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?

Followers

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.

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
18^th of May, St Eric of Sweden
in YooL 2010