mardi 20 mars 2018

Behemoth in Job?

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

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

He opts for Hippopotamus:

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

Previously he cites St Thomas Aquinas considering Behemoth an elephant:

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

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

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

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

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

Look what news say of the hippo:

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

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

Now look what the Bible says about behemoth and leviathan:

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

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

Here are the comments from Haydock Bible:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
Tuesday of First Passion Week

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

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

On which confer CMI's refutation of Plimer:

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

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

He actually involves this strawman:

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

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

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

jeudi 22 février 2018

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I would agree, entirely or not far from.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

6.986 % / 58.728 % = 11.9 %? Yes.

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

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

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

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

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

61 % - 1.98 % = 59.02 pmC added.

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

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

59.02 / 1.202 = 49.101

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Correspondence of Hans Georg Lundahl : Other Check on Carbon Buildup

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

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

But his work on Sumerian Kinglist actually taught me something.

Hans Georg Lundahl
St Peter's Chair at Antioch

PS. Two more links:


Own : Interim III, Flood to Abraham with Syncellus

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

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

lundi 19 février 2018

Overmoralising Factual Questions

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

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

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

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

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

CMI : Contemporary suppression of the theistic worldview
by Jerry Bergman

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
St Gabinus

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

samedi 10 février 2018

Hugh Ross and Genetics, Featuring a Gruesome Habit (Don't Read This When You Eat!)

Hugh Ross seems to think that a lack of Neanderthal Y chromosomes and Neanderthal mitochondrial DNA proves that we are all unrelated to Neanderthals.

I am for instance "hearing" this speech, or rather seeing it subtitled:

What is a Neanderthal - Hugh Ross
Abrahamic Faith | 17.I.2017

Not so.

If a Neanderthal man has a daughter with a Homo Sapiens woman, that daughter will have NEITHER Neanderthal Y Chromosome, since females don't have that, NOR a Neanderthal mitochondrial DNA, since she inherits the mitochondria from her Sapiens mother.

I think a woman of that or similar description would be a neat option for one of the wives of Noah's three sons.*

Note, there are other parts of Neanderthal genome which are shared by some men today and not others. Also, Neanderthals have a clearly human version of the FOXP2 gene which apes have not. This shows, on the common Christian view that all men descend from Adam, that Neanderthals were men, Adamites. They had the fundamental capacity for speech and they have descendendants among men.

Noah and his wife could not have been either Neanderthals or even hybrid Neanderthal / Sapiens. Had they been that, all men now would have Neanderthal heritage more or less equally. Red hair and white skin was a thing among Neanderthals, but not the earliest known Sapiens. And I include carbon dated ones, where the relative chronology is fairly well proven.

On the other hand, Noah's daughters in law could have involved one more Neanderthal like than the others, either through the process just outlined, or because of the pre-Flood race known as Antecessor or the pre-Flood race known as Homo Heidelbergensis, both of which seem to count - among Evolutionists - as common ancestors to "Neanderthal and man".

Now, in the same video, Hugh Ross is about to claim, as can be seen from the pictures, taken from the "Them and Us" site, that Neanderthals were monsters, preying on us. (In fact, now, I have "heard" the video, he did not, he only took the pictures from that site.) This is in fact possible. Cannibalism could be one of the unwise traits of giants.

Baruch 3:[26] There were the giants, those renowned men that were from the beginning, of great stature, expert in war. [27] The Lord chose not them, neither did they find the way of knowledge: therefore did they perish. [28] And because they had not wisdom, they perished through their folly.

This means, Neanderthals could be simply Nephelim. If so, I don't think Noah's daughters in law would very readily include a very Nephelim tainted person.

If so, it is more probable that the Neanderthal like genes come from pre-Flood either Heidelbergians or Antecessors, the race from which then the Neanderthals, if Nephelim, came.

On the other hand, there is some indication Neanderthals as such were not necessarily Nephelim. While Neanderthals in Belgium were living off Woolly Rhino and human meat, Neanderthals in Spain were, as men were supposed to be up to Genesis 9, vegetarians. This is known from their tooth enamel.

This, or the possibility that the daughter of a Nephelim was, herself, not too tainted, could speak for those parts of DNA actually being from Neanderthals, as such, not just from potentially similar genes on Antecessor labelled race or Heidelberg labelled race.

Now, Hugh Ross claims there were always few Neanderthals. I am checking the reasoning of a secular source:

Now, Briggs and his colleagues have used a new method that targets the genetic material of interest, analyzing so-called mitochondrial DNA from the fossils of six Neanderthals, who lived between 38,000 and 70,000 years ago. That genetic material comes from females and so can be used to trace maternal lineages.

To get a sense of the genetic diversity, and ultimately population size, the team compared the Neanderthal sequences with one another. Then, the researchers looked at such genetic information from 50 living humans from around the world, asking, "how different are their genes from one another?"

(Diversity of genes can provide indirect evidence for the number of breeding individuals, because with more people mating more genes are thrown into the mix, and vice versa.)

The Neanderthals had about three times less genetic diversity than the modern humans. Briggs suggests the entire population could be roughly estimated by doubling the number of females, which they set at no higher than 3,500.

From : Neanderthals Were Few and Poised for Extinction
By Jeanna Bryner, Live Science Managing Editor | July 16, 2009 10:02am ET

Note, for one, this result by Briggs from 2009 is contradicted by Pääbo** from later on, who did more sequencing on Neanderthals.

But "3 times less genetic diversity than modern humans" would be readily explainable if they were simply one race.

Take 50 Europoid or 50 Black or 50 Yellow persons, and they will also have about 3 times less genetic diversity than the human race as a whole, as it is post-Flood.

Again, Briggs is projecting the diversity onto a timescale of "between 38,000 and 70,000 years ago". It seems, "32,000 years ago", as they say, Sapiens was not very racially diversified.

Back to "where one could possibly consider Nephelim to have been" ... I just said, if Neanderthals were Nephelim, then perhaps the Neanderthal shared genes come from Antecessor, instead. On the other hand, I also said, in Spain the Neanderthals were vegetarian, as pre-Flood men were supposed to be, while, I just checked, the Homo Antecessor in Spain, those at Atapuerca, were in fact cannibals.

En el artículo, titulado 'Modeling Trophic resource availability for de first human settlers of Europe: The case of Atapuerca TD-6' ('Modelo trófico de disponibilidad de recursos para los primeros pobladores humanos de Europa: El caso del nivel TD-6 en Atapuerca') concluyen que el entorno era muy rico en recursos, por lo que el canibalismo no se debía a periodos de hambruna.

From : El canibalismo del 'Homo Antecessor' no se debía a épocas de hambruna
Efe | Burgos | Actualizado miércoles 03/04/2013 20:03 horas

This would of course mean, "Antecessor" is even more suspect than Neanderthals of being Nephelim - or simply very fallen men.

On the other hand, this one could favour Hugh Ross' assessment:

El hombre de Atapuerca practicaba el mismo canibalismo que los chimpancés
Nuño Domínguez 04/09/2012


Intergroup cannibalism in the European Early Pleistocene: The range expansion and imbalance of power hypotheses
Palmira Saladié Rosa Huguet Antonio Rodríguez-Hidalgo Isabel Cáceres Montserrat Esteban-Nadal Juan Luis Arsuaga José María Bermúdez de Castro Eudald Carbonell
Journal of Human Evolution Volume 63, Issue 5, November 2012, Pages 682-695

Key words:

However, the age distribution of the cannibalized hominins in the TD6 assemblage is not consistent with that from other cases of exo-cannibalism by human/hominin groups. Instead, it is similar to the age profiles seen in cannibalism associated with intergroup aggression in chimpanzees. For this reason, we use an analogy with chimpanzees to propose that the TD6 hominins mounted low-risk attacks on members of other groups to defend access to resources within their own territories and to try and expand their territories at the expense of neighboring groups.

I am also reading here evidence on cannibalism having occurred also among Neanderthals in Spain. It seems then, I was arguing too much pre-Flood virtue from tooth enamel.

The thing is, on a quick skimming through, the cannibalism actually seems to go beyond what a parallel with chimpanzees can explain, even if similar in terms of victims. This means, it is very likely to relate to:

Genesis 6:[5] And God seeing that the wickedness of men was great on the earth, and that all the thought of their heart was bent upon evil at all times, (a verse after one having mentioned giants).

It seems that the Heidelbergians of Terra Amata were not tied to cannibalism. The one link showing Terra Amata and cannibalism together was a google book, the title being Prehistoric Art in Europe, by Nancy K. Sandars*** - and she talks of the concepts in two different paragraphs on page 35. She notes, even Homo habilis was right handed as a tool maker. Chimps are ambidextrous. Why? Well, the right hand is tied to the left brain hemisphere, which in man (but not chimps, obviously) is related to speech.

Note, Homo Antecessor is only known from Atapuerca, while Homo Heidelbergensis is known from several places, and some place Antecessor here.

Note also that morphologically, Heidelbergians like the Steinheim skull were at least as close if not closer to Neanderthals as to post-Flood Sapiens.

This means, they are about equally suspect of being Nephelim. Actually, since the Steinheim skull was found after the National Socialists took over, God could have shown a pre-Flood Nephelim to the emerging State horror, so as to hold up a kind of mirror.

Even if, however, neither a Neanderthal nor a Heidelbergian is in our direct ancestry, someone sharing traits with the former or with some of them is. That being so, Adam was more probably either Sapiens or very close to pure such, since there were only 10 generations spanning both Adam and Noah (in a time during which other lineages could have had time to diverge considerably more) and since Noah was pure from the Nephelim taint. So, if we are "Sapiens" race, so was Noah, if Noah was, so was, or was close enough, Adam. Only, some of us are closer to Neanderthals than others.

Sorry if I made this too rambling, I woke up early this morning.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
St. Scholastica°

* I therefore differ from Sarfati who thinks Neanderthals - pure, not Sapiens mixed - were a post-Flood race. Or he thought so in 2006. ** My countryman, if you want to suspect bias, maybe there is. *** Yale University Press, 1968 and second edition 1985.

° Apud montem Cassinum sanctae Scholasticae Virginis, sororis sancti Benedicti Abbatis, qui ejus animam, instar columbae, migrantem e corpore in caelum ascendere vidit.

mardi 30 janvier 2018

Why N. Mesopotamia / E. Anatolia Might Fit Better then S. Mesopotamia, Genesis 11

First, forget about Shinear being Sumer. Sumerians may have called their land Sumer because they claimed to overlordship over all Shinear, or it may ba a homophone or there may be some other glitch. But Sumer indicating Southern Mesopotamia only while North Mesopotamia was divided between Akkadians and Elamites and perhaps some more, that is a non-clue.

Next, Shinear means Mesopotamia.

This being so, S. Mesopotamia (where Sumer is, and perhaps Babylon would be its limit to N. Mesopotamia) and N. Mesopotamia are equally feasible. Real S. Mesopotamia were the delta lands which since back then have continued in a united delta of Shatt el Arab. The confluence between Euphrates and Tigris is just N. of Basra, which did not exist even the ground for in very Ancient times.

Now, here is the interesting stuff. There are two indications differentiating Babel of Nimrod from Babylon.

The first one is, we suppose that Babel of Nimrod, mentioned in Genesis 10, is equal to Babel of Confusion, mentioned in Genesis 11. Note very well, we would here have another example of a figure already shown between Genesis 1 and 2. One verse in chapter 10 is expanded to a full narrative in part of chapter 11.

Genesis 10:[10] And the beginning of his kingdom was Babylon, and Arach, and Achad, and Chalanne in the land of Sennaar.

Actually it is only the first half of the verse which corresponds to first half of chapter 11.

Note, Babylon is in Akkadian Bab-Ilu, "gate of the gods" or "of God", and in Hebrew that would be Bab-El (in the sense "gate of God"). A perfect homophone for that other Babel which means "babble" or "confusion".

So, we can identify Nimrod's Babylon with the Babel, with some safety of guessing. Nimrod meant it as Bab-El - a gate up to God - and Moses (with his predecessors, perhaps Abraham on this point of narrative) comments "And therefore the name thereof was called Babel, because there the language of the whole earth was confounded" like "let's ignore Nimrod's confused point, here is another confusion which is more important" or was at least more important in practical terms back then.

Now, why can't the Babel of Confusion be "Babylon" as in 32°32′11″N 44°25′15″E?

Because of previous verse : "And so the Lord scattered them from that place into all lands, and they ceased to build the city."

You can take it weakly and say "they ceased to build the city back then, but resumed building later". I take it strongly and say "they ceased to build the city and even made sure it would not be resumed by burying it in sand" - as you know my hobby horse the Babel of Confusion is Göbekli Tepe.

Would this mean the tying of Nimrod of Babylon - 32°32′11″N 44°25′15″E - is wrong? No. Babylon is a concept more than a locality. Babylon as 32°32′11″N 44°25′15″E was one of the ensuing materialisations of that concept, the one relevant for Daniel under Nebuchadnezzar's rule. Even 41°54′08″N 12°27′12″E seems to have been materialising the concept, to St Peter, at least according to the Catholic reading of I Peter 5:13. So, like the Babylon power has moved since Daniel's time from Babylon to Susa, from Susa to ... Pella? ... Alexandria? ... and from whereever the Greek manifestation was to Rome, the same power can easily have moved from Göbekli Tepe to Babylon, from 37°13′23″N 38°55′21″E to 32°32′11″N 44°25′15″E. The move South is 313'12", the move East is 329'54", and since 300 minutes are 5 degrees, it is for both directions a bit more than 5 degrees, and clearly less than 6 degrees.

So, if original Babylon was Göbekli Tepe, it is no huge mystery why Babylon as historically known would have the same name, while the covering of Göbekli Tepe in sand fits the verse 8 very well.

Now, here is what could be a clincher.

Genesis 11:2 And when they removed from the east, they found a plain in the land of Sennaar, and dwelt in it.

It does not say "they found the plain land called Shinear", it says they found a plain in Shinear.

At 32°32′11″N 44°25′15″E you won't find a plain, because everything everywhere around is a plain. You could just as well "find" a grain of sand in Sahara or a drop of water in the Ocean.

At 37°13′23″N 38°55′21″E, the land can still be considered as Shinear, since Shinear is Mesopotamia, the land between Euphrates and Tigris, but you can't consider the whole landscape as a plain. This means, the plain is sth which you can actually find, something which can actually surprise you.

Attribution of image : 37.223056,38.9225 on Google maps + turning 90° to the right.

I consulted the terms, it seems this is covered by fair use and even printed books under 5000 copies would be OK without specific permission.

Thank you very much, Google maps!

So, the area is hilly, but there is a plain somewhere here. It does not need to remain a complete plain to our times, especially if the city was covered in sand. Zooming out, in fact the plain as such could be the "Tek Tek Daghlari Milli Parki" (if I tie text to the right feature) - an area bounded by Sanliurfa in the North West corner, bounded in the West also by Sultantepe and Mutlukaya, and which has Harran in the middle (the people who consider Sanliurfa as Ur Chasdim also consider this as the Haran). Akçakale is in the middle of the South border. Gögeç is in the South East corner. Karaali and Mamuca are further North, Karaali on the East border and Mamuca a bit inside.

The surrounding country, including Göbekli Tepe itself, is hilly. The plain I just found on Google maps may very well be the same that they found back then - it is something which, unlike the plain at Babylon, which is definitely not standing out from any other plain, since all the area is plainly very plain. You can't find a plain inside a plain, you can only find a plain in hilly country. This is an indication I could be right.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
St. Martina, Virgin and Martyr

PS, it seems I lost the relevant part of the map while turning it to the right. Here it is:

PPS, I can as well add some big picture. I have underlined Göbekli Tepe, made a circle around the plain, and made pointers to high up points of Euphrates and Tigris:

As you can see, the plain is on the North border of Syria to Turkey./HGL

mardi 23 janvier 2018

Neat Argument - and Neat Answer, if I May Say So Myself

Anthony Zarrella is one of my favourite Catholic quorans.

We differ on who is Pope and we differ - respectfully - on Creation vs Evolution issue.

Anthony Zarrella

Is “trend” similar to “break”? Not really, no. But each step is similar to the step before it—and that’s only in four steps.

Your example of “break” to “trend” is isolated to one word.

Try changing whole texts from like to unlike, like “twinkle, twinkle, little star” to “it’s a long way to Tipperary” one letter at a time and each making sense as a text.

That comes closer to evolution “between kinds”.

The whole debate my be upcoming on Assorted Retorts, later, but for now I give this argument./HGL

mardi 16 janvier 2018

"Introibo" makes an ass of himself - unless his priest is abusing him

Creation vs. Evolution : "Introibo" makes an ass of himself - unless his priest is abusing him · Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : Introibo Blogger Misrepresents Galileo Case Inter Alia

Let us quote:

Moses*, who wrote the Book of Genesis, used the Hebrew word "yom"--which means a time period of unspecified length as it was used at the time. It was translated as "day."

It means day. Like day it can in some contexts mean sth other than 12 hours that are light or 24 consecutive hours shared outside polar regions between light and dark. If Pius XII - whom "Introibo" you later bring on - thought anything else, he was misled. He can have chosen to be misled.

"Whether in the designation and distinction of six days with which the account of the first chapter of Genesis deals, the word 'DAY' can be assumed either in its proper sense of a natural day, or in the improper sense of a certain space of time; and whether with regard to such a question there can be free disagreement among the exegetes?"

On June 30, 1909, the Commission (with full approval from His Holiness Pope St. Pius X) responded:


So far, fine.

Are you quoting the rest?

This also comports with the Commission's decision of June 23, 1905 (also approved by Pope St. Pius X) that Scripture gives historical accounts except "...where without opposing the sense of the Church and preserving its judgement, it is proved with strong arguments that the sacred writer did not wish to put down true history, and history properly so-called, but to set forth, under the appearance and form of history a parable, an allegory, or some meaning removed from the properly literal or historical significance of the words."

Yes, and as there are really and truly no such indications of Moses meaning sth else than giving history, the decision of 1905 clearly means that Genesis 1 to 11 is history, not fable, history, not allegorical fable (I am not saying there is no allegory in history!).

Key word PROVEN.

"In my opinion (and consistent with the decrees of the Pontifical Biblical Commission approved by Pope St. Pius X), Moses meant to convey that man was God's special creation, so the Earth (our planet) takes place of pride over the other celestial bodies."

No, Sir.

You stated it as your OPINION that Moses meant to convey sth other than a strictly historical account of not only what God did but how God did it.

Your OPINION is not PROVEN fact.

Therefore you are violating the decision of 1905 by deviating from Genesis 1 to 11 as history.

Next question?

Oh, yes, Humani Generis by the maybe Pope Pius XII.

"For these reasons the Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that ..."

Taste these words a little.

Catholics are allowed to remarry if they become widows or widowers, unless the widowers have first been ordained and unless widows or widowers have after loss of conjoint entered a monastery and made eternal vows.

No Pope could ever formulate this as "the pastoral authority of the church does not at present forbid widows and widowers to remarry, pending future modifications from research by psychiologists" or anything like that.

And the words corresponding to "at present" and "pending future" etc. while not in the line I just quoted are paralleled definitely all along the rest of the quote from Humani Generis. In other words, Humani Generis does not mean we can believe Evolution if we feel like it (the wording does not discuss what we are at liberty to believe in our hearts even) like definitions immemorable mean we are free to eat meat (unless it is a day when the Church forbids that).

You are also missing that you may not be an expert of both Biblical exegesis and natural sciences, I am probably more so than you on both accounts.

You proceed to complain of any Catholic disagreeing with you on holding Old Earth to be licit like a widower remarrying is definitely licit in a way totally disagreeing with the conditions posed by Pius XII, your darling:

"However, this must be done in such a way that the reasons for both opinions, that is, those favorable and those unfavorable to evolution, be weighed and judged with the necessary seriousness, moderation and measure, and provided that all are prepared to submit to the judgment of the Church, to whom Christ has given the mission of interpreting authentically the Sacred Scriptures and of defending the dogmas of faith."

Note, you are socially treating those differing from your way to a traditional way like heretics disputing the freedoms of Catholics. That is definitely incompatible with the condition here given.

Note also, Pacelli was a lawyer before he maybe became a Pope. He does not specify the decision of the Church has to be a future one. He is hiding, but not daring to deny it could well be that the decision is already given.

Church Fathers. Trent. 1905. 1909.

Here is a theologian from 1955, Sagues:

"It is assumed that the hypothesis is not certainly directly or indirectly opposed to revelation, since otherwise it would be totally rejected; it is assumed it can, since the Church does not forbid it, be freely discussed in the present-day context of theology and natural science (this does not include everyone), but only by experts in both camps"

I am in the anti-Evolution camp and after 15 years of debate, sorry, 16, an amateur expert (note, the Latin expertes does not involve the connotation of University accredited expertise that the translation has!) of both Biblical and Scientifical evidence relevant to the matter. I can therefore on these terms discuss it. Even assuming Pius XII was a true Pope, even assuming he was giving a charitable rather than an iniquitous judgement (being careful not to taint his infallibility by any direct favouring of the theory he seems by then to have favoured, to the detriment of his faith), even assuming I am schismatic for not recognising his authority, even assuming all this, I am not violating in fact his conditions.**

You are. Repeating his words to shut down the debate by those who have more definite reasons against Evolution than you have and even by those who would like to favour Evolution by argument more direct than merely "canonic", that is the very opposite of even his ruling. You are violating it.

Learn to read before you start to write.

Learn justice before you start judging.

The exact age of the earth in terms of how many centuries more or less, is not and probably cannot be infallibly defined.

We have Vulgate which can be read as 6000 years (which is why Haydock commentary on its translation Douay Rheims gives Ussher years for OT events).

We have LXX, the standard text of which can easily be read as the 7500 years of Syncellus or its near equivalent Byzantine martyrology (September 1 in their case, perhaps?).

We have the calculation of St Jerome, based on what seems to be a non-standard LXX version, perhaps a LXX tradition without the Second Cainan. In this sense, we were 7199 in 2000 AD. It is used in the Roman Martyrology for December 25.

There is an excellent reason why the Church is not deciding between these and defining one of these at the cost of the other ones. No one of these can claim exclusive rights to defending Biblical literal inerrantism on Genesis early history.

All of them do.

None of the at least first and last can be seen as violating Trent, or both do.

You define 6000 years, you ditch Roman Martyrology and therefore violate Trentine defense of Traditional Mass Liturgy.

You define 7200 years, you ditch the Vulgate reading and thereofore violate a rigorist at least reading of the "as contained in the Vulgate" clause of canonic books. Also a requirement of Trent.

But not deciding between 6000 and 7200 years is very far from not deciding between 6000 and 4.5 billion years. You are off by orders of magnitude between the latitude Catholicism actually allows.

Perhaps the days before creation of the Sun were not 24 hours long, but only 23 hours, 56 minutes, 4 seconds? The first light God created could have been rotating (see book I of De Genesis ad Litteram, read it through in a Loeb edition, not just the quote you love quotemining) at same speed as the aether which is presumably rotating around earth at full circle that time. Creation of Sun slowed the day down a bit.

Or, the Church has not condemned the Augustinian position which Palmar de Troya dared to dogmatise : "in one moment" (taken from a discussion from same work, but books 5 and 6*** - a discussion St Augustine ends by noting a one moment creation is not a compulsory feat of mental gymnastics, it is fine for beginners at least to stick with the actual six days).

In other words, the question has its shades - and evades certain nuances like directly asking on long ages - and the answer is as rough and ready as I was asked to yesterday by a believer in OSAS.°

This does not directly make the answer applicable as an affirmative to a specific version of the "not 24 hours".

The question was not posed as involving long ages as one such alternative to strictly 24 hours. There may have been an attempt to do so, and it may have been sent back unpublished with comments (not from Pope St Pius X, certainly) "on these terms I can give no wiggle room : you want wiggle room, be less specific". Presumably more direct wiggle room could have been given with Rampolla as Pope - and Pacelli was, I seem to recall, close to Rampolla at this or some close time.

In sum, you have done a nice work of quotemining and discussing glibly documents of Church Authority which you seem incapable of totally grasping the implications of, you have shown yourself as an ass (donkey) in the process of being the other kind of ass towards the kind of Traditional Catholics you don't happen to like. Because they take social risks you don't feel prepared to take and you feel implied even in their taking this.

Meanwhile, since the actual terms of Pius XII involved a weighing of evidence, it is noteworthy that the evidence which has come up since then on the Creationist side is being ignored and also purposefully ignored, but it is there.

And it is momentous, since a Creationist timeline of Göbekli Tepe would probably make it Babel, and that means wheat is post-Flood, and that means Cain when sacrificing "fruits of the earth" was not sacrificing wheat.

And non-Catholics - both Protestant and Jews - are contributing to showing it. Are we seeing the children of the kingdom (that is, of the Catholic Church) about to be thrown out and strangers about to be invited?

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
Pope St Marcellus I°°

PS The addition in the title refers to the possibility that the laymen called "Introibo" on the web, since anonymously or pseudonymously writing the blog "Introibo ad altare Dei" could be handing on what he had from a priest who, in this fashion, is not attacked himself by those responding to it./HGL

PPS, here are references to fuller text of Bible commission 1909 and 1905: 1905 & 1909 - when I accuse someone of quotemining, I had better not ask everyone else to just take my word for it, let alone himself.

PPPS, spotted a "psychiologists" which should obviously be shorter by an i.

* "Introibo" : Monkey Business About Creation

** Note : when I started, or a little after that, I was Palmarian. I was therefore believing the Church had already given a definition subsequent to Humani Generis, since that is what Gregorio XVII did (he went for 6000 years, not 7200, see below for details). But more importantly, I already knew that the Church had really defined the question by its being there in all Church Fathers treating on it as per Trent.

*** I think St Augustine may also have discussed his one moment creation briefly in Confessiones, since the six days had prevented his conversion from Gnostic or Manichaean as in "why would God need so much time".

° Catholic magisterium has some in common with Evangelical street preachers (though this one was over internet) and I am not writing magisterially. The commission of St Pius X was.

°° Romae, via Salaria, natalis sancti Marcelli Primi, Papae et Martyris; qui, ob catholicae fidei confessionem, jubente Maxentio tyranno, primo caesus est fustibus, deinde ad servitium animalium cum custodia publica deputatus, et ibidem, serviendo indutus amictu cilicino, defunctus est.