jeudi 7 août 2025

Mark H Armitage Still Has a Point About Soft Tissue


He may have somewhat less of a point about carbon 14.

DSTRI_25SummerUpdate-sm
MarkHArmitage | 8 Aug. 2025
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iF_uLaKmokI


Now, don't get me wrong. Insofar as fungi and microorganisms feed on the soft tissue in a dino bone, they certainly live off the carbon from inside the bones.

But at some point, they entered and the first specimens had their carbon from elsewhere, which is a probable cause of carbon 14 contamination.

If the colonies of living things hadn't been recent, the to them consumable material in dino bones would by now already have been consumed. It's not as if the colony could have been thriving in there since the Flood.

It has bothered me when carbon 14 in dinosaur bones carbon dates to as young as 22 000 years ago. Was it a post-Flood dino dying in a post-Flood landslide? Was the place contaminated by extra neutrons (a k a radioactivity!) from Uranium? Other theory: that extra amount of carbon 14 could have come with some organisms that are or recently were alive.

In my calibration, a sample from the Flood should date to 39 000 BP or 37 000 BC.* Which is the carbon date for Campi Flegrei.

20 000 BC is some decade of years before Eber or Heber was born, not from the Flood./HGL

2958 BC,
1.6277 pmC, dated as 37 000 BC

2738 BC
11.069 pmC, dated as 20,933 BC
2725 BC
14.329 pmC, dated as 18,786 BC

2691 BC
Eber born


Taken from my: Newer Tables, Flood to Joseph in Egypt
https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2024/12/newer-tables-flood-to-joseph-in-egypt.html


* Or older. Reservoir effect.

mardi 5 août 2025

Some People Think I'm Nuts for Not Believing in PIE


No, I don't mean "a pie in the sky" ... that's just a jocular, ironic, atheist perspective jab at Heaven, which I do believe in.

I mean PIE as in Proto-Indo-European.

Here is a quote from a book on German language and litterature history* (most of which I believe in, like p. 53 where I am to the end, basically), about PIE. It may be noted, the book was edited and printed in 1969 on a Volkseigener Verlag (people's owned publishing house), meaning it comes from the now defunct East Germany. The abbreviation "v. u. Z." reads "vor unserer Zeitrechnung" or "before our timereckoning" / "before our era" ... normally in German it was "v. Chr." back in 1969, meaning "vor Christus" or "before Christ" ... in my translation, I'll say BCE, as true to the spirit, this modern way of avoiding Christianity is really inspired by this Communist kind of thing. But now to the quote, from page 33:

Es wird heute weitgehend übereinstimmend angenommen, daß sich die ide. Spracheinheit um 3000 v. u. Z. bereits in Auflösung befand; im 2. Jahrtausend v. u. Z. besitzen wir im Indischen, Hethitischen und Griechischen bereits voll ausgeformte Sprachen von selbstständiger Individualität. Das setzt aber eine sehr lange Entwicklung der betreffenden Einzelsprachen voraus.


This translates as:

It is today with a broad consensus assumed, that the IE language unity already around 3000 BCE was in a state of dissolution; in the 2nd Millennium BCE we already have, in the shape of Indian, Hittite and Greek, fully formed languages of their independent individuality. But this presupposes a very long Development of the single languages in question.


These guys who already in 1969 were using the "before common Era" instead of "before Christ", well, they were not total dunces and they were also not cut off from linguists outside the East block. Mind you, some inside the East block were very talented men. Very prejudiced, some would very well say "but of course they spoke Nostratic in 13 000 before present, when else? you believe in the Bible, are you dumb or sth?" but they would still be able to coherently argue their theories in a high level of professionality.

Nevertheless, they made a blooper right here, when speaking of "already fully formed languages" ... a language actually in use is never just half formed. That reconstructed PIE is not a fully formed language doesn't mean those who (possibly) spoke the ancestral PIE didn't have a fully formed language, it means that someone who tried to reconstruct a "fully formed" PIE would have to go beyond the available evidence and make choices more artistic than scientific. So, either they were forgetting this, which is ridivulous, or they were, even more ridiculously, from the rudimentary and incomplete shape of PIE as reconstructed concluding that the ancestral language was also an incoplete one, and that one could cite this as "evidence" for a gradual emergence of human language. Obviously no such thing.

But given this, I have two problems with the theory as stated in the paragraph even apart from the blooper.

  • If PIE ever existed, it would probably have to be immediately after Babel ... so, which one of the ancestors on the table of nations? As I speak an Indo-European language and actually only leared Indo-European ones as foreign languages, I'd descend from that man. I wouldn't like to be ethnically Magogian if that were the one. And as Indo-Europeans actualy are present on all four corners of the continents, Magog is a better match than Madai.

    • On a lower key problem in this context, more than one of the ancestors on the table of nations would figure: Javan for Greeks, Madai for Medes, who brought their language to the Elamites with whom they mixed, Gomer for Celts, possibly Romans and Germanics as well, as well as for Hittites. This is a priori an argument for Sprachbund, or perhaps for "instant language family" ... God giving different ones of these instantaneously the appearance of descending from a common language that never actually existed. Like Primitive Elvish to Quenya and Sindarin ... except in the Tolkien timeline, there actually is a place and time for Primitive Elvish to develop into Quenya, Telerin, Sindarin, Doriathrin .... however that language development only existed in Tolkien's head. If Tolkien could pull it off, so could God. But I still prefer Sprachbund over this, if a real, spoken, protolanguage is excluded.


  • In 3000 BC, Noah and sons were still building the Ark. The Flood came 2957 BC. Babel broke up at the birth of Peleg, 401 years later, in 2556 BC. Using an Ussher chronology rather than the LXX based one of the Roman Martyrology for Christmas Day only worsens the problem. Babel breaks up in 2204 BC in that perspective.

    This text has been found in three versions, the earliest of which is considered the oldest known of all Hittite language texts, dated from between the end of the 17th century BCE and the middle of the 16th century BCE.

    Hittite language # The proclamation of Anitta
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hittite_language#The_proclamation_of_Anitta


    Yeah, these days the Commie thing about "BCE" is very comm-on, even used on wikipedia. But 2204 BC - 1550 BC = 654 years. And this even gives no time for PIE to exist before it breaks up. I obviously don't agree with Blessed Anne Catherine Emmerich that PIE was the pre-Babel language either. I would say her visions were natural, even if pious, and the idea of "a beautiful language, reminding of Sanskrit" would have been a piece of conversation she had heard from doctors or priests before she experienced a vision with this feature. She's still holy because of her stigmata and because of illness being occasion for penance. St. Augustine says the pre-Babel language was Hebrew, I'd agree if you add "of some sort" (closer to Proto-Sinaitic than to Biblical Hebrew, 1000 years + more archaic than the Exodus, at which time even Proto-Sinaitic is still a probability).

    • This problem is obviously even more acute if we note that commonalities like the ones within the IE language "family" would also make Nostratic one, because they exist for instance between IE and Uralic.


So, between English and Russian, etymologically identic words are 25 % of the vocabulary of either side. I'm not going into which language has a higher vocabulary of a complete dictionary, I mean common vocabulary like "the 1500 most common words" (or word families). I don't count English using the word "Samovar" or Russians speaking of "Паддингтон". It takes more time to diverge 75 % than to converge 25 %.

This means, posing a Sprachbund (or a series of Sprachbünder) is more economic in time than the 3000 BC - 1550 BC = 1450 years posed by the quote as passing between dissolving PIE and Proclamation of Anitta. Or, for Mycenaean Greek rather than Hittite, 1600 years from dissolving PIE to the clay tablet of Iklaina. This is consistent with Javan and Gomer each already having their own distinct language in 2556 BC.

2556 - 1471** = 1085 years
2556 - 1349** = 1207 years

In fact, apart from an unusually rapid convergence of not just syntax, but even morphological elements, on my view, the time available for convergence nearly equals the time the PIE believers claim for divergence.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
Our Lady in the Snows
5.VIII.2025

Romae, in Exquiliis, Dedicatio Basilicae sanctae Mariae ad Nives.

* Geschichte der deutschen Sprache, 1969, Volk und Wissen, Volkseigener Verlag, Berlin. Authored by "ein Autorenkollektiv unter Leitung von Wilhelm Schmidt" (with 8 other authors listed).

** 1550 and 1400 translate to 1471 and 1349 in my tables. Newer Tables, Joseph in Egypt to Fall of Troy

samedi 2 août 2025

How Could People and Dinosaurs Live Together?


Short answer: they didn't, not any more than people and lions live together today (Elsa is an exception*).

Longer answer. I'll start with the objection.

"This doesn't work. For millions of years, dinosaurs roamed all of the earth. There were millions and billions of dinosaurs all over the continents, even on modern Antarctica, back then there would have been no place in the world where you could live without bumping into a dinosaur!"


OK, do you have evidence for that claim?

First, I'd like to note, not all of the dinos were dangerous, and technically, some dangerous creatures featured in dinosaur books weren't dinosaurs (Dimetrodon, Pterodactylus, Mososaurus ...). Have a look at these guys whom I salvaged from a google site now down, onto a blog of mine:

  • Bradysaurus 2.5 to 3 m, a pretty big thing, but given the angle of the legs, probably moved somewhat slowly. Think of it like meeting a giant turtle in a fantasy novel.
  • Hipposaurus boonstrai Skull length: 21 cm, Length: 1.2 m ... bigger than a dog (except a Great Dane), would reach you to the knees. Not the best guy to make angry, if you can avoid it, but probably not the worst threat to your life either.
  • Pareiasaurus serridens 2.5 m. A plant eater.


Now, the other thing is, Young Earth Creationism means, most dinosaurs we find, perhaps all of them (outside cryptozoology), were buried in the Flood. A pretty recent Flood. We have a fair sample of things that lived on land back then, the three fellers I linked to being from South Africa and probably all from some part of Karroo. Border Cave is post-Flood, but pre-Flood caves like Sibudu Cave, Klasies River Caves, some layers of Wonderwerk Cave are all a fair distance from Karroo. And seem to have no dinos associated with them.

"But come on, there are millions of fossils we've found!"


According to Slate**, no:

There are currently about 3,000 so-called “full” dinosaur specimens—complete or near-complete skeletons or just a complete or near-complete skull—in museums around the United States

...

The United States, China, and Argentina have especially numerous fossil deposits, followed by Canada, England, and Mongolia. (China and Argentina have proved especially fertile as of late. Since 1990, there has been a 132 percent and 165 percent increase in genera discovery in these two countries, respectively.) These six countries account for 75 percent of the world’s dinosaur finds. Australia, Europe, and Africa are less fertile.


So, if the US has only 3000 full skeleta of dinos, and if this is matched by very few other countries, which cover a restricted area of our earth where God put us, and put our pre-Flood ancestors and their neighbours, I think there was actually a good chance of living in the pre-Flood world without bumping into a dangerous dinosaur, or even an uncomfortable one, like possibly the Pareiosaurus was.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
St. Alfonsus Maria Liguori
2.VIII.2025

* The generic of that song has maybe something to say about a bad idea of Mr. Trump's, hope he changes his mind ...
** Here is the link:

Will we ever run out of dinosaur bones?
By Kim Gittleson | Aug 28, 20095:31 PM
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2009/08/will-we-ever-run-out-of-dinosaur-bones.html

vendredi 1 août 2025

How Fast did Denmark Change* Population?


New study unearths our Scandinavian ancestors
Published 10 January 2024 | Faculty of Humanities (Gothenburg)
https://www.gu.se/en/news/new-study-unearths-our-scandinavian-ancestors


The first occurred about 5,900 years ago, at the beginning of the archaeological era known as the Neolithic, or New Stone Age. When a farming people immigrated to Denmark, the hunter-gatherer and fisher population known as the Ertebølle culture disappeared completely.

...

“Around 2800 BCE, people of the Corded Ware culture, also called the Single Grave culture, immigrated to Denmark,” says archaeologist Karl-Göran Sjögren.


5900 - 2025 = 3875 BC. This first date is after Abraham was born (2015 BC) but before Serug died (1965 BC), here:

2005 BC
79.432 pmC, dated as 3909 BC
1997 BC*
79.803 pmC, dated as 3862 BC**
1982 BC
80.546 pmC, dated as 3770 BC


The second date is about the death of Djoser whom I count as Joseph's pharao.***

1700 BC
87.541 pmC, dated as 2800 BC


1997 minus 1700 = 297 years. A third of the 900 years the study says./HGL

Notes:

* Hunter gatherers to Ancient Anatolian Farmers, Ancient Anatolian Farmers to Corded Ware.

** (2005 + 2005 + 1982) / 3 = 1997 BC
(79.432 + 79.432 + 80.546) / 3 = 79.803

5730 * log(0.79803) / log(0.5) + 1997.3333333333333333 = 3862 BC


Calculation of carbon year from pmC as per Newer Tables, Preliminaries while the specific "time stamps" I didn't calculate are from Newer Tables, Flood to Joseph in Egypt

*** Changing the pharaos for Joseph and for when Moses was born or for the Exodus would mean a need to drastically change the tables. Take this into account.

lundi 7 juillet 2025

Linear Pottery : the Long House


Starčevo and Linear Pottery: Recalibration · Linear Pottery : the Long House

The unit of residence was the long house, a rectangular structure, 5.5 to 7.0 m (18.0 to 23.0 ft) wide, of variable length; for example, a house at Bylany was 45 m (148 ft).


45 (m) / 7 (m) = 6.43
300 (cubits) / 50 (cubits) = 6.

It would seem that the proportions of the Linear Pottery Long House could be influenced by the remembered proportions of the Ark. Remember that 7 meters seems to have been maximal width and 45 meters was exceptional in length. So, perhaps the proportions varied between 5 and 6.43, which would include the proportion 6, that of the Ark.

Reu was alive all of this time, he was born 2427 BC. If his early life doesn't coincide with the late life of Shem, he was 36 when Arphaxad died and 66 when Shelah died. This is about when the Starčevo culture begins, and Linear Pottery begins sometime between 2258 and 2235 BC. Say, 2247 BC, when Reu was 180 years old.

Obviously, this culture is in the wrong region for Reu, but someone in the lineage of Japheth would easily have had a similar lifespan. And the outbreak of generalised violence in carbon dated 5000 BC, well, that could be because this other person died and left smaller chieftains squabbling over the succession.

Since this is the culture that involved Herxheim, I'm pretty sure this could have been an evil man, and I'm happy this ended.

It also gave a chance to hunter gatherers.

If you want to know more about the Linear Pottery Long Houses, how about going to a video by Dan Davis? He'll give the conventional dates, presume modern lifespans and hence miss all of this being within one lifespan, but otherwise he's very well informed.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
Sts. Cyrill and Methodius
7.VII.2025

Sanctorum Episcoporum et Confessorum Cyrilli et Methodii fratrum, quorum natalis respective agitur sextodecimo Kalendas Martii et octavo Idus Aprilis.

Video by Dan Davis:

The Immense Long Houses of the Linear Pottery Culture
Dan Davis History | 7 July 2025
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fbm80SzraRw

Starčevo and Linear Pottery: Recalibration


Starčevo and Linear Pottery: Recalibration · Linear Pottery : the Long House

2361 BC, Shelah died, 2088 BC, Reu died./HGL

2350 BC
62.358 pmC, dated as 6254 BC

Starčevo
6200 BC

2327 BC
63.519 pmC, dated as 6079 BC

2258 BC
66.981 pmC, dated as 5571 BC

Early Linear Pottery
5500 BC

2235 BC
68.129 pmC, dated as 5407 BC

Early Linear Pottery
5300 BC

2212 BC
69.274 pmC, dated as 5247 BC
2189 BC
70.415 pmC, dated as 5089 BC

End of Linear Pottery
5000 BC

2166 BC
71.553 pmC, dated as 4933 BC

2120 BC
73.82 pmC, dated as 4629 BC

Starčevo
4500 BC

2097 BC
74.949 pmC, dated as 4481 BC

dimanche 29 juin 2025

Since I Often Promote CMI, I Sometimes Also Warn


In Who controls the kingdoms of this world? the late Russell Grigg argued, that the answer was, right now, Satan.

I have argued elsewhere, this is very incorrect, since Crucifixion and Resurrection, Satan has lost this power too, and Our Lord has gained the domination by victory.

Luke 4 and Matthew 4 both occurred before the Crucifixion.

Here is a key passage in Russell's argument:

In fact, Jesus referred to Satan as “the god of this world” (John 12:31; 14:30; 16:11); and the Apostle Paul similarly wrote concerning Satan that “the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God” (2 Corinthians 4:4).


So, "prince" or "ruler of this world" is supposed to be not just tantamount to but also textually identic to "god of this world"?

Let's check the Gospel verses:

Now is the judgment of the world: now shall the prince of this world be cast out
[John 12:31]

I will not now speak many things with you. For the prince of this world cometh, and in me he hath not any thing
[John 14:30]

And of judgment: because the prince of this world is already judged
[John 16:11]


In all three verses, I find "prince" and not "god" ...

Now, to St. Paul, and I'll give the previous verse too:

And if our gospel be also hid, it is hid to them that are lost In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of unbelievers, that the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should not shine unto them
[2 Corinthians 4:3-4]


There is actually a dispute on whether the words in question refer to God or to Satan. Here is the Haydock comment on these two verses:

Ver. 3. The apostle here brings another proof of the sincerity of his preaching, viz. the success with which it is attended: And he says, if there be any who have not yet received it, that is their own fault. For had they been as eager to receive it, as we have been to announce it to them, the whole world had[would have?] long since been converted. (Theodoret)

Ver. 4. In whom the God of this world hath blinded the minds of unbelievers.[1] Thus the words are placed, both in the Latin and Greek text, so that the true God seems to be called the God of this world, as he is elsewhere called the God of heaven, the God of Abraham. God, says St. Chrysostom, blinded, that is, permitted them to be blinded. Others translate, in whom God hat blinded the minds of the infidels of this world; so that this world may be joined with unbelievers, and not with God: and by the God of this world, some understand the devil, called sometimes the prince of this world, that is, of the wicked. (Witham)


Now, supposing that "the God of this world" actually refers to an enemy of souls, one active in blinding and not just permitting or confirming some to blind themselves, St. Thomas (yes, he wrote a commentary on II Corinthians) doesn't take "god" as "prince" or "ruler" but actually simply as "object of worship". One can refer to Poseidon as a "god of the Greeks" or to Thor as a "god of the Norse" ... and insofar as they are worshipped, it is Satan who gets the worship. It's a very different story if God would still permit Poseidon, i e Satan, to run a stampedo of horses over a man, because that man's father (who takes Poseidon for his own father) is asking him. At least up to when Antichrist will be doing his signs and wonders, that power has been taken away from Satan. Precisely by Jesus.

In other words, Satan is not in control of a kingdom just because it is a kingdom in this world. Not as in Matthew 4 / Luke 4, not any longer. He may be in control of a kingdom because its inhabitants have rejected Christ and as a result are brought under the enemy of Christ.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
Commemoration of St. Paul the Apostle
30.VI.2025

PS. During the Old Testament, God claimed one people for Himself. In AD 33 (or assessments of exactly how long ago vary, some say 29 or 31) most of that people rejected God. The ones who didn't are the beginning of the Christian Palestinians./HGL