mardi 10 juillet 2018

What an Occasion!

I found this article - by an Evolution believing probable Atheist, quote and then link:

Let’s imagine a Creationist World (CW), where some rational agent called “God” made everything. In CW, the ultimate explanation for everything about the human race leads back to one first principle: God. In this world we could ask: “Why are there many races, cultures, and languages in this world?” The answer is: “Because God wanted there to be many different humans.” Likewise for other questions; “Why are there two sexes and not one or three?”, “Why are there three spatial dimensions?” In this fictional world, all questions would end up being answered ultimately by “God”, and this would include questions of physics and biology. The division of faith and reason would be different in the Fictional World, and science would perhaps be a sub-field of theology.

God vs. the Fact/Value Distinction
December 31, 2015 Adam Voight

Well, Adam, who says that CW (Creationist World) is fiction?

But let’s say that in this world we have some ignorant Dogmatic Atheists. In spite of the existence of a well-founded theory that explains physics, biology and ethics in a set of parsimonious and coherent laws, there are a few ‘irreligious extremists’ who refuse to ‘believe in’ God. I put ‘believe in’ in quotes because CW atheists are different from atheists in our world. In CW, there are very few people who think that God does not exist (‘metaphysical atheists’) , since God has been proven to exist by secular CW cosmology and biology. In CW, atheists tend to believe that even though a God exists, this God has no right to boss us around with his so-called ‘Moral Law’. We shall call these atheists ‘axiological atheists’ (or ‘AA’); they might say that “Sure God made us, but who is He to force us to suffer and die for no good reason? I never voted him God! He might send me to Hell for saying this, but that would just be yet another wrong done to humanity by God. Just because God can enforce his so-called ‘laws’ does not make him right. After all, you can’t get an ‘ought’ from an ‘is’. That would be the naturalistic fallacy.”

Well, there seems to be an inverted parallel to Axiological Christians in "our real world" or sth ...

Does the AA have anything to say for himself? Not much, He can call the CWTs ‘reductionists’, since they try to ‘reduce’ value statements to factual statements. But the application of this label only seems compelling to people who have an ethics without any basis in fact. It’s hard to see how you can ‘explain’ anything at all without ‘reducing’ it to something else. Since Aristotle, ‘explanation’ has come to mean ‘to subsume a particular under a wider universal’, with said universal being agreed upon by all or most of those who would know. In rejecting what he calls ‘reductionism’, in this way, the AA has also rejected the basis of all explanation.

Two observations:

  • Making the fact-value distinction such that they are totally independent of each other is obviously not correct Thomism, it is instead the pseudophilosophy of Kant. If even as much as just that.
  • However, reductionism has a meaning. There is such a thing as a basic imperative, which then applies to fact. It is "do good, avoid evil". Obviously, what is good and what is evil has to be about facts. Life and mind are in the category good, insensitivity and death in the category evil. But one can indeed imagine men who knowing all the facts chose to ignore the imperative, who knowingly chose to do evil - because of lesser goods it does them, like excitement or feeling of power and so on.

This is of course why the tenet that we DO in actual fact live in a Creationist World and that it is the Evolutionist World which is fiction has to be defended. While some people will ignore the implications of evolution, while others will try to cumbrously mitigate antiethical consequences (or some of them, Feminism as Marxists see it is also antiethical, and Adam Voigt does not seem to be against that), this is bound to crumble in a society which blinded by state or corporation sponsored brainwashing about "facts" like "millions of years" or "we evolved from mindless things", some will in fact start to explore the ethical consequences of Evolution.

I think, unlike Adam Voight, they are ultimately un-Ethical.

Let's take the five ways and see how each way somehow (divorced from what follows in following parts of the Summa) could be replaced with an Atheist and Evolutionist equivalent.

  • I God as first mover could be replaced by energy.
  • II God as first cause could be replaced by matter/energy.
  • III God as first necessary being could be replaced by "atomic" matter.

In some of the updated versions, since Einstein, probably matter would itself be a form of energy, and therefore all three first ways have "energy" instead of God. This seems to be fairly on the "facts-side" of any fact-value distinction, and therefore not have much ethical consequence, or perhaps have non-ethicality as consequence. There are two more.

  • IV The fourth way is taken from the gradation to be found in things. Among beings there are some more and some less good, true, noble and the like. But "more" and "less" are predicated of different things, according as they resemble in their different ways something which is the maximum, as a thing is said to be hotter according as it more nearly resembles that which is hottest; so that there is something which is truest, something best, something noblest and, consequently, something which is uttermost being; for those things that are greatest in truth are greatest in being, as it is written in Metaph. ii. Now the maximum in any genus is the cause of all in that genus; as fire, which is the maximum heat, is the cause of all hot things. Therefore there must also be something which is to all beings the cause of their being, goodness, and every other perfection; and this we call God. - Here the noblest thing would be, on Atheistic view, whatever is "most evolved" ... and next brings us to meaning of "evolved":
  • V The fifth way is taken from the governance of the world. We see that things which lack intelligence, such as natural bodies, act for an end, and this is evident from their acting always, or nearly always, in the same way, so as to obtain the best result. Hence it is plain that not fortuitously, but designedly, do they achieve their end. Now whatever lacks intelligence cannot move towards an end, unless it be directed by some being endowed with knowledge and intelligence; as the arrow is shot to its mark by the archer. Therefore some intelligent being exists by whom all natural things are directed to their end; and this being we call God. - This intelligence, atheism denies, and puts in its place "failure of all that can fail".

Let's list some type cases:

  • 1) Universe would on their view exist because singularity failed to stay lumped together.

  • 2) Solar system would on their view exist because gasses and dust got so heavy they failed to stay aloof. Remains going through inertia and gravity. No free activity nor lightness allowed.

  • 3) Abiogenesis - this seems not to apply, but that is an exception. In fact, failure of all that could have failed would realistically have led to NON-development of life.

  • 4) Biological evolution - failure of less adapted forms favours the more adapted (and somehow this replaces the need for intelligence in adaptions).

  • 5) Agriculture - was invented because hunting failed.

This means, the ultimate hero in evolutionary cosmology is - death.

As I don't believe this is true, I don't believe the ethical consequences of such a view either. But I think the view exists, at least in hiding in a more explicit form than usually stated, closer to how I did it, and will be produced again and again as long as evolutionary cosmology keeps getting the promotion it gets, and sooner or later will come out pretty quickly and openly - and it will not be pretty. National socialism was one try at it, Communism an even more thorough one (unlike NS putting nations on the "has to die" list, as such, while NS preferred putting specific nations there), and it was not pretty. Transgenics is not pretty. Transhumanism is not pretty.

It is probable some of the very not at all pretty ethics in administrations (abortion, contraception, specific homo-rights as opposed to them sharing normal rights and duties, psychiatry, child welfare, school compulsion) partly is under cover planned by people overtly being that kind of death cult, and even more probable that Evolution and Kant each in their own way (for Kant, see Hannah Arendt's comments on Eichmann), contribute on a not quite conscious level to what is horrible in modern society. As a kind of sacrifice or hymn to "death" and "necessity".

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
Seven sons of Saint Felicity
Martyrs in Rome*

* Romae passio sanctorum septem Martyrum fratrum, filiorum sanctae Felicitatis Martyris, id est Januarii, Felicis, Philippi, Silvani, Alexandri, Vitalis et Martialis, tempore Antonini Imperatoris, sub Praefecto Urbis Publio. Ex ipsis vero Januarius, post virgarum verbera et carceris macerationem, plumbatis occisus; Felix et Philippus fustibus mactati; Silvanus praecipitio interemptus; Alexander, Vitalis et Martialis capitali sententia puniti sunt.

dimanche 1 juillet 2018

Trying to Break Down "Reverse Danube" or "Reverse Euphrates" Concept

Creation vs. Evolution : How Much was Shinar Devastated by the Flood? · You Find a Fossil Whale Here, a Fossil Pterosaur There ... · Answering Carter and Cosner on Eden · Trying to Break Down "Reverse Danube" or "Reverse Euphrates" Concept · Correspondence of Hans Georg Lundahl : With Damien Mackey on Four Rivers and Related, I to X · Continuing Previous, XI to XX - are Nile Rivers Excluded? · Continuing Previous : XXI to XXXIII - getting to Troy (as we Tend to Do)

If we say that pre-Flood Frat went South to North from where Persian Gulf is, along present Euphrates or roughly, continued into Danube going from Dobrugea to where the Alps now are and continuing from there to Rhine and Seine and Garonne and on onto the Sea, or that pre-Flood Hiddekel went South to North along Tigris, continued North along Don or Volga and from there East to Syr Darya and Amu Darya and from then out into Yang Tse Kiang, and similarily divided the other first two rivers into North to South White and Blue Niles continuing into respectively Niger Kongo South of White Nile and Indus or Ganges East of Blue Nile, and a river in South Arabia between, because there is a Havilah there, then we are in a way squaring the circle of both affirming and denying identity of Four Rivers with present Hydrology : affirming partially and sufficiently to warrant Moses' language, denying however the complete identity.

We seem also to run into an explanation problem with CMI, who seem better at scientific theories worded in the words they are used to, their own or their adversaries', than at words of an unexpected ally.

I got a very bleak response from Robert Carter when posting the previous reply to him.

So, I'll try to break it down.

  • one problem seems to be how ANY hydrology could survive the Flood at ALL;
  • another seems to be how any drainage basin could have reversed its direction.

A river is not just a fairly narrow strip of water. It is a fairly broad so called drainage basin, which has smaller contributaries flowing to that strip of water. I agree that a 1 km broad strip of river bed could easily have been covered in sediment or wiped off with the surrounding walls as they eroded under Flood.

ONLY, this is not quite the case for drainage basins 100's or 1000's of kilometers in width.

If a very strong current during the Flood flowed simply along, it would enforce its already existing concavity. Either direction, upstreams or downstreams.

If it flowed instead across, this is less evident. If it flowed across and eroded, arguably it would leave a deepening and rounding of concavity. Only if it flowed across and deposed sediment, it would obfuscate the original concave shape.

My scenario actually argues this happened in places, since if I am right pre-Flood Frat would have been same basin along Euphrates, Black Sea/Kaukasus, Danube and Rhine, Seine and Garonne. But now Kaukasus cuts Euphrates off from Danube, and Alps cut Danube off from Rhine and the rest. And Danube cut off from Euphrates flows into Black Sea and Mediterranean, Euphrates cut off from Black Sea and Danube flows into Persian Gulf - where it originally, on my view, came from (unless from Jordan, as Damien Mackey would argue, where I have reservations at least for immediately pre-Flood times).

This partial cutting off of pre-Flood major drainage basins would explain also reversals of direction, at least combined with the rise of folded mountains in the post-Flood era, as water drained off into the sea.

Finally, a strip of new sediment in between older and harder stone - which a river bed as such could often be just after Flood - could be the bit which sudden drainages of dams broke through, since softer : this way Euphrates would in more than one place (North of immediate post-Flood mouth) actually coincide with pre-Flood Frat, except for direction, even as to river bed. I'll elaborate one point on parenthesis. South Iraq did not exist as land in immediate post-Flood times. Babel was arguably not near today's Babylon or Baghdad, as these were arguably under water. But Mesopotamia is also Assyria, which straddles NW Iraq, E Turkey and N Syria. And a plain in N Syria is just south of a hill in Turkey which is now known as Göbekli Tepe. It is nearly due NW from Babylon, and if Nimrod's successors moved, a move a bit more than 5° S and a bit more than 5° E would be a symbolic identity marker.

Hans Georg Lundahl
VI Lord's Day after Pentecost

Update 5.VII.2018:

I was debating this with Damien Mackey, who seems to have some good reasons from Sirach to debunk PARTS of this solution. There Gihon does seem distinct from Nile. It could be Gihon is going the way of the Danube instead or it could be it is the Blue Nile, if Abyssinians made wine where they now make coffee. I'll not be dogmatic about each identification, since Church Fathers do not agree./HGL

Can Genesis stand after chapter 11 if you accept uniformitarian dates?


Very simple : defending Genesis 19 and destruction of Sodom will involve you in young earth creationism, at least one tenet on carbon dating, as surely as defending Tower of Babel.

The reason is this:

  • Ebla tablets and all later non-Hebrew tablets or papyri with an outlook on contemporary events do not mention Sodom;
  • But Ebla tablets are carbon dated as starting c. 2400 BC;
  • And destruction of Sodom (Genesis 19) is Biblically around 2000 BC or rather more recent, prior to which Sodom was a flourishing city, which allied to Abraham could take on marauders from Mesopotamia (Genesis 14-15).

If both Biblical dates for Sodom and Carbon dates for Ebla tablets are correct, it is a complete mystery why the ones holding archives at Ebla were not in diplomatic contact with Sodom.

But if Biblical date is correct, and Sodom was even so destroyed prior to Ebla tablets, then it follows that Ebla's carbon dates are off. By some centuries.

In my tables, Ebla tablets would be beginning after Joseph in Egypt. 1730 BC as burial of Joseph's Pharao Djoser would be misdated as 2600 sth BC by the originally lower carbon 14 level in his coffin. Therefore Ebla was beginning its archives between Joseph and Exodus, not before Abraham.

Again, another Classic on YEC territory, apart from "rising carbon 14 content in athmosphere" is Flood legends around the world. One of them is the Greek one. Some of the deviations in the Greek legend from Noah's flood is, on my view, not at all arbitrary "anything goes" but conflating Flood (kept) with Destruction of Sodom (rejected), and replacing Noah's family relations with a conflation of Abraham and Sarah's and Lot and his daughters'.

So, Greek Flood myth gives you the independent hint on Sodom which Ebla tablets deny.

But appealing to lower carbon content or legends around the world as support and explanation for dating discrepancy is precisely the kind of argument we YEC like to make, and some of you don't tend to accept. Are you willing to say Sodom wasn't defended by Abraham, inhabited by Lot and destroyed by fire, just so you can ditch that?

Jews, but hardly Christians, could instead appeal to "lost millennium". Between Exodus and Temple of Solomon, instead of 480, read 1480 years. Problem : this makes shipwreck of the genealogies of Christ in Matthew and Luke.

Hans Georg Lundahl
VI Sunday after Pentecost

jeudi 28 juin 2018

Answering Carter and Cosner on Eden

Creation vs. Evolution : How Much was Shinar Devastated by the Flood? · You Find a Fossil Whale Here, a Fossil Pterosaur There ... · Answering Carter and Cosner on Eden · Trying to Break Down "Reverse Danube" or "Reverse Euphrates" Concept · Correspondence of Hans Georg Lundahl : With Damien Mackey on Four Rivers and Related, I to X · Continuing Previous, XI to XX - are Nile Rivers Excluded? · Continuing Previous : XXI to XXXIII - getting to Troy (as we Tend to Do)

Here is their part 2:

Where was Eden? part 2: geological considerations—examining pre-Flood geographical details in the biblical record
by Robert Carter and Lita Cosner

I defend that Frat and Hiddekel are Euphrates and Tigris.

Here are two problems they find with this:

Where did the antediluvian Tigris and Euphrates flow to if there was no Persian Gulf?

And, citing Carol Hill:

But modern geological study has shown (by oil drilling) that the landscape of southern Iraq is underlain by six miles [10 km] of sedimentary rock. Thus the question can be asked: How could the Garden of Eden, which existed on a pre-flood landscape existing before the flood, have been located over six miles of sedimentary rock created during the flood.

Here is a solution taking both into account:

  • Frat and Hiddekel were flowing FROM a land which is now covered by Persian Gulf.
  • They were flowing North, as they now flow South.
  • Immediate pre-Flood Iraq was probably covered in Sea. This sea could have resulted from a smaller Flood, as Josephus records one coming as a warning (Antiquities, I think smaller flood came at contraceptives, Flood of Noah when marriage songs were sung for two women or especially two men - from memory).
  • Rivers are "identic" by the fact of same riverbed partially being there, though with a reversed direction.

It may be noted that St Thomas Aquinas (Prima Pars, Q 102, read all), partly following St Augustine, considered that Paradise was an unexplored country and that for instance Euphrates and Tigris had visible sources separate from an original (now) underground source, which need not have been so.

I have wondered whether Earthly Paradise, to preserve it from the Flood, was lifted off Earth and put somewhere higher up in the heavens, and whether Enoch and Elijah went there. If so, we would not have a place which is Paradise or a place which covers Paradise, but a place from which Paradise was lifted up. However, immediately after, Paradise was separated from Man by wall and by angels carrying swords in the porch, and one could find a place East of Eden ... which I consider to be India or Himalayas. (I am not a Hindoo in any way shape or form, and my views of Krishna would at least offend some, my views on Shiva all of them : but this does not mean Mahabharata is ahistoric nonsense, it could be memories from Nod).

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris XIII
Vigil of Sts Peter and Paul

Their footnote for Carol Hill reads: Hill, C.A., The Garden of Eden: A modern landscape, Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith 52:31–46, 2000.

Update on Enoch and Elijas in earthly paradise:

(St. Thomas) Supplement to III Part:
Question 69. Matters concerning the resurrection, and first of the place where souls are after death
Article 7. Whether so many abodes should be distinguished?

Objection 5. Further, the earthly paradise is distinct from the heavenly paradise. Now some were borne away to the earthly paradise after this state of life, as is related of Enoch and Elias. Since then the earthly paradise is not counted among the five abodes, it would seem that there are more than five.

Reply to Objection 5. The earthly paradise belongs to the state of the wayfarer rather than to the state of those who receive for their merits; and consequently it is not reckoned among the abodes whereof we are treating now.

But as Enoch and Elijas were taken up, it would seem, earthly paradise has been taken up before them./HGL

mercredi 20 juin 2018

For my Part, I have a Shorter Ice Age in a Longer St Jerome Chronology

Creation vs. Evolution : CMI has a Long Ice Age in a Shortish Ussher Chronology · For my Part, I have a Shorter Ice Age in a Longer St Jerome Chronology · HGL's F.B. writings :Carbon Dating Debate

In case you missed it when reading previous, I don't think carbon makes Biblical chronology impossible or even highly suspect. I am just dealing with a shorter ice age and its ending earlier on in the Biblical chronology.

Here is my latest table, back in this article:

Refining table Flood to Abraham - and a doubt

Citing four highlights, adding an ice age related one:

Flood 2957 BC (directly stated in Christmas proclamation)
Carbon level estimated between 2 and 4 pmc?

[Younger Dryas
= end of ice age, carbon dated 10 600 to 9 600 BC]

Babel begins 2602 BC (my deduction)
42.89 pmc, 9600 BC

Babel ends 2562 BC (my deduction)
48.171 pmc, 8600 BC

Genesis 14, 1935 BC
85.811 pmc, 3200 BC

Carbon dates for Babel are deduced from Babel = Göbekli Tepe.

As per previous article, it should be clear that "42.89 pmc, 9600 BC" is short for "42.89 pmc = 7000 extra years, 2602 BC + 7000 = '9600 BC'."

Actually, parts of the speed for carbon production are higher than what I constructed for implication of CMI's ice age estimate.

But I am avoiding to put Genesis 14 during Ice age, Exodus during Neolithic, Solomon's Temple during beginnings of Sumer, not just by having some more "wiggles in my own curve" than what I made for CMI, but also by ending Ice Age sooner after Flood and taking this as earlier before Abraham than it would have been in an Ussher chronology.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
Pope St Silverius

dimanche 17 juin 2018

CMI has a Long Ice Age in a Shortish Ussher Chronology

Creation vs. Evolution : CMI has a Long Ice Age in a Shortish Ussher Chronology · For my Part, I have a Shorter Ice Age in a Longer St Jerome Chronology · HGL's F.B. writings :Carbon Dating Debate

Why no mention of the Ice Age in the Bible?
Published: 16 June 2018 (GMT+10)

From articles on our website you will see that the Post-Flood Ice Age began immediately after the Flood when the ocean temperatures (and possible atmospheric volcanic dust) favoured the build-up of ice on the continents. This build-up continued, it is estimated, for 500 years until it reached peak ice, and then began to melt back over the following 200 years.

So, Ice age definitely ends, i e Younger Dryas, at 700 after Flood.

Usher makes Noe enter the ark on the 18th Dec. 1656.

(From Haydock comment Genesis 7:11)

4004 BC Creatio Mundi
1656 Flood Anno Mundi
2348 BC Flood
1648 BC

Ice Age ending and therefore Younger Dryas at after Abraham ...

This is the third grand epoch of the world, about 2083, when God chooses one family to maintain the one faith, which he had all along supported.

Haydock on Genesis 12:1

2083 Voc Abrahae Anno Mundi
1921 Voc Abrahae BC

I think this is very problematic, since carbon dates for Younger Dryas (to which carbon dating is applied) is 10600 BC to 9600 BC - the "thousand years" just before Göbekli Tepe and its "thousand years".

But Abraham, while alive 2015 BC to 1840 BC would have been c. 80 (Genesis 13 and 14, c. 1935 BC) at a time from which dated objects get carbon dates of c. 3000 BC, maybe a bit more even.

The atmosphere in the day of Abraham's 80th birthday or so would not both have had 85 - 86 pmc to explain the extra one thousand years and some century that Proto-Dynastic Egypt gets dated too old and at the same time be at less than 33 - 34 pmc to explain Younger Dryas as carbon dated (by that carbon content) 8952 years older than the 1648 year when it was really over, on the CMI view.

I am taking the view Abraham lived in an atmosphere with about 14 - 15 percent less carbon 14 than ours in Genesis 13 - 14.

If they see it through, in late patriarchal or Israel in Egypt times, the carbon content was 33.8 pmc, and from 1648 it rose from that to 100 pmc in c. 590 BC (destruction of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar).

How fast would carbon have had to be produced for that to happen?

The 33.8 pmc would in 1000 years decay by 88.606 %. The normal restoration in that time is therefore 11.394 pmc points. Or, let's get to two times 500 years - 500 years leave 94.131 %, so restore 5.869 pmc points, twice that being 11.738 pmc points. Or four times 250 years, each time leaving 97.021 % and normal restoration being 2.979 pmc points, of which the quadruple is 11.916 pmc points. If we break it down to 16 times 62.5 years, 99.247 % means 0.753 pmc points restoration, of which 16 times is 12.048 pmc points - not much more than if you take all 1000 years as a whole.

Now, 100 - 33.8 = 66.2 pmc points. Divide that by 16, 4.1375 pmc points. In 62.5 years, you go from 33.8 pmc points to 37.9375.

33.8 pmc * 99.247 % = 33.545486 pmc.

37.9375 pmc - 33.545486 pmc = 4.392014 pmc points carbon 14 production. 4.392014 / 0.753 = 5.833 times faster than normal (I rounded). This is actually a lower ratio than if I tried to deal with all of the rise in one go.

33.8 pmc * 88.606 % = 29.948828 pmc points. 100 - 29.948828 = 70.051172 pmc points. 70.051172 / 11.394 = 6.148 times faster - except when you break it down, as above, it is only 5.833 times faster.

So, yes, a rise of 33.8 pmc to 100 pmc from 1648 to 648 BC is physically feasible. The problem comes with archaeology.

1648 BC 33.8 pmc + 8950 years
  1648 + 8950 "10598 BC"
1585 BC 37.9375 pmc + 8000 years
  1585 + 8000 "9585 BC"
1523 BC 42.075 pmc + 7150 years
  1523 + 7150 "8673 BC"
1460 BC 46.2125 pmc + 6400 years
  1460 + 6400 "7860 BC"
1398 BC 50.35 pmc + 5650 years
  1398 + 5650 "7048 BC"
1335 BC 54.4875 pmc + 5000 years
  1335 + 5000 "6335 BC"
1273 BC 58.625 pmc + 4400 years
  1273 + 4400 "5673 BC"
1210 BC 62.7625 pmc + 3850 years
  1210 + 3850 "5060 BC"
1148 BC 66.9 pmc + 3300 years
  1148 + 3300 "4448 BC"
1085 BC 71.0375 pmc + 2850 years
  1085 + 2850 "3935 BC"
1023 BC 75.175 pmc + 2350 years
  1023 + 2350 "3373 BC"
Solomon's Temple?
960 BC 79.3125 pmc + 1900 years
  960 + 1900 "2860 BC"
898 BC 83.45 pmc + 1500 years
  898 + 1500 "2398 BC"
835 BC 87.5875 pmc + 1100 years
  835 + 1100 "1935 BC"
773 BC 91.725 pmc + 710 years
  773 + 710 "1483 BC"
710 BC 95.8625 pmc + 350 years
  710 + 350 "1060 BC"
648 BC 100 pmc +/- 0 years
  648 +/- 0 648 BC !

Exodus carbon dated between abandoning of Göbekli Tepe and beginning of Çatal Höyük? King Solomon's Temple contemprary with carbon dated independent Sumeria, before there was a Babylon?

Er, no.

This is why putting the end of the ice age as late as CMI do is not really a good idea, especially if they also use Ussher's chronology.

No wonder that with this in mind, many Creationists are abandoning the idea of getting a reliable carbon table - as in carbon dates related to real and Biblical dates.

Obviously, this problem does not exist if you take my approach, use a longer time between Flood and Abraham (as per St Jerome's chronology where post-Flood patriarchs are like Samaritan version, or as per Syncellus' chronology, where you go full normal LXX), and end ice age, put Younger Dryas, before Babel, i e chronologically identify Göbekli Tepe and Babel.

Hans Georg Lundahl
IV Lord's Day after Pentecost

vendredi 15 juin 2018

You Find a Fossil Whale Here, a Fossil Pterosaur There ...

Creation vs. Evolution : How Much was Shinar Devastated by the Flood? · You Find a Fossil Whale Here, a Fossil Pterosaur There ... · Answering Carter and Cosner on Eden · Trying to Break Down "Reverse Danube" or "Reverse Euphrates" Concept · Correspondence of Hans Georg Lundahl : With Damien Mackey on Four Rivers and Related, I to X · Continuing Previous, XI to XX - are Nile Rivers Excluded? · Continuing Previous : XXI to XXXIII - getting to Troy (as we Tend to Do)

If boulders of stone have been transported over 500 km, why should fossils tell us exactly where the animal lived?

Well, a stone that has been transported over 500 km might be huge, but it is probably lots smaller than it started out as.

A skeleton which has been transported over 500 km during the Flood ... I don't think there are many recognisable parts of it.

So, if a place in Tyrol has a Pterosaur, Linz has a whale, a place called Nussdorf just outside Vienna has both a whale and a seal, well, the fossils have been recognised. This means chances are they were buried before they had time to get transported far away.

And that means, a place in Tyrol was land or an island, Vienna was sea shore, Linz was sea in pre-Flood times./HGL