of clams.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
