jeudi 8 décembre 2016

In Reparation, to Honour the Feast : St Thomas (?) on Genesis 3:14, 15


Et ait dominus ad serpentem.
Ubi dat poenas pro peccato. Et debito procedit ordine: quia sicut peccaverunt, ita secundum ordinem puniuntur.

Quia fecisti hoc, ideo maledictus eris.
Aliqui exponunt literam istam moraliter, referendo ad mores. Vel ad malitiam Diaboli, exponendo mystice non literaliter. Tamen credo quod potest literaliter exponi de serpente vero. Nam ex facto isto est animal generi humano odiosum: quia fuit primae praevaricationis instrumentum. Unde sicut signum crucis est Diabolo odiosum, quia fuit instrumentum quo Christus exhibuit nobis nostrae liberationis beneficium: ita similiter serpens est apud homines maledictus, quia fuit talis maledictionis instrumentum.

Unde est maledictus super omnes bestias terrae.
Et licet sit animal venenosum, tamen ex eventu isto est redditum magis odiosum. Quare autem est punitus serpens, cum non sit animal quod habeat liberum arbitrium? Dicendum quod illud fuit ad ostensionem divinae justitiae, et scandalum vitandum, ne videretur quod Deus peccatum alicujus naturae intellectualis dimitteret impunitum: ideo sicut fuerat in eo aliqua similitudo intellectualis, quia scilicet loquebatur: ita esset in eo aliqua similitudo poenae inflictae pro peccato.

Quod autem sequitur, super pectus tuum gradieris, et terram comedes omnibus diebus vitae tuae,
quidam exponunt et dicunt quod serpentes tunc ibant et incedebant erecti, et vescebantur fructibus, vivebantque de terrae nascentibus, sicut recitat Magister in historiis. Unde quod super suum pectus gradiantur, habent ex ista sententia, non ex natura. Hoc autem frivolum videtur. Nam nos non videmus quod habeant pedes vel instrumenta quibus possent incedere erecti, cum pars eorum ultima sit in fine debilior ad totum corpus, et ita illud ei non possit inniti. Ideo dico quod aliqua incommoda sunt quae habent serpentes ex ista sententia, sicut quod est maledictus et horribilis redditus ex isto facto, et ex facti consideratione fidelibus, et ex instinctu aliquo per divinam justitiam et ordinationem complantato in omnibus forte, sicut etiam est sequens poena quae ponitur consequenter cum dicitur: inimicitias ponam inter te et mulierem. Aliqua autem sunt incommoda quae habuit ante, sicut ista, super pectus tuum gradieris, et terram comedes. Et ista ponuntur et replicantur ut ex hoc aggraventur alia, et appareat major poena, sicut major est afflictio addita infirmo quam sano.

Inimicitias ponam inter te et mulierem.
Ad literam credo quod ex aliquo instinctu facto in muliere a Deo, habet quemdam horrorem et imaginationem quasi naturalem ad ipsum serpentem. Unde fit ut mulieres magis nitantur istam speciem exterminare, et caput suum conterere. Vel aliter dici potest, quod mulier ex natura habeat, sicut sexus infirmus, quod ista venenosa horreat, quod ante non horrebat in statu innocentiae: et tunc hoc habebat ex speciali dono divinae gratiae, quod poterat certitudinaliter istorum nocumenta vitare, ac ideo non curabat ista persequi: sicut etiam ex natura complexionis nunc patitur in partu mulier, tamen ex gratia Dei non pateretur in statu innocentiae. Ideo ex culpa quae istam gratiam privavit, est ista poena. Item poterat esse quod aliquid erat in animalibus brutis, et aliqua impressio qua homini obediebant et parebant. Ista autem omnia cessaverunt per hominis culpam. Animalia enim fuerunt suis naturalibus passionibus relicta, et mulier fuit omni gratia destituta: et gratia gratum faciente, et omni alia gratis data. Ideo ex peccato factae sunt inimicitiae isto modo inter serpentem et mulierem.

Unde dicitur: ipsa conteret caput tuum, et tu insidiaberis calcaneo illius.
Quod dictum est secundum literam; quia serpens ambulat super pectus, insidiatur calcaneo, sicut parti sibi propinquae, ad quam facilius potest attingere: et ipsa conteret caput tuum. Quia aliquid haerens terrae, de facili potest ipsum terere.


And the Lord God said to the serpent.
Where He gives punishement for the sin. And He proceeds in order : as they sinned, so in order they are punished.

Because thou hast done this thing, thou art cursed
Some expose this letter morally, referring to behaviour. Or to the malice of the Devil, exposing mystically, not literally. Even se, I think it can be literally exposed about the real serpent. For from this act, the animal is odious to human kind: since it was instrumental in the first prevarication. Whence, as the sign of the Cross is odious to the Devil, since it was the instrument by which Christ gave us the benefice of our liberation: so similarily the serpent is cursed among men, since it was instrument for such a malediction.

Whence it is cursed among all cattle, and beasts of the earth.
And though the animal be venomous, even so from this event it is rendered more odious. But why was the serpent punished, when it be no animal having free will? One should say that that was to show forth divine justice and avoid scandal, so that it should not seem that God forgives sin by any intellectual nature unpunished: so, as there had been in it some similarity to an intellectual nature, namely since it was talking: so there should be in it some similarity to a punishment inflicted for sin.

But what follows, upon thy breast shalt thou go, and earth shalt thou eat all the days of thy life,
some expose and say that serpents were then walking and going forth upright, and eating fruits and living of what was born of the ground, as the Master recites in the histories. Whence, that they are walking on their breast, they have of this sentence, not from nature. But this seems frivolous. For we do not see they have feet or instruments by which they would be able to go forth uprightly, since their last part be weaker in the end to all the body, and this it cannot uphold it. Therefore I say that some incommodity that serpents have of this sentence, as that it is cursed and rendered horrid from this act, and from its consideration to the faithful, and from some instinct by divine justice and ordination strongly complanted in all, as also is the following punishment which is posed thereafter when it is said: I will put enmities between thee and the woman. But some are incommodities which it had before, as this, thou shalt crawl in they breast and eat dust. And these are posed and replicated so that therefrom the other punishment should be aggravated and appear greater, since a greater affliction is added on the infirm than on the healthy.

I will put enmities between thee and the woman [and thy seed and her seed]
To the letter I think that from some instinct God put in woman, she has a kind of so to speak natural horror and imagination to the serpent itself. Whence it comes that women more tend to exterminate this species and to crush its head. Or otherwise it can be said, that woman from nature has, as from weaker sex, that she is horrified by these venomous things, which before she had not been horrified of in the state of innocence: and then she had of a special gift of divine grace, that she could with certainty avoid the harms of these, and therefore did not care to persecute them: as also from the nature of her complexion now the woman suffers in childbirth, but by grace of God she would not suffer in the state of innocence. Therefore, from a guilt which deprived of this grace is this punishment. Likewise coud have been that something was in brute animals and some impression by which they obeyed and were submitted to man. But all this ceased by the guilt of man. Animals were relinquished to their natural passions, and woman was destituted from all grace: both of grace rendering pleasing [to God], and of all grace freely given. Thus, from sin were these enmities made this way between the serpent and the woman.

Whence it is said: she shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel.
Which is said according to the letter; since the serpent walks on its breast, it lies in wait for the heel, as the part most close to itself, to which it can as easily as possible attain: and she shall crus thy head. Since it is something clung to the ground, it is easy to crush it.


The work from which this is taken is:

"Ignoti Auctoris"
Postilla in libros Geneseos
http://www.corpusthomisticum.org/xgn01.html


I disagree with "ignoti autoris" and consider it an early work of St Thomas.

He is using "iste, ista, istud" for "hic, hec, hoc", which is easily a beginners' fault in Latin, if your maternal tongue has for "hic, hec, hoc" sth like "este, esta, esto" or "questo, questa" - and St Thomas was from southern part of Italy.

He is also seemingly (at least from here) giving an exposé over the very literal sense of Genesis to exclusion of moral and mystical ones.

But the mystical and prophetical meaning of the text, he was far from denying : it is about the Blessed Virgin Mary and Her total enmity ("enmities") against the Devil. Meaning, there was not room for even one moment of peaceful submission to him, not room for one moment of the state of sin in Her blessed life.

She was always crushing his head by not sinning, she was always crushing his head by obeying God.

St Thomas certainly knew that, but left this to be said by his superiors, as I think it might be from back when he was just studying.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
Feast of Immaculate Conception
of the Blessed Virgin Mary
8.XII.2016

Is Wikipedia Losing the Grip? And what about cognitive bias and guilt by association?


Often enough, it links to sources supposed to be more credible than itself.

However, when it links to Nathalia Gjersoe, one can start to doubt that!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Toilet_Day

Actually links to:

The Guardian : World Toilet Day
Thursday 20 November 2014 15.46 GMT | Nathalia Gjersoe
https://www.theguardian.com/science/head-quarters/2014/nov/20/world-toilet-day-yuck


And then

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog_intelligence

Links to:

Dogs: an uncomplicated relationship
Monday 23 September 2013 15.48 BST | Nathalia Gjersoe
https://www.theguardian.com/science/head-quarters/2013/sep/23/dogs-uncomplicated-relationship-research


Now, what is wrong with Nathalia Gjersoe? If linking to her can be even considered as potentially wrong, there must be sth wrong about her, right?

  • She's a psychologist.
  • She believes psychological biasses should be countered.


The latter meaning, for instance, countering the bias for creationism by indoctrinating into Evolution even earlier.

See here:

Evolution makes scientific sense. So why do many people reject it?
Thursday 31 March 2016 07.45 BST | Nathalia Gjersoe
https://www.theguardian.com/science/head-quarters/2016/mar/31/intelligent-design-popular-evolution-creationism


So why, despite formal scientific education, does intelligent design remain so intuitively plausible and evolution so intuitively opaque? And what can we do about it?

Developmental psychologists have identified two cognitive biases in very young children that help to explain the popularity of intelligent design. The first is a belief that species are defined by an internal quality that cannot be changed (psychological essentialism). The second is that all things are designed for a purpose (promiscuous teleology). These biases interact with cultural beliefs such as religion but are just as prevalent in children raised in secular societies.


When countering "cognitive biasses" passes for "science", as can be seen with the rest of her article, there is sth wrong about how science is defined.

On the other hand, one can say that wikipedia has (so far, I might be giving someone a tip) not cited Nathalia Gjersoe on this deplorable subject.

One can say that demonising wikipedia because she is cited (despite this deplorable third article!) on two other articles, is what is known as "guilt by association".

So far, I am not ditching wikipedia, just because two articles cite one Gjersoe on aspects irrelevant to her more deplorable views.

Meanwhile, when psychology is into countering "cognitive biasses" (as they are defined these days) it is really undermining science, since undermining philosophy of which Natural Sciences is one department.

Philosophy is done by using a double starting point : a) innate principles, such as are universal to all of mankind, b) external experience, in the light of these innate universal principles.

And what philosophy has since Plato called "innate universal principles" and what psychologists call "cognitive biasses" are very difficult to keep separate, unless you add to the latter "culture specific". She at least had the clarity to tell us that the cognitive bias in favour of creationism is not so.

Seeing cats and dogs as fundamentally different and seeing them as serving a purpose (perhaps in our lives) is an innate universal principle. Unlike seeing a "drunkard" in every homeless man who drinks some wine in the street*, which is a very culture specific "cognitive bias" or in other words, a very sectarian "principle". Not to mention her own obvious cognitive bias in seeing as sensible whatever a small group of men styled scientists claims makes sense to them.**

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
Feast of Our Lady's
Immaculate Conception
8.XII.2016

PS. Hat tip to Evolutionising the young, by Dominic Statham on CMI today.

PPS. Sorry for examples given of her writing, especially first one, on this Holy Day. But that is what I could find./HGL

* Last time I was in Clichy, one man gave me a half bottle of wine, I ate some soup and fries before touching it, and took water along with it. Even so, another man frowned, as if he had caught me red handed in an act of drunkenness. Unfortunately, detecting and curing the very culture specific cognitive bias of that man is not as paying as detecting and making gross political comment on that of children. See Chesterton's magisterial essay The Tyranny Of Bad Journalism. ** Obviously culture specific, since sometimes clashing with the universal one for creationism.

lundi 5 décembre 2016

Hasn't Carbon 14 been Confirmatively Calibrated for Ages Beyond Biblical Chronology? By Tree Rings?


Creation vs. Evolution : 1) C14 Calibrations, comparing two preliminary ones, mine and Tas Walker's · 2) Radioactive Methods Revisited, Especially C-14 · 3) What Some of You are Thinking / Ce que certains de vous sont en train de penser · Great Bishop of Geneva! : 4) Carbon Dating of Turin Shroud and Hacking and Conventional vs Creationist Dating · Creation vs. Evolution : 5) A Fault in my Tables? A Plan for Improvement? · 6) Pre-Flood Biomass and More · 7) Advantages of a Shorter Carbon 14 Chronology · 8) Hasn't Carbon 14 been Confirmatively Calibrated for Ages Beyond Biblical Chronology? By Tree Rings?

This is, first, from quora:

Graeme Shimmin
The tree thing is IMO impossible to refute.

In the case of the dating of the Bristlecone pines it's not like there's some complex scientific process involved - it's counting tree rings.

[two comments further down]

... Counting tree rings is not complicated and can be done by anyone. ...

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Only true for pretty young trees with pretty thin layers of rings to count.

And these are not the question.

Graeme Shimmin
I’ve never seen any evidence from a non-creationist source suggesting that counting tree rings is hard. Do you have any evidence?

Hans-Georg Lundahl
1
One provided as argument by a creationist one, but obvious once you think of it. You fell a tree. You count the rings from bark to core. No problem at all - but if you fell a tree like a woodcutter, it can’t be that old.

A double ring (light and dark) might be sth like 1.5 to 2.5 mm. This means that a tree even one thousand years old should have a thickness from core to bark of 1000 double rings, that is of 1.5 to 2.5 meters. This means the diameter of the tree is 3 to 5 meter thick. Try to fell that and count the tree rings?

I suppose those who counted a tree as 5000 years old had gone by thickness (7.5 to to 12.5 m) - but they would have seen thickness from outside and this leaves the question how far the outermost core is in. It happens that trees grow together and what if outermost of a composite tree only has its core 3 meters in from bark?

This one is pretty commonsense.

2
You mentioned only counting, but matching is also a problem. Two trees that are contemporary do not have exactly the same pattern of rings, and so the scientist is faced with the question exactly how much divergence is acceptable before declaring a match.

If - as is the case with old pieces of wood - the trees are reduced to fragmentary pieces, these can be so small that identification of a unique pattern only then but not more recently then instead, can be a real problem.

I had a reference ready on this one, but lost it, I recommend you research in “tree ring dating” as done by specialists who celebrate their breakthroughs and so, that will show a diagram of convergence and divergence of certain samples in a bottleneck, which will give you an idea how delicate the question of matches is.


I'll provide an example myself.

A Sequence of Ruins in the Flagstaff Area Dated by Tree-Rings http://ltrr.arizona.edu/content/sequence-ruins-flagstaff-area-dated-tree-rings

Title
A Sequence of Ruins in the Flagstaff Area Dated by Tree-Rings
Publication Type
Thesis
Year of Publication
1962
Authors
Harlan, TP
Advisor
Thompson, RH
Academic Department
Anthropology
Degree
MA
University
University of Arizona
Abstract
A collection of 4263 archaeological tree-ring specimens from the region around Flagstaff, Arizona, was examined by means of the dendrochronological method. Although some of the specimens had been dated previously, the majority of the collection had never been studied. This analysis yielded 596 outside dates. Although these new dates do not differ greatly from previous dates obtained from previous dates obtained from this collection they have made possible certain refinements in the dating of the phases in the archaeological sequence for the region.


I'll give some samples of specimen numbers (SN) with inside and outside dates (ID/OD) (when viewing other, pdf'd link for same thesis):

(Page 48)
Table 14, site NA 1139
SN F 1509
ID 815 OD 898
SN 1503
ID 814 OD 889
SN 1505
ID 809 OD 888
SN 1504
ID 812 OD 882
SN 1506
ID 814 OD 872


These five specimens span only, together, 90 years, of which 58 years overlap all specimina.

With such overlap and so short spans, dendro might seem even reliable.

But go back over millennia, you get longer spans with shorter or non-extant overlap and overlaps also from different areas, so one cannot count on all having grown in same microclimate even approximately.

In the Flagstaff area, the samples were together because used in buildings of an inhabited area whose inhabitants took the building material from about same area of tree growth.

You don't have that kind of advantage in larger scale tree ring dates, like those used in dating what one is purporting against Biblical chronology.

I suspect that "Inner Date" as being older AD date and "Outer Date" as being younger AD date refer to inwards and outwards between core and bark. But I am not sure.

What I am sure of is, you don't have a Flagstaff case for the wider tree ring chronology, the one which once upon a time made me ask "how can I square the Genesis with a 20,000 year old earth, shall I include some kind of Silmarillion scenario between verses 1 and 2, or sth?"

That chronology is way outside the secure validity of Flagstaff chronology.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
St Sabbas, Abbot
5.XII.2016

vendredi 2 décembre 2016

Steno and "Vertical Barbecue" contra John Laurie


Geology seriesFeedback to Tas Walker on Geological Columns
If Tas Walker is right, Pius XII was not wrong to canonise Steno!

Actually Steno was not canonised yet, only beatified, and by John Paul II, as stated in following:

Creationism and Catholicism go well together (second example)
Where do you find Dinosaurs over Trilobites?
Steno and "Vertical Barbecue" contra John Laurie


I was revisiting the site of Tas Walker. He has had a correspondence over TAG = The Australian Geologist, starting with anti-Creationist provocations in letters to the editor.

After his first, published response, he was answered by one John Laurie, and the man displayed an appalling Historical ignorance, in this paragraph:

... Dr Walker enlists the eminent Danish anatomist and geologist Niels Stensen (latinised as Nicholas Steno) to demonstrate that creationists have made "fundamental contributions to geology in the past" And so they have! But it must be remembered that Stensen lived from 1638-1686 and that NOT being a creationist in those days could book you an appointment with the vertical barbecue. It is ironic that Dr Walker drew Stenson into his argument, as the fundamental concepts introduced or affirmed by Setnsen; i.e. that fossils are the remains of once living organisms; the principle of original horizontality; and the law of superposition, were some of the most important in the initial understanding of the great age of the earth and the evolution of its biota.

John Laurie

Weston, ACT


Cited after Tas Walker's copies of the letters and news article, with his own comments in blue, here:

Tas Walker's Biblical Geology : More Discussion in TAG
Geologists discuss again
http://biblicalgeology.net/The-Australian-Geological-Society/Geologists-discuss-again.html


John Laurie ignores that unlike Catholics, Orthodox, Anglicans and Calvinists, Lutherans of Denmark didn't have the "vertical barbecue" - except for witches.

As to heresy, Lutherans claimed a "moral high ground" over Catholics and Reformed alike, by not burning heretics.

In Sweden during the Middle Ages, as far as I could make out when studying Latin in Lund (and Latin studies involved some Swedish Middle Ages) exactly one man was burned on a stake, during the Catholic era, because he denied the Real Presence of Our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament.

Russian Orthodox burned Avvakum for a much worse reason.

Anglican king James I of England burned two Anabaptists, aboiut the time he authorised his famous version. Calvin burned Miguel Serveto.

Lutherans would have none of that, they could persecute Catholics as traitors or as disobedient rebels, but not as heretics, nor did the punishments for heresy extend to the stake.

And how is this significant for Steno? Well, Steno was born precisely in Lutheran Denmark.

This also means that when he arrived in Florence or Livorno, they were less than eager there to burn heretics. At least foreigners residing there were not burned for being Lutheran. This was the environment in which Steno started to study geology, thitherto he had been mainly an anatomist.

Is it true that not believing Genesis would have made for a rendez-vous with the stake, even if you were a foreigner?

Let us look at the story of Isaac La Peyrère a bit:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_La_Peyr%C3%A8re


In his Prae-Adamitae, published in Latin in 1655 and in English as Men Before Adam in 1656, La Peyrère argued that Paul's words in Chapter 5, verses 12-14 of his Epistle to the Romans should be interpreted such that "if Adam sinned in a morally meaningful sense there must have been an Adamic law according to which he sinned. If law began with Adam, there must have been a lawless world before Adam, containing people".[3] Thus, according to La Peyrère there must have been two creations: first the creation of the Gentiles and then that of Adam, who was father of the Jews. The existence of pre-Adamites, La Peyrère argued, explained Cain's life after Abel's murder which, in the Genesis account, involved the taking of a wife and the building of a city. This account of human origins became the basis for 19th century theories of polygenism and modern racism.

[For the latter, some wikipedian has added "citation needed"]

In 1656 after a storm of indignation the Prae-Adamitae was publicly burned in Paris and La Peyrère was imprisoned briefly during a visit to the Catholic Spanish Netherlands, but was released after he supposedly recanted his views.


So, one way if you came to heterodox conclusions was to state them and recant them. If he had stayed in France, he would simply just have seen the burning of his book and that was about it.

But there is more.

The Inquisition of the Spanish Netherlands was perhaps more eager to try and burn foreigners than what other Inquisitors were. After all, they had tried and burned Tyndale. He had been burned before the Dutch War of Independence, and Isaac La Peyrère had been briefly held prisoner after it. In the former case, war was threatening, in the latter case, recent enemies were there just across the border, of another confession.

If instead you look at Spain itself, the uncle of William Penn had got out at a lesser price, perhaps, than burning. George Penn had been expelled and his marriage to a Spanish lady had been annulled. If he hadn't married, as a foreigner he would probably not have been bothered, though his letter, cited in "The family of William Penn, founder of Pennsylvania, ancestry and descendants" by Howard M. Jenkins, though this letter of his to LOrd Cromwell doesn't explicitly say so.

Here are his words about the sentence, which seem probable, pp 12,13:
https://archive.org/stream/familyofwilliamp00jenk/familyofwilliamp00jenk_djvu.txt


Finally, upon his abjuring the Protestant fiaith [sic, computer scanned book, for faith], a public procession was formed in Seville, he was taken to the church, and his otfences [sic], confession, and sentence proclaimed " in the sight of thousands." His property was confiscated, — about ten thousa'nd pounds' value, he declares, — he was ordered to leave Spain within three months, on pain of death; he was sentenced to be burned if he should be again under arrest and found to have renounced the Roman faith; lastly, his wife was divorced from him, and she was ordered to be married to a Spaniard " for her better safeguard from me and securing of her soul from my heretical suggestions."


According to this, he also had to abjure in order to survive, but his abjuration was in that case not taken so very seriously that he was allowed to live a now Catholic life, on the contrary, he was put in two positions which would make it very difficult for him to remain Catholic : divorce from his wife and expulsion from Spain to presumably a Protestant country.

There can be some doubt in favour of the account, only if one can presume that she had been bamboozled by him into marrying a non-Catholic (or at least said so) and if the three months were supposed to give him some alternative, like going to France or Italy.

Even this is very highly doubtful, since if he had abjured, the wife would normally have had an option of remaking the failed marriage with him if he was sincerely Catholic - which was at least juridically presumed when he was released, according to the story. But the least likely part is that of her being married off to a Spaniard, that looks mainly like a projection of what Cromwell would be doing in similar circumstances, when persecuting Catholics and Non-Conformists : it doesn't look like the Spanish Inquisition at all, since she would have been able to fasten her Catholic faith very well by being received as guest in a nunnery or sth, and studying under a priest, while news awaited if George Penn was sincere or not in his conversion.

Of course, simply divorcing after a validly made marriage was a no no to any Catholic even if contrahent was a heretic. The marriage must have been null for such a divorce to take place, like saying George Penn was not validly baptised or she did not know George penn was a Protestant. So, George Penn's story seems contradictory and could in part have been made up in order to make sure of being better received on returning home.

Howard M. Jenkins adds:

The dates of this transaction, including the condemnation in the church of Seville, are wanting, and we can only infer them, but it seems to me most probable that the whole of the business was known to the young sea-captain, the brother of George Penn, when he caught the little ship with its " 8 Spaniards" coming out of Waterford, in the winter of 1646, and that as he stripped and exposed the unhappy secretary of the governor of Flanders he was inflicting a retaliatory blow, and not expecting to propitiate the Inquisition at Seville, or hoping to secure the good offices of the humiliated Don Juan.


So, perhaps the transaction never took place, George Penn perhaps simply bolted from his wife, and it was perhaps a wise thing to do if he didn't intend to stay Catholic even in appearance.

Or perhaps the papers have been later found by Spanish archives, since Howard M. Jenkins wrote as long time ago as in 1899.

To resume, since Steno didn't actually marry in Florence or Livorno, he was less at risk than George Penn, if he had been heterodox. Also, Florence and Livorno were arguably less risky than Spain.

But there is one more thing to this : Steno was very certainly not insincerely posing to believe the story of Genesis, since he then made great sacrifices as a Catholic convert.

Unlike that Swedish apostate from the Catholic faith, he was attracted by the doctrine and even dogma of Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. He converted. He then became a missionary priest and bishop, and persecuted (though, as said, not by the stake) in his own Lutheran home region. He died as a man having incurred sickness by cold where he was not hospitably received, and he is now venerated as a Saint by those who consider John Paul II was Pope when he pretended to canonise him.

I don't really disagree on the sainthood, now I know he never deviated from Young Earth positions while a Geologist : I just disagree with the formal recognition thereof by an Antipope like Wojtyla - also, I don't know exactly what miracles he wrought after his death, that is also important for recognising full sainthood.

A man who makes such sacrifices to spread the Catholic faith is hardly the kind of man who a decade or two earlier is likely to have hidden conclusions about Old Age (like those later given by Hutter and Lyell) just because he feared the Inquisition. And his homeland never had such a thing since the Reformation, it persecuted by inhospitality instead.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
St Bibiana, Virgin, Martyr
2.XII.2016

PS, a little update. I was just looking at Penn Family, and it seems the "George Penn" who is supposed to have been uncle of the founder of Pennsylvania is missing from the genealogy. There is of course this character:

4. George Penn - was born in 1571, lived in Birdham, Sussex, England and died on 4 Nov 1632 while living in Plymouth, MA . He was the son of William Penn and Margaret Rastall.


But the dates don't really fit with the story about the Spanish Inquisition told above. Here is the site:

Penn Family Genealogy
by Albert Douglass Hart, Jr.
http://www.coltechpub.com/hartgen/htm/penn.htm


I'll contact him if he has more information on the missing George Penn .../HGL

PPS, I did, and the email to him did not work.

550 permanent failure for one or more recipients (ourfolk@renderplus.com:5
50 cuda_nsu sorry, no mailbox here by that name. (#5.7.17))

mardi 29 novembre 2016

Genesis 2:17 - Same Day? Are There Long-Age Implications?


Genesis 2 : [17] But of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat. For in what day soever thou shalt eat of it, thou shalt die the death.

There are two Catholic exegesis of this one, and they do not contradict, though they do not say the same either. Rather they are complementary.

The most important one, since concerned directly with salvation matter, is that the same day that Adam ate of the fruit - literally same 24 hour period, even same hour - he died spiritually from grace.

He had enjoyed the life of grace without effort, he died from it by sinning, and he was to regain it by penance. But that day, he died.

Committing a mortal sin and retaining the life of grace are not compatible.

For this we have for instance St Gregory the Great.

The less important one is this, that he died physically within the same 1000 years.

Psalm 89 : [4] For a thousand years in thy sight are as yesterday, which is past. And as a watch in the night,

This is paraphrased in NT, probably already Jewish tradition, as:

II Peter 3 : [8] But of this one thing be not ignorant, my beloved, that one day with the Lord is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

So, there is in fact one application for this principle in Genesis, namely in Genesis 2:17. Adam died within one thousand years:

Genesis 5 : [5] And all the time that Adam lived came to nine hundred and thirty years, and he died.

And we can be sure Eve did not survive him for more than seventy years, and most probably not even that long. Genesis 2:17 is correctly fulfilled by the fact that Adam and Eve died the same millennium in which they ate of the fruit that was forbidden to them.

Here is a quote from Justin Martyr about it:

Justin Martyr

"For as Adam was told that in the day he ate of the tree he would die, we know that he did not complete a thousand years [Gen. 5:5]. We have perceived, moreover, that the expression ‘The day of the Lord is a thousand years’ [Ps. 90:4] is connected with this subject" (Dialogue with Trypho the Jew 81 [A.D. 155]).


It's source is this page on Catholic Answers:

Creation and Genesis*
http://www.catholic.com/tracts/creation-and-genesis


It would behasty to conclude from this, as they do, that this applies to the days of creation as well, but it remains that it applies to Genesis 2:17.

As I quoted the page, where it quotes Church Father St Justin (and it quotes St Irenaeus in exactly the same sense) I will now quote an introductory passage which is not a Patristic quote and refute it, dividing into parts:

I
The writings of the Fathers, who were much closer than we are in time and culture to the original audience of Genesis, show that this was not the case. There was wide variation of opinion on how long creation took.

A
There were two opinions : a creation that took six ordinary days confirmed by the seventh day of rest, and a creation that was timeless, and therefore one instant. The latter was the view of Origen (it seems) and at least partly of St Augustine.

The latter however first gives the one week explanation, and after explaining the one moment one, he adds that the one week one is OK, if someone thinks the one moment one is too complicated.

II
Some said only a few days; others argued for a much longer, indefinite period.

A
No one actually did argue for a much longer period. Where Clement says "indefinite" he also says

That, then, we may be taught that the world was originated and not suppose that God made it in time


Note, he doesn't say : "That, then, we may be taught that the world was originated and not suppose that God made it in a short time"

He says indefinite and dateless, but if this were to be taken as "a much longer period", that certainly would involve a creation in time.

"Not in time" does not mean in a long time, it can only mean, precisely as St Augustine later takes it to mean in a single instant. A long time can not be same thing as or compatible with "not in time". Or same thing as or compatible with "x did not happen in time" or "God did not do x in time".

III
Those who took the latter view appealed to the fact "that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day" (2 Pet. 3:8; cf. Ps. 90:4), that light was created on the first day, but the sun was not created till the fourth day (Gen. 1:3, 16), and that Adam was told he would die the same "day" as he ate of the tree, yet he lived to be 930 years old (Gen. 2:17, 5:5).

This
I further divide into two parts, one with first and last, one with middle.

III a
Those who took the latter view appealed to the fact "that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day" (2 Pet. 3:8; cf. Ps. 90:4), ... and that Adam was told he would die the same "day" as he ate of the tree, yet he lived to be 930 years old (Gen. 2:17, 5:5).

A
As seen, this applies to Genesis 2:17 as such, but neither St Justin nor St Irenaeus are quoted as applying it also to the days of Creation, nor do we have any other reason to suppose they did so.

III b
... that light was created on the first day, but the sun was not created till the fourth day (Gen. 1:3, 16), ...

A
Or for that matter, that sun, moon and stars were created fourth day, but plants a day earlier.

The two quotes given about 4th day are by a) Theophilus who says:

"On the fourth day the luminaries came into existence. Since God has foreknowledge, he understood the nonsense of the foolish philosophers who were going to say that the things produced on earth come from the stars, so that they might set God aside. In order therefore that the truth might be demonstrated, plants and seeds came into existence before the stars. For what comes into existence later cannot cause what is prior to it" (To Autolycus 2:15 [A.D. 181]).


So, no contradiction to one week creation, and by b) Origen who says:

And with regard to the creation of the light upon the first day . . . and of the [great] lights and stars upon the fourth . . . we have treated to the best of our ability in our notes upon Genesis, as well as in the foregoing pages, when we found fault with those who, taking the words in their apparent signification, said that the time of six days was occupied in the creation of the world" (ibid., 6:60).


Where we do get a contradiction to the one week creation, but no contradiction to the one moment creation.

We know from St Augustine that at least he thought Origen was a proponent of the latter, and at least in books 5 and 6 of De Genesi ad Literam, St Augustine follows suit.

IV
Catholics are at liberty to believe that creation took a few days or a much longer period,

A
As per Church Fathers more like that creation took a few days and no time at all.

Skipping some
references to non-patristic and I presume apostatic material. Yes, I consider Humani Generis, at least as usually received, to be an incitation to Apostasy. The allocution to UNO scientists next year (1951, Nov.22) even more so. The so called "Catechism of the Catholic Church" is even post-Vatican II and in its beginning is anti-scholastic, so as to say the five ways of St Thomas are not scientific proofs.

V
The following quotations from the Fathers show how widely divergent early Christian views were.

A
Actually, the divergence between Fathers is only between the two options of six literal days or one moment.

But some quotes are thrown in "for good measure", which seem to indicate sth about thousands of years. The two which apply this to Genesis 2:17 we have already dealt with, but there is also the idea that the days of creation (literally one week) prefigure six thousand years of history after creation (literally six thousand years) because of this correspondence.

One of them literally contradicts the idea old agers would have us believe:

"All the years from the creation of the world [to Theophilus’ day] amount to a total of 5,698 years and the odd months and days. . . . [I]f even a chronological error has been committed by us, for example, of 50 or 100 or even 200 years, yet [there have] not [been] the thousands and tens of thousands, as Plato and Apollonius and other mendacious authors have hitherto written. And perhaps our knowledge of the whole number of the years is not quite accurate, because the odd months and days are not set down in the sacred books" (ibid., 3:28–29).


In other words, Theophilus of Antioch is actually calling Plato and Apollonius liars for being old earthers (though much more moderate ones than the Evolutionists and Old Earth Creationists are).


So, I presume that a few readers of this tract on Creation and Genesis first got an impression that Church Fathers allowed long ages in creation week, by the introductory paragraphs, then confirmed the impression by a prejudiced reading of following quotes, then were confronted with the proposal that this or that quote does not mean so at all, then got the impression that Church Fathers really didn't express themselves very clearly, and one must rely on expertise and a kind of monitoring of "present magisterium" by Holy Spirit at every little step to understand that the Church Fathers said sth which ... in reality they did not say. Sadly, such lack of reading skills is not in my fifteen years as a creationist debater a very uncommon thing, especially if the correct and obvios meaning for some reason is unwelcome to the reader.

So, answering questions in title : yes, the physical death of Adam occurred same millennium as his eating the forbidden fruit, and, no, there are no long age implications for creation week itself, neither logically, nor Biblically, nor Patristically.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
Vigil of St Andrew, Apostle
29.XI.2016

* Nihil obstat by Bernadeane Carr, STL, Censor Librorum, August 10, 2004, Imprimatur by +Robert H. Brom, Bishop of San Diego, August 10, 2004. The fact they could give a nihil obstat or imprimatur to such slush argues that these safeguards (since back in early days of printing) are of no meaning in the Novus Ordo establishment, meaning it is not the Catholic Church.

lundi 14 novembre 2016

Advantages of a Shorter Carbon 14 Chronology / Letter A of ex oriente - IV - Conclusion


Creation vs. Evolution : 1) C14 Calibrations, comparing two preliminary ones, mine and Tas Walker's · 2) Radioactive Methods Revisited, Especially C-14 · 3) What Some of You are Thinking / Ce que certains de vous sont en train de penser · Great Bishop of Geneva! : 4) Carbon Dating of Turin Shroud and Hacking and Conventional vs Creationist Dating · Creation vs. Evolution : 5) A Fault in my Tables? A Plan for Improvement? · 6) Pre-Flood Biomass and More · 7) Advantages of a Shorter Carbon 14 Chronology · 8) Hasn't Carbon 14 been Confirmatively Calibrated for Ages Beyond Biblical Chronology? By Tree Rings?

Letter A of ex oriente, on Φιλολoγικά/Philologica : I - preliminary to recalibrating, II - continuing the preliminary, III - explanation and results, on Creation vs. Evolution : IV - Conclusion

In other words, things that make better sense with rising Carbon 14 (up to a certain time) and therefore misdatings by normal procedure to be reduced with a steep rise in Carbon 14 after Flood petering out to a stable level, and therefore certain periods being drastically shorter than usually expected.

  • 1) It agrees with the Bible and therefore with Holy Faith.

    That much is obvious.

  • 2) It makes sense of the relationship between Göbekli Tepe and Stonehenge, as per less than five centuries between earliest settlers at Stonehenge, just after abandonment of GT, and first stone circle at Stonehenge.

    As I mentioned here:

    Φιλολoγικά/Philologica : Stonehenge and Göbekli Tepe?
    http://filolohika.blogspot.com/2016/11/stonehenge-and-gobekli-tepe.html


  • 3) It allows cave paintings to come within a span of 200 years or less, considering pre-Flood longevity, Altamira and the rest could all be from same artist, if alive on board the ark.

    As I mentioned, in Swedish, here:

    På Svenska og på Dansk på Antimodernism : Grottkonst med min omräkning
    http://danskantimodernism.blogspot.com/2016/11/grottkonst-med-min-omrakning.html


  • 4) It allows the "Invention of Agriculture" in Natufian etc. to be a some centuries long (or shorter, not sure now) reinvention of crops and new climate rather than a painstaking struggle to refocus on inventing, taking millennia instead of the decade some places seem to have been inhabited. As mentioned here:

    Φιλολoγικά/Philologica : Letter A of ex oriente - III - explanation and results
    http://filolohika.blogspot.com/2016/02/letter-of-ex-oriente-iii-explanation.html


    Copying the dates for all places as per my recalibration and showing extreme dates:

    Abu Madi 8050 - 7840 2670 - 2660
    'Abr 3 7800 - 7735 2660 - 2659?
    Abu Gosh (Abou Ghosh) 6945 2610
    Abu Hureyra 9190 - 6070 2725 - 2561
    Abu Salem 8600 - 8020 2697 - 2670
    Ain Abu Nukhayla 6675 - 6420 appr. 2610 - 2599
    Ain el-Kerkh 7400 - 7215 2644 - 2633
    Ain Jammam 6570 - 6080 2604 - approx. 2565
    Akarçay 6800 - 5520 2617 - 2509
    Aswad 7855 - 6590 2666 - 2604
    Azraq 6400 - 6325 2593 - 2588
     
    Extremes 9190 - 6070 2725 - 2509


    The dates for each place are similarily extreme dates for the objects dated in each of them. 3120 years are reduced to 137 years. A reasonable time for hybridizations, watching for good mutations and a few things like that, if you knew, since before the Flood, what to look for. Sure, the extremes could be extended either way on either scale, if you take into account places beginning on other letters than A.

    But the point is, these guys were not bunglers. And the centuries between Flood and early Natufian (232 years) were probably too wet and muddy on flat ground to try a full scale agriculture.

    Also, it would seem that the amounts of cereals and ceramics found would testify to higher density of population (and a better capacity for feeding them) if the timespan was radically shorter.

    By contrast, the guys who started out finding out grain could grow from planted one grain to ears of six grain or whatever per different cereal and then took 3120 years to make agriculture work and make the neolithic revolution would seem to be impossibly slow for human beings with normal talents - exactly as with the earlier cave art, keeping one style of painting for 10000 years (between dated 30000 BP for Altamira and 20000 BP for youngest) really defies the normal experience of human creativity in the arts.

  • 5) In pre-Nuraghic Sardinia, 4145 years of conventional dating are reduced to less than 985 years. As stated here, in French:

    Redatant la Sardaigne pré-nuraghique avec mes tables?
    http://filolohika.blogspot.com/2016/01/redatant-la-sardaigne-pre-nuraghique.html


    This reduces the time of the Bonu Ighinu culture, during which they say a certain "Mother goddess was worshipped", from alleged 430 years to about half.

    Meaning Pagan cults if such are less stable. Also, with less persistance of depictions, one is less sure it was even a Pagan goddess.

    I feel pretty confident, using my table for redating things will continue to pay off and things of prehistory start making more sense.


Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
St. Josaphat of Polotsk
Bishop and Martyr
14.XI.2016

jeudi 10 novembre 2016

Some Triassic places with complete taxonomic lists


Do Permian Critters Come from Same Places? · Some Triassic places with complete taxonomic lists

If Palaeocritti is really not bad, Fossilworks is in some ways even better for my purpose.

Waldkatzenbach am Katzenbuckel (Triassic of Germany)
http://fossilworks.org/bridge.pl?a=collectionSearch&collection_no=118146&is_real_user=1


Where:
Baden-Württemberg, Germany (49.5° N, 9.0° E: paleocoordinates 14.4° N, 20.1° E)

  • coordinate based on nearby landmark

  • small collection-level geographic resolution


When:
Oberes Konglomerat Member (Hardegsen Formation), Spathian (251.3 - 247.2 Ma)

  • Upper Conglomerate Horizon (Oberes Konglomerat), Hardegsen Formation (S6), top of the Middle Buntsandstein section. Late Olenekian


Environment/lithology:
terrestrial; lithology not reported


Taxonomic list
 
Osteichthyes
Temnospondyli - Odenwaldia heidelbergensis n. gen. n. sp. Morales and Kamphausen 1984 tetrapod
 
GPIH SMO 1, a natural mould of the skull, preserving most of the skull roof, the marginal dentition, parts of the braincase, and traces of the palate


Tsilma River (Triassic of Russian Federation)
http://fossilworks.org/bridge.pl?a=collectionSearch&collection_no=39811

Also known as Tsilma-1, Cherepanka-1, Cherepanka-3

Where:
Komi, Russian Federation (65.4° N, 52.1° E: paleocoordinates 40.2° N, 30.4° E)

  • coordinate based on nearby landmark

  • local area-level geographic resolution


When:
Charkabozh Formation, Olenekian (251.3 - 247.2 Ma)

  • upper part of Charkabozhskaya Svita (Novikov et al., 1990)

  • The generic composition of the fauna coincides with the upper part of the Vetlugian "supergorizont" or the Lower Olenekian substage, respectively, which is further supported by the presence of an Early Olenekian palynoassemblage at locality Tsilma-1 (Novikov et al., 1990).


Environment/lithology:
terrestrial; lithified, gray, green, red claystone and lithified, coarse-grained siliciclastic

  • alternation of red and greenish-grey clay with intercalations of sand and conglomerates


Taxonomic list
 
Osteichthyes
Temnospondyli - BenthosuchidaeAngusaurus tsylmensis n. sp. tetrapod
Vyborosaurus mirus n. sp. tetrapod
Temnospondyli - Wetlugasaurus malachovi n. sp. Novikov 1990 tetrapod
 
Reptilia
Loricata - Rauisuchidae Tsylmosuchus jakovlevi Sennikov 1990 rauisuchid
 
Parareptilia
Procolophonia - Procolophonidae Timanophon raridentatus Novikov 1991 parareptile
 
PIN 4332/4, 5 (a right pterygoid and a fragment of a left dentary, from Cherepanka-1); PIN 4333/9, 10 (a fragment of a left maxilla and a dentary, from Tsilma-1); details on specimens are from Novikov (1991); Ivakhnenko (2008) furthermore lists a VNIGRI specimen (no. 843/9) from Cherepanka-3 and also allocates the PIN 4332 specimens to that locality
 
  • Timanophon raridentatus was originally entered as "n. gen, n. sp.". Indeed, Novikov et al. (1990, primary reference ) cite the name T. raridentatus as a new form ("нового прогрессивного проколофонина"), but neither do they designate a type specimen, nor do they give a diagnosis or a figure. The official description of T. raridentatus was actually carried out by Novikov (1991). In this work the occurence of T. raridentatus in the Pechora River drainage basin is confirmed, but the type specimen designated and figured therein is said to come from the Mezen' River drainage basin which is west of the Timan Ridge (not east as is the Pechora River drainage basin). The information on the type and referred material of T. raridentatus as given by Novikov (1991) is repeated (and thus confirmed, somehow) by Ivakhnenko (2008). Hence, the entry "n. gen. Timanophon n. sp. raridentatus" (falsely indicating the type occurence) was corrected to "Timanophon raridentatus". (TL, 2015-04-22)


UCMP V4513, Holbrook 5 quarry (Triassic to of the United States)
http://fossilworks.org/bridge.pl?a=collectionSearch&collection_no=95091&is_real_user=1


Where:
Apache County, Arizona (34.9° N, 110.2° W: paleocoordinates 3.2° N, 38.8° W)

  • coordinate based on nearby landmark

  • small collection-level geographic resolution


When:
Holbrook Member (Moenkopi Formation), Aegean to Aegean (247.2 - 242.0 Ma)

  • Lucas & Schoch (2002: Lethaia 35: 97-106) inferred the Holbrook member to be earliest Anisian (Aegean–Bithynian) in age based upon tetrapod biostratigraphy (Eocyclotosaurus used to correlate Holbrook Member to German Upper Bundsandstein) and magnetostratigraphy

  • bed-level stratigraphic resolution


Environment/lithology:
terrestrial; lithology not reported


Taxonomic list
 
Osteichthyes
Temnospondyli - Cyclotosauridae Quasicyclotosaurus campi n. gen. n. sp. Schoch 2000 tetrapod
 
UCMP 37754, complete skull


Sonnenhalde, NE of Ochsenbach (Triassic of Germany)
http://fossilworks.org/bridge.pl?a=collectionSearch&collection_no=138863


Where:
Baden-Württemberg, Germany (49.0° N, 9.0° E: paleocoordinates 32.0° N, 10.2° E)

  • coordinate based on nearby landmark

  • small collection-level geographic resolution


When:
Lower Stubensandstein Member (Löwenstein Formation), Norian (221.5 - 205.6 Ma)

  • Lower Stubensandstein = lower part of Löwenstein Fm. (Norian)

  • bed-level stratigraphic resolution


Environment/lithology:
fluvial-lacustrine; lithified, fine-grained sandstone


Taxonomic list
 
Osteichthyes
Temnospondyli - Cyclotosaurus sp. Fraas 1889 tetrapod


North face Windeckerspitz (Triassic of Austria)
http://fossilworks.org/bridge.pl?a=collectionSearch&taxon_no= 37107&max_interval=Triassic&country=Austria&is_real_user=1&basic=yes&type=view&match_subgenera=1


Where:
Vorarlberg, Austria (47.1° N, 9.7° E: paleocoordinates 8.6° N, 21.7° E)

  • coordinate estimated from map

  • small collection-level geographic resolution


When:
Partnach Formation, Ladinian (242.0 - 235.0 Ma)

  • Early Ladinian

  • bed-level stratigraphic resolution


Environment/lithology:
shallow subtidal; gray marl

  • "dense, dark gray limestone with a large clay component (a 'marl' in German usage)"


Taxonomic list
 
Osteichthyes
Temnospondyli - Mastodonsauridae Tatrasuchus sp. Maryanska and Shishkin 1996 tetrapod
 
PIMUZ A/II 0054, lower jaw fragment


Note, no one claims that Permian things were found straight below these. Or Carboniferous even lower. At least not the kind of things that were once alive.

Nothing prevents these Triassic places from having been, rather than from a certain time 200 and more millions of years ago, simply certain faunal types from the Flood.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
Saint Andrew Avellino,
10.XI.2016