mercredi 29 décembre 2010 is back

this is about previous post
it was temporarily down, but yesterday it was back again (maybe a day before that, but I did not look)

mercredi 22 décembre 2010

Was a French URL shortener blocked or destroyed because of linking here?

  • a) there used to be an url shortener called ;
  • b) it used to link to two messages here being English index and being French index concerning messages on another blog, whereas linked to a denunciation of transhumanism as evolutionary project (on a previous blogger profile that was disconnected without me doing so);
  • c) there was also a lot of porn and medication links being shortened on but any link going to a bad site that had recently been clicked or shortened could be signalled to webmaster, so it was not a problem of daunting proportions;
  • d) I had written - among other things - creationist stuff on an MSN Group called Antimodernism too: it was disconnected with all other ones in February 2009: we got a warning and I managed to save some to this blogger profile in time. Unfortunately a man whom I had asked to help me in the saving of messages turned out to be a free mason. When I found out, I unfriended him at LinkedIn. But the damage was done: I had had insufficient access to internet during the interval to save all, he had been trusted and ... done nothing to save a single message as far as I could tell. Parts of my written production is gone. MSN's excuse was that they had found a better technology: I had a minor MSN Group which I tried to transfer, and it worked out miserably.

  • e) Now has been "not found on this server" since a cache 15 december. No news has been sent to anyone or anything in the media about the disappearance of a major internet utility like this URL shortener. Any one see some kind of pattern?

mercredi 15 décembre 2010

Are Creationist Ministries condemned Protestant Bible Societies? (and are they still condemned?)

Here is what Pope Bl. Pius IX had to say about the latter:

14. The crafty enemies of the Church and human society attempt to seduce the people in many ways. One of their chief methods is the misuse of the new technique of book-production. They are wholly absorbed in the ceaseless daily publication and proliferation of impious pamphlets, newspapers and leaflets which are full of lies, calumnies and seduction. Furthermore, under the protection of the Bible Societies which have long since been condemned by this Holy See,[7] they distribute to the faithful under the pretext of religion, the holy bible in vernacular translations. Since these infringe the Church's rules,[8] they are consequently subverted and most daringly twisted to yield a vile meaning. So you realize very well what vigilant and careful efforts you must make to inspire in your faithful people an utter horror of reading these pestilential books. Remind them explicitly with regard to divine scripture that no man, relying on his own wisdom, is able to claim the privilege of rashly twisting the scriptures to his own meaning in opposition to the meaning which holy mother Church holds and has held. It was the Church alone that Christ commissioned to guard the deposit of the faith and to decide the true meaning and interpretation of the divine pronouncements.[9]


Or would a non-Protestant creationism arguer even be able to find support like Catholic priests approving his writings:

15. In order to check the contagion of bad books, it would be useful if your clerics who are renowned for sound doctrine likewise publish short works, to build up the faith to instruct the people. You would, of course, have to approve these before publication. Distribute these works and other useful and doctrinally sound authors among the faithful.

It hangs on what is doctrinally sound and on what is a daringly twisted vile meaning. I happen to have heard that one standard of creationist arguers, that strata as well may stem from the flood of Noa as from millions of years of calmer sedimentation was put forward by a Catholic scientist. And that Pope Pius IX made him knight of the order of st Gregory, or something.

Anyone know about that?

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Mouffetard/Paris V
15/XII/2010, Octave of
Immaculate Conception
(Encyclical cited from feast day itself)

Are Bible Societies still condemned? Maybe not all of them, look at this agreement: GUIDELINES FOR INTERCONFESSIONAL COOPERATION IN TRANSLATING THE BIBLE

samedi 13 novembre 2010

I had a dream one night ...

... yes, it does happen that I get some REM sleep (if remembering a dream when waking is a sure sign of having had such) and no, it was a dream in the sleep, not a day dream (political or otherwise) like MLK's famous "I have a dream" speech.

It happens that I remember no dreaming, only notice myself getting thoughts and sense impressions clearer when waking. It happens that I remember I had a dram involving such and such an oddity, and then forgetting all about it, because I do not want to or cannot reconstruct the dream. But this time I did collect the thoughts to get a somewhat clear sketch of what had gone on before I woke up.

  • A furry animal is designed - whether by speaker voice or by subtitles or simply by thought - as having been born with a trisomy. It survives. It grows up. And ...
  • ...actually mates another animal with a trisomy in precisely the same chromosome pair: which gives rise to:

    • 1/4 normally diploid, i e in that chromosome disomic animals
    • 1/2 animals with trisomy in that chromosome (getting the extra somy from either father or mother) and
    • 1/4 tetrasomic in that chromosome animals.

  • The tetrasomic animals mate. Not with normal animals, not with trisomic animals, but between themselves, and ...
  • ... one day loses contact with the chromosomally normal population. Now they can only mate with other tetrasomic animals, and ...
  • ... a few generations later the four somata of the chromosome pair diversify into two pairs. An animal population now has one chromosome pair more than its ancestors but not by splitting, so the newly twain pairs, replacing a one pair, have a normal chromosomal centricity, not telocentric, not necessarily very acrocentric either. Unless the original pair was so.

That's about when I woke up, or what I came to when remembering what I dreamt before waking up.

And how kind it is of someone to pray to God (or even to the demons, as far as int-ention towards me is concerned) that I get some kind of revelation of how evolution is a scientific possibility, now that there are so many Church men claiming Genesis must be reinterpreted or even ones who replace Apocalypse with "point Omega": if I came to believe in evolution, my harmony with them would be restored, they would not think themselves obliged to consider me as a fool, they would be so happy to welcome me back into full communion!

Now, what wild animals spontaneously do with misfits havingheart problems is not usually keep them alive three generations on a row. I may think Darwinism wrong about why one individual remains alive and another survives, I amy think chance or providence has more to do with it than any life force driving to perfection of species by survival of the fittest, but the scenario I dreamt of involves typically survival of the unfittest.

I do not ask you to take my word for it, do check out trisomy on wikipedia*, will you. There are more pairs than pair 21 that can be trisomic. ALL autosomic trisomies that do not involve spontaneous abortion involve heart troubles in men. ALL non-mozaïque forms of autosomous trisomy in bigger chromosomes gives rise to spontaneous abortion, as does also ALL non-mozaïque forms of triploidy. I do not see any reason why other mammals should have different placentas or hearts.

I am not sure the last step would fix the heart trouble about the formerly tetrasomic new karyotype, but I am sure the heart troubles involved in previous generations leading up to that would make success in competition for mating (and yes, mammals are typically competitive in that respect) rather unlikely.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
G. Pompidou/Beauborg
Paris IV

*Trisomy, Wikipedia - if you check links on that article, the diverse trisomies available in human genetic pathology do indicate on article after article heart deficiencies among symptoms. A man once told me his mother had adopted a lot of trisomy 21 lads, because their short life expectancy and immaturity for sin made them his intercessors in Heaven. Whether he lied about that or not (I have heard a lot of lies to test my credulity, and I am slow and polite) is immaterial: the observation about heart trouble is accurate.

PS: if I had been the son of such a mother, I would have been wise to treat my trisomic stepbrothers kindly. If they go to Heaven remembering ones kindness, they might intercede, otherwise their prayers might be like the saints who pray for the humiliation of the enemies of the Holy Church (Apocalypse ch. 11).

PPS: about "chromosome splits", I have already answered in Karyogrammata, modifying in comment that a result of two strictly telomeric chromosomes or one normal and one telomeric from one normal splitting would be possible: but two non-telomeric chromsomes would not be a possible result from such a split.

dimanche 26 septembre 2010

Both indexes have been updated, followers and readers!

Another update on each - encore une mise à jour sur chaque index.

mercredi 8 septembre 2010

A good quote (from pakalert)

My favorite propaganda trend in the mainstream media today is one directed at researchers like myself who expose the darker side of our economic and political environment. The term “Apocalypse Porn”, or “Doomer Porn”, is rising as the preferred Ad hominem attack on Liberty Movement writers, in place of “conspiracy theorist” which doesn’t seem to be working for them anymore. The MSM apparently spends more time trying to develop ‘memes’ like this than they do actually researching the so called news they propagate. The insinuation is that we either embellish data to make it seem more frightening than it actually is, or, that by reporting on valid but terrible news, we are a “danger” to society, because we perpetuate fear. Basically, it is the beginnings of an argument for suppression of 1st Amendment rights.

The reason the information we report on is disturbing is not because it is “bad”, but because it is TRUE. There are children who could make the distinction, but some full grown men and women seem to have difficulty with the concept. When the establishment says that we as researchers and alternative media do not have a right to spread facts that might upset you, what they are also saying is that you as an American cannot be trusted to act responsibly and constructively with the facts you are given. They are saying that they need to protect you from yourself. Who ever gave them permission to take on that job?

The Doomer Porn argument rings hollow because what I state here in these articles is entirely subject to your verification. If I embellish, or lie, I will be caught, and thus, my writing becomes meaningless. If I tell the truth, the hard truth, it is not up to me or the MSM or anyone else accept yourself to decide what you will do with it.

That guy* was talking about bad economics. I am talking - here - about bad science. Either way, listen carefully to what they say, when and if they warn you not to read me.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
8/IX/2010, Nativity of
The Blessed Virgin Mary
Bibl. Mouffetard, Paris V

*Source: Pakalert: Dangerous Economic Misconceptions

lundi 6 septembre 2010

Am I foolish to say "Evolution of widely differring (mammal) species from each other is proven wrong"?

I have basically said so on the blogpost Karyogrammata. Is that foolish? Should I not have shut up and waited till some real scientists tell me so?

Well, I think I would be stupid or even foolish to wait till "real scientists" tell me they are no longer evolutionist. Why?

Because they do not want to lose their jobs.

I was asking today in the automatic laundry for coins for washing. "Get a job" I was told. Some people seem to think having a paycheck makes you an honest man. That is not always so.

Thank you, O'Keefe, for reminding me!


vendredi 13 août 2010

"I tried to prove something, I found what I wanted, so I have proven it - Right?"

Read up on Christopher Columbus, will you!

Here is Encyclopedia Britannica, eleventh edition, online, right page.

As you will notice, he tried to prove one could get to India, he found land, was content with that, and assumed he had found India.

Not long ago, it was often said (like by Washinton Irving: a Disney comic, starring Goofy as Christopher Columbus, which I read as a child, repeated this except it ended in a flat earth joke) that he had proven the earth round.

Incidentally he had that once again, but it was already proven in another way. He knew it, his contemporaries knew it, saying it was not a spectacular thing.

When he adressed himself to the King of Portugal, first, he appeared uninterested, but he sent one ship without telling Columbus, and it came back with frightened sailors. So the reason he was at difficulties getting a crew in Spain, apart from the war against the Moors (and yes, Al-Andalus had been under Moors, and it is not certain popular feeling under them accepted learned astronomers' conclusions about earth's roundness) may well have been sailors in Spain getting bad news from the Portuguese ones.

But one main thing is: he found land West of Spain, he knew that on a globe India is West of Spain, he thought he had found India. Duh ...

"I tried to prove something, I found what I wanted, so I have proven it" - Wrong!

But that lesson, which can really be learned from Christopher Columbus is not taught very well in schools.

Darwin tried to prove all creatures share a common ancestor, so he proves all dove species have a common ancestor* by cross-breeding indirectly species that will not cross-breed directly - and he thinks an argument by parallel is licit:

Finally, then, varieties have the same general characters as species, for they cannot be distinguished from species, except, firstly, by the discovery of intermediate linking forms, and the occurrence of such links cannot affect the actual characters of the forms which they connect; and except, secondly, by a certain amount of difference, for two forms, if differing very little, are generally ranked as varieties, notwithstanding that intermediate linking forms have not been discovered; but the amount of difference considered necessary to give to two forms the rank of species is quite indefinite. In genera having more than the average number of species in any country, the species of these genera have more than the average number of varieties. In large genera the species are apt to be closely, but unequally, allied together, forming little clusters round certain species. Species very closely allied to other species apparently have restricted ranges. In all these several respects the species of large genera present a strong analogy with varieties. And we can clearly understand these analogies, if species have once existed as varieties, and have thus originated: whereas, these analogies are utterly inexplicable if each species has been independently created.

Origin of the Species, Ch. 2

But, here he goes beyond evidence. He has never cross-bred dove and eagle*, nor will he ever, not even with very many intermediates. He has never cross-bred bird and lizard, nor will he ever, not even with very many intermediates. He went beyond evidence. Yet he thought he had found an argument. Explaining the lack of argument by intermediates being lost is an explanation, but not an argument.

Similarily, Galileo did prove one argument for Geocentrism wrong, to wit that no heavenly body is seen circling any other body than earth: he proved Jupiter had a moon. But he did not prove Jupiter circling Sun were not indirectly circling, along with sun, earth. So: He did not disprove Geocentrism.

But he thought he had.

St Robert Bellarmine confronted him with a problem: if we move around the sun each year, we should see the stars move other way round each year, but we do not. Galileo explained that lack of evidence by telescope not magnifying enough.

On top of that he explained tides a wrong way and made a wrong test implication which a Portuguese Cardinal knew from experience was wrong. I have examined the new theory by Sir George Darwin here: it seems to fit Heliocentrism and Geocentrism equally well.

Later it was discovered stars are seen to move back and forth each year, in very strong telescopes - but only some of them. St Robert had probably meant seeing all stars in the sphere of fixed stars moving. As it is these only some stars moving do not prove a sphere of fixed stars being seen from a moving earth. They prove either one or another of two things: either the "fixed stars" are not fixed, but moving, or they are very unequal distances from us. We know from other observations, moving with respect to rest of fixed stars, but same direction year after year, that fixed stars may move. So, a moving earth is still not proven optically.

It was, by then however assumed that earth was proven moving by another reason or two:

  • 1) Kepler had made a heliocentric model with ellipses, and the ellipses fit the observations;

  • 2)Newton had explained movement in a very roundabout complex way, and the observed movements fit that explanation.

And so the discovery of stars moving back and forth each year was by Catholics under pressure from Masonic régimes (like in France) taken as final proof Galileo was right even if he could not actually prove it, and by the rest as a convenient way to measure distances of stars from solar system, according to how much or little earth's supposed ellipse around sun (optically and by day/night/seasons an ellipse of sun around earth in relation to "fixed stars" - that are not fixed - would work as well) reflects in this or that star's observed movement back and forth each year.

"Our opponent told us we would see this if we were right, we have seen it, so we are right - right?"

Wrong. You did not see what St Robert probably meant you would see if you were right, you saw something which is indecisive.

Then the distances measured by these assumptions - how this is done see this message over here on Trigonometry and astronomic applications - are taken as proof the heaven's cannot be circling earth each day and night. (This is a century later and a half later"parallax" was discovered before 1850, the "parallax measured distances" are used as an argument after 2000).* But if "fixed stars" are as close as fixed stars can be and just not fixed, that is not a valid proof either.

It would be if fixed stars were taken to be held together by a solid material known from earth, because tensions would make it break at far lesser speeds, but Geocentrism does not depend on fixed stars being in a solid sphere. Nor do our opponents (who are the mainstream, if you thought I did not know that) themselves count the "fixed stars" as either fixed or in a solid sphere.

Our senses are not absolutely decisive proof against Heliocentrism, insofar as there is an explanation, consistent with Heliocentrism, proposed by Galileo and by Copernicus already that explains why we see what we see, even if it is not the exact truth. But this explanation is less economic than the Geocentric explanation, that we see what we see because it is the exact truth in this matter. Saying we see what we see for some other reason, it may be possible in quite a few matters, but in each we should have an obvious reason for rejecting the obvious explanation that we see what is there to see.

A message on speeds related to Heliocentrism and Geocentrism and so far extant living human observers is here. And a debate about to begin with if moon landing could have been staged to sell the pictures of an earth turning around - I said there was a motive, but no real necessity to assume a fake - and further on Geocentrism between me and essentially two other writers is here.

So, do schools teach the lessons that are there to be learned from these cases?


  • Christopher Columbus is still often taught to have proven the earth round, against the supposed adverse dogmaticism of the supposedly flat-earth fanatic Mediæval Church.

  • Galileo is taught as having proven Heliocentrism, by discovering moons around Jupiter and by giving a non-direct explanation of our sight and balance sensations in case Heliocentrism is assumed right.

  • Darwin is assumed to have proven his point.

And if it is remembered that Columbus thought he had found India, it is always thought of ass a little sad joke about him, never as a lesson in logic. Because if it were, it would be obvious that Galileo, Darwin and others too might have over-interpreted a success in the experiments.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Mouffetard, Paris V
Dormition of the Blessed Virgin

*Dove species having a common ancestor is an example of what in Creationist circles is known as micro-evolution (small [change] evolution), and has been proven, dove and eagle having a common acestor is referred to as macro-evolution (big [change] evolution) and has never been observed or proven in itself.

**Funny enough, as I was writing on this paragraph the window closed down, Blogger is great by its automatic saving device. I reconnected on Mouffetard library computer n°10 at 13:41 o' clock p.m.

vendredi 18 juin 2010

Human population after Noah, racial and demographic pseudoproblems for creationism

1) Human population after Noah, racial and demographic pseudoproblems for creationism, 2) Have "Humans Interbred with Neanderthals and Denisovans"?, 3) Sorry, Duursma, but all languages have the cases of Proto-Indoeuropean, there is no primitive language ... (which is on Φιλολoγικά/Philologica blog), 4) After Flood and Babel : Was There a PIE Unity?, 5) Chiara Bozzone on Caland System - Short Review, Trubetskoyan Comment (which is again on Φιλολoγικά/Philologica blog)

Numbers: if Noah and three sons with wives were only people alive some five thousand years ago, why are we so many?

A man becomes fertile at fourteen, give and take some years, very extreme limits being nine and eighteen. For a woman the extreme limits are the same, but the mean puberty is twelve. She rests fertile until c. age 60. A man rests unctionnally fertile longer.

A pregnancy takes nine months, but ideally one spaces them out one in two years. You start off with three couples - presuming Noah and wife had no further children, besides where would a fourth son have gotten his wife from? - and their sons (enumerated in Genesis) are free to marry first cousins, but not siblings.

If each one of them has enough empty space and good health, and so on ... the present population would have been reached very long ago.

So why are we so few?

The reasons are sufficiently different among themselves to spare us any so called responsibility for keeping us "few enough".

Colours: if all races - black, white, red and yellow - descend from Shem, Ham and Japheth with wives some five thousand years ago, why are we so different?

Linking to a picture of Halle Berry.

She belongs to the black community of US. Why? Because there are these ethnic communities there, and because solidarity - previously exclusion too - where strong within (previously against) that particular community.

In France 150 years ago, she would have been accepted as a "Caucasian" (White). Alexandre Dumas the Elder was 1/4 grandparents black ancestry, 3/4 grandparents white ancestry. A. D. the Younger was 1/8 great-grandparents black and 7/8 great-grandparents white. He had blue eyes. If he looked a bit more white than Halle (except that or if she has naturally straight hair), his father looked a bit more black than she. Today, here, she might (except she is allready known) pass for a Gipsy, Arab or South Spanish woman. The near extremes of skin colour are then 8 ancestors getting or loosing a melanine gene. Sometimes there is a place for the saying "difference is only skin deep".

Both: how did the races get to the places, like Ararat is no where near either Manhattan or Easter Island?

When I formulated the objection, and included Easter Island, some of you may have guessed I was thinking of Thor Heyerdahl. He was not a creationist, we know from some of his writings he was not just agnostic but a believing Old Earth Evolutionist. He did nothing of what he did harbouring the intention himself of proving creationism possible on this account, but we know he did prove the population of Americas and Oceania after Ararat by boat a technical possibility. The raft he used for Perú - Polynesia and the Reed Boat he used for Heliopolis - Americas were well within technical know-how of Noah with immediate successors. As for the official 20.000 years since Americas were populated, that may very well be a misdating (problems of C14 for very old dates are dealt with by other creationist authors).

Even without Thor Heyerdahl, Easter Island proves "by itself" (or by being populated before Roggeveen, Cook, Bougainville et al.) that population of continents across the sea have been possible before Columbus.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Day of St Ephrem
Bibl. Clignancourt
75018 Paris

Update for modelling of diverging skin colour from mid brown parents:

The sets of AaBb in both parents were given by a CMI video, but here I get out implications according to my knowledge of Mendel's laws:

AaBb * AaBb each has one of two possible melanine plus in each of two locations (each location also permits lack of melanine) regulating possibly different types of melanine = 2+ Note that A/a and B/b are different loci on even different chromosome pairs. Otherwise they would not recombine free, one of them independently of each other.

AA BB 4+ – probably darker than parents
AA Bb 3+ – probably darker than parents
AA bB 3+ – probably darker than parents
AA bb 2+ – as parents, but maybe different shade (like if the 2+ are concerned with same melanine while parents had different ones)

Aa BB 3+ – probably darker than parents
Aa Bb 2+ – as parents
Aa bB 2+ – as parents
Aa bb 1+ – probably lighter skinned than parents

aA BB 3+ – probably darker than parents
aA Bb 2+ – as parents
aA bB 2+ – as parents
aA bb 1+ – probably lighter skinned than parents

aa BB 2+ – as parents, but maybe different shade
aa Bb 1+ – probably lighter skinned than parents
aa bB 1+ – probably lighter skinned than parents
aa bb 0 = no melanine, very light skinned

Note that skin colour is just one parameter differentiating Caucasian from Negroid type, where these two are extremes. Mongoloid type falling usually in between (except some very light skinned Japanese). So called Mulattos – mixed ancestry Caucasian Negroid – are not Mongoloid, but they also fall in between. Some Caucasians even are as dark skinned as these mixed ancestry. Certain Arabs, certain Indians, including many Gipsies.

In hair structure, Negroid and Mongoloid type are extreme, and Caucasians are all the middle out to the extremes. Wavy hair ? Caucasian. And wavy is in middle between curly (where Caucasians get as curly as Negroid type) and straight (where Caucasians get as straight as Mongoloid type).

Hair colour ? One extreme is black. It is over nearly all Negroid and Mongolian types and over a great part of Caucasian type. The other extreme is Blonde and Red head – both only within Caucasian type, when we speak of populations.

Eye colour – different shades of Brown is usual, while Blue and Green eyes come within Caucasian type. Brown eyes in Caucasians do not mean they mixed with Negroids some recent time back in the family, as blue eyes usually would in people of the Negroid type (albinos excepted).

Though in skin colour, Caucasian type is one extreme, thus not very varied, in many other aspects Caucasian type is the spectrum, while Negroid and Mongoloid types are either sharing one extreme of it (like in hair colour) or are at different extremes (like in hair shape).

This does probably mean that Caucasian type is the most mixed and represents kind of the bulk of mankind. Which is a far better explanation of why people showing this type have colonised or deported people not showing it but showing instead Mongoloid or especially Negroid type than the explanation of overall genetic superiority./HGL

vendredi 4 juin 2010

But believing in Noah and his sons makes you a racist, right?

Ham was cursed for laughing at his father, and blacks descend from Ham, so believing this makes you "black submissionist", right?


Ham, when committing his crime, was an adult, even a father. The blacks descend from Kush, one of his sons. The one son who was cursed along with his father was Canaan.

That curse was already fulfilled by Joshua (descending from Shem) and Scipio (descending from Japheth) conquering realms of the Canaaneans/Phœnicians (descending from Ham's son Canaan) and thereby ending a very bad kind of child hating idolatry.

Just for noting it .../HGL


Racism has a recently strong foundation in Darwinism:

A) Polygenism of humanity arguing that Blacks and Whites reach manhood from different lines of Homo Erectus - has, seems, been refuted, but that was after WW-2

B) "Survival of the fittest" arguing against a morality common to all mankind.

Thereby arguing against moral indignation against slave hunters.



Already stated this, says something about politics around certain places that I was actually called "Ham" as opposed to "Hans" in one place last week. I so prefer keeping to the point rather than refuting what should not need refutation ...

Pour francophones tendance monoglottes, sur d'autres blogs

Statistiques pour cette page. [Apparement mis hors fonction.]

vendredi 21 mai 2010

If you are creationist, that means you are ...

... Lubavitcher?
... Moslem?
... Born Again Bible Christian without any Pope above self?

Short of it is: no, you cannot be all of these, it might mean one as well as other, or neither but something else.

I am Catholic. I was just in a French FB debate defending the rights of Catholics to be creationist.

... Stupid?
... Having Cognitive Problems?

Now, that is very self serving of evolutionists to think so. If they do that.

... A Sceptic who does not accept any proof as valid?

Same response. Telling people "that creationist is intelligent, but he does not believe one can prove reality is more than his own illusion" or some similar ultra-sceptic idiocy attributed to me is a means of trying to scare people away from my creationist writings.

I do accept certain proofs as valid, even parts of evolutionist proofs. But I do not accept certain other proofs as valid. One I do not accept as validly proving evolutionist scenario against young earth creationist scenario is "there are millions of concurring facts" when each of them is just as much a proof of a young earth scenario, since completely compatible with it.

... Geocentric?

Indeed I am. Each proof that "earth turns around its own axis in 24 h." is compatible with universe turning around earth's axis in 24 h. Each optical proof that "all planets including earth" turn around sun is compatible with sun and moon turning around earth in year and moon, and other close celestial bodies, around sun.

In the case of circumstantial evidence being not clearly favouring one of either alternatives, I opt for the most straightforward evidence: eyes and balance sense about earth standing still, history, even holy history, about earth being created nearly within the span of human existence and there being a line, a lineage, from first man to survivor of flood, from survivor of flood to Abraham, Moses, David, Jesus Christ.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Friday before Pentecost
2010, Paris, Beaubourg

... not yet married?

How did you know? Did they harass creationists at your school too, so they got no girl friends?


I have followers on some blogs: musicalia, deretour, Philologica, Morphologia Latina and Gm b1 lou, of late also on Creation vs Evolution all of which are functional in English. Same goes for Recipes from Home and Abroad.

If some of you got on to more blogs that might interest you, there might be some debates in comment sections.

mardi 18 mai 2010

She put this anyway as well as I could (so I link)

Too much information
from early stage of conversion story of Jennifer

Those REAL Old Jamborees ...

1) Those REAL Old Jamborees ... , 2) Did Noah suffer like Winston - undefeated?, 3) Medieval Italian Neanderthal?

...written for those really gorgeous girls who gave me French fries in Jardin des Plantes, especially the one lying face to face with me when we sat up

As you have maybe already seen, I am not arguing againts Carbon 14 dating in English, because there is already so much about it on the web (French is another thing). I assume you know why I do not think it proves ages beyond Biblical dating.

So, if earth was created some 7200 or a little more years ago and Adam started farming immediately, if there was originally no C14 in atmosphere, if the C14 in atmosphere has been slowly building up - what are the consequences?

I am in a relaxed mood, not trying to refute or prove beyond dispute. Just: what are the consequences?

One is, you would expect to find historic material dated wrong period, and yes, if Troy was taken 1184 BC, if Hissarlik in Turkey is Troy, then Troy VI or VII would be some 100 - 200 years dated too old, if it was the right one, and even more so if Troy II was the right one, as Schliemann thought.

Another consequence is of course that Neanderthal finds, Dordogne finds, Atapuerca finds (and that is in Monte de Ocas, not far from Burgos) are dated way too old, thousands of years too old. And that these people really were contemporary with men we read of in the Bible, like ... maybe these men before the Flood. But the men before the flood were highly technological, the men in Neanderthal and Dordogne, the men or creatures in Atapuerca were so not?

Lets grab your Chesterton, Everlasting Man: if the painted grottos of Lascaux may just as well have been very old Kindergardens, for all we know, the dwellings of cavemen may very well have been very old, and I mean REAL old jamborees.

I suppose you all know Baden Powell wrote Scouting for Boys. And that since boy scouts and girl guides have been going on jamborees. Well, on a jamboree you deny yourself part of the conforts of civilisation don't you? For all we know, at least the clearly human bones may have been from people dying on a jamboree from a very much more civilised Nod, east of Eden.

Not meaning every practise was according to the Scout law. It seems the Cro Magnon race widely practised anthropophagy a k a cannibalism. So did, by the way, very recently some people of Papuan race. Both for enemies and for dead relatives. And Nod itself too, though civilised, was a city state where evil grew, eventually attracting God's punishment, the Flood.

Speaking of jamborees, even after the Flood some people seem to have started as jamborees, the Amish being a very moderate, peaceful, decent and recent case in point. I think Red Indians N and S of Maya-Aztec-Peruvian high and cruel civilisations started like that.

So next time you read about Rahan, the son of the wild ages (Rahan, le fils des ages farouches), watch out for Cainite ancestors ...

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Buffon, Paris V
18th of May, St Eric of Sweden
in YooL 2010