Human Ancestor or Human during Flood?

Isn't There a Geological Column in Laetoli, and Aren't the Footprints Proof of Human Ancestors? · Human Ancestor or Human during Flood? · These Footprints Look Human to Me?

Ancient human ancestor was one tall dude, his footprints say
on mail dot com
https://www.mail.com/int/scitech/news/4831810-ancient-human-ancestor-was-tall-dude-footprints.html

I'll only quote the bold text:

NEW YORK (AP) — He stood a majestic 5-foot-5, weighed around 100 pounds and maybe had a harem. That's what scientists figure from the footprints he left behind some 3.7 million year ago. He's evidently the tallest known member of the prehuman species best known for the fossil skeleton nicknamed "Lucy," reaching a stature no other member of our family tree matched for another 1.5 million years, the researchers say.

I checked the rest of the article and so no reference to any Australopithecus Afarensis bones.

Especially none with human type feet (Lucy is footless! See here:)

Par 120 — own picture worked with photoshop, CC BY 2.5, Lien

So, the clearly human footprints (not sure I can afford to show picture yet, will be added if possible, see link) could have not been from a relative of Lucy?

Yes, if and only if:

• men existed back when this is from, and not meaning Australopithecines;
• this was so recent that one cannot reasonably say "Australopithecines wre the only men back then".

This means, it is feasible if both Lucy and these footprints are from diverse kinds back at the time of Noah's Flood.

If from the same kind - then you reconstruct the Lucy skeleton as having human feet. If from diverse kinds 3.7 million years ago, you ask the question why no human skeleta are found for another 1.5 million years.

So, if you want to say, as I do, Lucy was an ape, the footprints are from a man, you have to skip the millions of years. I do so too.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
Octave of Immaculate
Conception of the BVM
15.XII.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.

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? · HGL's F.B. writings : 9) Comparing with Gerardus D. Bouw Ph. D., Debating with Roger M Pearlman on Chronology · 10) Continuing with Pearlman, Especially on Göbekli Tepe and Dating of Ice Age

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

Steno and "Vertical Barbecue" contra John Laurie

Geology series	Feedback 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))

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.

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? · HGL's F.B. writings : 9) Comparing with Gerardus D. Bouw Ph. D., Debating with Roger M Pearlman on Chronology · 10) Continuing with Pearlman, Especially on Göbekli Tepe and Dating of Ice Age

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

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 - Benthosuchidae	Angusaurus 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

Pre-Flood Biomass and More

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? · HGL's F.B. writings : 9) Comparing with Gerardus D. Bouw Ph. D., Debating with Roger M Pearlman on Chronology · 10) Continuing with Pearlman, Especially on Göbekli Tepe and Dating of Ice Age

I cannot take credit for coming up with the idea of biomass being vastly greater before the Flood. It belongs to John Baumgardner, Ph.D.*

What difference would this make? Lots more carbon in the atmosphere (and less nitrogen, nitrogen isn't stocked down in the earth, so more biomass meant more of the nitrogen, same total quantity as today, stocked in living creatures and less of it free in atmosphere), along with lots more oxygen (I presume, and I also presume for my part, part of that oxygen is now water after making an oxyhydrogen bang with hydrogen "waters" above that firmament when "the flood gates of heaven were opened"**) - that lots more carbon in atmosphere and less nitrogen, means even an equal production of new ¹⁴C from nitrogen hit by cosmic radiation of even same intensity would result in a lower ¹⁴C ratio in relation to the ¹²C.

And since biological material doesn't just swell the proportion of carbon so as to include more ¹⁴C, a lower ¹⁴C ratio meant, even with equal amount in total, which probably there wasn't, less ¹⁴C in each pound of living flesh, less ¹⁴C stocked in bones or possibly preserved soft tissue.

But of course, with less nitrogen in the air and much more nitrogen in living things on earth, while also less ¹⁴C was being formed, even with an equal amount of cosmic radiation.

That also would radically have altered ¹⁴C ratio downward. Even if the cosmic radiation was as great. Either counting it in relation to incoming radiation from space or in relation to protecting magnetic field. But on top of that it could even have been smaller with a stronger magnetic field, if for instance the flood gates of heaven would have included magnetic field as then stronger used by God for preventing too early formation of Brown's gas (in my scenario).

However, there is a hinch here.

If the rise in ¹⁴C ratio depended solely on the very sudden disappearance of much carbon along with biomass, we would have had a very sudden rise in ¹⁴C formation. And its reflection in living organisms.

On the other hand, in this scenario, there would also have been a more gradual rise (in time with decomposition of nitrogen from animal or plant bodies and evaporation of it from trapped bodies - I am supposing decomposing nitrogen is released again into atmosphere and not trapped forever as ammoniac - this is science somewhat beyond my level), and therefore a gradual rise in what the cosmic radiation had to hit.

This in its turn would have contributed to the rise of ¹⁴C in ways that involved less cosmic radiation beyond ours than I had presumed in my previous studies. So, the cosmic radiation just after Flood might even have been lower than the total background radiation at Princeton, and we still get the kind of rise in ¹⁴C which I describe in the table on the Avec un peu d'aide de Fibonnacci, and its modification in my previous essay on the subject.

More, I am not at all sure biomass could even have been as great as 100 times what we have now. If there was more oxygen (which on my view got down into the Oceans) and relatively less Nitrogen, that would not necessarily have made Earth able to support 100 times as much biomass as we have.

There might also be one hitch in Baumgardner's reasoning behind the 100 times***:

The Bible, by contrast, paints a radically different picture of our planet's history. In particular, it describes a time when God catastrophically destroyed the earth and essentially all its life. The only consistent way to interpret the geological record in light of this event is to understand that fossil-bearing rocks are the result of a massive global Flood that occurred only a few thousand years ago and lasted but a year. This Biblical interpretation of the rock record implies that the animals and plants preserved as fossils were all contemporaries. This means trilobites, dinosaurs, and mammals all dwelled on the planet simultaneously, and they perished together in this world-destroying cataclysm.

No, Evolutionists, the hitch is not trusting the Bible.

The hitch is this: for the trilobites, dinosaurs and fossile mammals actually preserved, this is certainly so.

But Evolutionists have projected each of the categories into a whole Earth fauna with LOTS more than is preserved.

We cannot really count on all that many T Reges, all that many Allosauri or Brontosauri. Or Dimetrodontes or Trilobita. Oh, sure, the ones we find, and certainly some order of magnitude more, but hardly as much as it would be if all the Evolutionist visions of faunae were piled onto each other as contemporary. And dito of florae.

So much for what I understand the argument of Baumgardner as meaning, if accepted and just added to my previous ones.

Now I'll discuss three scenarios, two with very huge pre-Flood and one with smaller pre-Flood biomass.

Let's start with the smaller one. Say it was twice as much as today, if even that. It became mainly fossil fuels, like coal, petrol and natural gas. Much of it has already been used up.

Have you noticed that the atmosphere is nearly as rich in ¹⁴C as before? The level hasn't dropped down to the presumed pre-Flood level - or to the actually proven pre-Flood level. I am presuming the amount released into atmosphere as gasses outweighs that tied down as plastic.

If that is all there is to the biomass from before the Flood, the argument is gone for Baumgardner. Also, petrol and other mineral resources will soon be up. That is not a disaster, for fuel one can use wood or dried cowdung. Or even dry seaweed, perhaps. And petrol per se is not among the things that make an acre more productive as arable land.

see enumeration on
New blog on the kid : More from wiki Arable land
http://nov9blogg9.blogspot.com/2016/11/more-from-wiki-arable-land.html

Other possibility (purely speculatively, without testing other consequences which might falsify, just taking the cue from Baumgardner), it was much larger, if not 100 times, 50 or at least 20 times the present. In this proposed case also, most went down into Earth, mineral carbon is very far from depleted due to this being much larger. If all were burnt, it would make a huge difference in the atmosphere and ¹⁴C would drastically sink. Because the new total level of Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere would be very much greater.

In and of itself, that would not be a disaster, it would restore levels of pre-Flood carbon dioxide. But it might flood parts of the Earth and dry out parts of the Earth.

Since Earth has since Flood much more water in the Seas, dry land after Flood depends much more on water not rising.

This part could be a non-possibility right there, if seas encroaching that much on land contradict:

Jeremias (Jeremiah) 5:22 Will not you then fear me, saith the Lord: and will you not repent at my presence? I have set the sand a bound for the sea, an everlasting ordinance, which it shall not pass over: and the waves thereof shall toss themselves, and shall not prevail: they shall swell, and shall not pass over it.

Unless God's keeping of this word involves us not burning too much petrol. Not "depends on", God has promised, but averting that we burn too much may be part of God's keeping this promise.

Third scenario, here also biomass was much larger, but it has gone into the seas, the carbon cycle of the seas, carbon dioxide streaming upward to the algae and cyanobacteria, biomass and dead biomass gravitating in steps to the deep, took care of far more than ever the fossil fuels.

This retains the argument of Baumgardner, but leaves the environmental issue as with a low pre-Flood biomass scenario. As, therefore, no big deal.

It also helps to explain the reservoir effect of dating things that live off lots of sea food. Though for this, it is enough that the carbon cycle of the Ocean is mainly distinct from that of the atmosphere. Mainly, it cannot be totally so.

But let's count a bit on biomass again.

I proposed that biomass 100 or even 50 times as great would involve Nitrogen being more tied up in organisms. Wouldn't that also be the case of Carbon? And wouldn't that in its turn have made the carbon that was forming as ¹⁴C rather more dominant in the pre-Flood atmosphere, making the ¹⁴C/¹²C ratio in atmosphere and therefore in living things much higher?

That would destroy Baumgardner's argument.

Or, suppose, small scenario, carbon cycle in atmosphere certainly totally outweighs that tied up in biomass, and did so nearly as much before the Flood, that would have left the ¹⁴C/¹²C ratio before the Flood about equal to now, if otherwise as much ¹⁴C was forming.

That is why I think we need, as Creationists, to presume less overall ¹⁴C was forming up to Flood. Either less cosmic radiation was produced, and stars and Sun obeying God started doing more of it just after Flood, or magnetic shield was far stronger and was suddenly weakened after Flood, or both.

And the kind of rise in ¹⁴C which has been seen since the Flood (and it is a gradual rise, you cannot squeeze all the stone age into the first decade after Flood, since then there lived only 8 adult persons, all born after Flood were as yet babies) means that more ¹⁴C was being added just after Flood (though gradual, it was arguably rising much faster after Flood than before stabilising), both more than before the Flood and more than even now.

Taken with the magnetic shield only, this gives a scenario of:

• very strong shield Creation to Anno Mundi 2242, year of Flood
• very weak shield just after Flood
• gradual strengthening of the shield from 2242 to sth like anno Mundi 4700, that is 500 BC.
• since then a stable level of ¹⁴C depending on a half strong shield.

And here I am contradicting "mainstream Creationist" scenario for magnetic shield, amn't I?

Sarfati's diagram from 1998 or from 2014 (article's writing date and update date) shows a maximal but decaying intensity up to Flood. Then a sudden drop at Flood with some reversals even, then fluctuations up to Christ, then a steady decay up to now.

This steady decay up to now would involve more ¹⁴C forming, and the decay keeping up with it less. And this would mean we would be in a growing ¹⁴C/¹²C ratio.

Not so, I have proven, in my essay Examinons une hypothèse qui se trouve contrefactuelle un peu de près, that this would mean that if halflife were calibrated by actual dating results, these would be shortening the halflife radically. As well as making it inconsistent : you would not be able to use the halflife calibrated by one histoirically datable object to accurately date one from a different century.

This means, I have to be very sceptical about Sarfati's model for the magnetic field. Now, he is giving a reference as an argument.

In the 1970s, the creationist physics professor Dr Thomas Barnes noted that measurements since 1835 have shown that the field is decaying at 5% per century1 (also, archaeological measurements show that the field was 40% stronger in AD 1000 than today2).

From: CMI : The earth’s magnetic field: evidence that the earth is young
by Jonathan Sarfati | March 1998; updated August 2014
http://creation.com/the-earths-magnetic-field-evidence-that-the-earth-is-young

Footnote 1 K.L. McDonald and R.H. Gunst, ‘An analysis of the earth’s magnetic field from 1835 to 1965,’ ESSA Technical Report, IER 46-IES 1, U.S. Govt. Printing Office, Washington, 1967.

Footnote 2 R.T. Merrill and M.W. McElhinney, The Earth’s Magnetic Field, Academic Press, London, pp. 101–106, 1983.

No actual indication as how Merrill and McElhinney derive their view on Earth's magnetic field 1000 years ago is given, and the analyses ranging 1835 to 1965 could be a temporary trend.

I am not saying I am absolutely right here, but for the moment I can't see exactly how I could be wrong, if on the one hand datings of historically well dated objects (i e last 2500 years) confirms known dates and stable half life, and on the other hand ¹⁴C rose very steeply after Flood planing out up to then.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
Dedication of
Our Saviour's Basilica
of the Lateran in Rome
9.XI.2016

Update next day:

I forgot (such was my lack of sleep) to add that if there is anything at all in a minor way with the argument of Baumgardner, it is at least enough to push the ¹⁴C from a pre-Flood value as per Baumgardner 0.4% to my initial post-Flood values of 3-4.sth %. Especially as the pre-Flood value would be the somewhat higher 0.43% of present, if replacing his equation:

With this more realistic pre-Flood ¹⁴C/¹²C ratio, we find that a value of 0.24 pmc corresponds to an age of only 4200 years (0.004 x 2^-4200/5730 = 0.0024 = 0.24 pmc).

With this: we find that a value of 0.24 pmc corresponds to an age of only 4973 years (0.004379975236037067013526 x 2^-4973/5730 = 0.0024 = 0.24 pmc)./HGL

* "However, uniformitarian assumptions are inappropriate when one considers that the Genesis Flood removed vast amounts of living biomass from exchange with the atmosphere—organic material that now forms the earth's vast coal, oil, and oil shale deposits. A conservative estimate for the pre-Flood biomass is 100 times that of today."

ICR : Carbon Dating Undercuts Evolution's Long Ages
by John Baumgardner, Ph.D.
http://www.icr.org/article/carbon-dating-undercuts-evolutions-long-ages

I must admit that in the following words he gives a somewhat possible alternative explanation to my model:

"If one takes as a rough estimate for the total ¹⁴C in the biosphere before the cataclysm as 40% of what exists today and assumes a relatively uniform 14C level throughout the pre-Flood atmosphere and biomass, then we might expect a ¹⁴C/¹²C ratio of about 0.4% of today's value in the plants and animals at the onset of the Flood. With this more realistic pre-Flood ¹⁴C/¹²C ratio, we find that a value of 0.24 pmc corresponds to an age of only 4200 years (0.004 x 2-4200/5730 = 0.0024 = 0.24 pmc)."

Obviously we are not talking the same timescale, not exactly, since he considers Flood centuries more recent than I do.

** This scenario, however, I can take credit for, see my debate with GreedyCapybara:

"I have my theory that both atmosphere with Oxygen and a Hydrogen vault were made as the air (oxygen) separated waters below the firmament (H₂O) from waters above it (mostly H₂ which is "instant water" if you add oxygen and a spark) and that some of both atmosphere and hydrogen layer were used up to make flood water."

Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : ... on Flood with GreedyCapybara7 (snappy version)
http://assortedretorts.blogspot.fr/2014/01/on-flood-with-greedycapybara7-snappy.html *** Quote from article cited above.

Parallel Answers to CMI : Is Genesis a Legend?

Sometimes, I look at what CMI cite as input, then do NOT look at what they answer, copy only the input, and then comment on it myself. So today.

Thomas Huxley was quoted

“I am fairly at a loss to comprehend how anyone, for a moment, can doubt that Christian theology must stand or fall with the historical trustworthiness of the Jewish Scriptures… if Abraham is more or less a mythical hero … the Story of the Deluge a fiction; that of the Fall a legend; and that of the Creation the dream of a seer; if all these definite and detailed narratives of apparently real events have no more value as history than have the stories of the regal period of Rome—what is to be said about the Messianic doctrine, which is so much less clearly enunciated: And what about the authority of the writers of the books of the New Testament, who … have not merely accepted flimsy fictions for solid truths, but have built the very foundations of Christian dogma upon legendary quicksands?”

And attributed

Huxley, T., Science and Hebrew Tradition, Appleton and Company, New York, p. 207, 1897.

A Blogger was quoted

“The writings of the bible were put down on paper by (mostly) old men who acted out of complete ignorance (for example the world was created in 7 days and is about 6,000 years old). We now know that that is COMPLETE nonsense so why should anyone have to abide by this rubbish?”

And attributed

A reader’s comment on: Phillips, M., Pinch yourself! A Tory Prime Minister is upholding the idea that traditional morality is bigotry, dailymail.co.uk, 14 February 2011.

[Their policy of not linking to blogs makes this attribution less clear.]

In

Christianity stands or falls on the historical accuracy of Genesis1
by Dominic Statham
http://creation.com/christianity-stands-or-falls

Now, I'll answer the blogger first:

Disagreeing with your world view is not ignorance.

Within your world view, you can argue that such a dinosaur being 100 million years old and such another one being 200 million years old is a matter of fact - as per the facthood you attribute to your scientists.

If you say a Ceratopsian is 300 million years old, you are contradicting what you presume to be known fact, namely Ceratopsians being from the latest chunk of Mesozoic, the Cretaceous, while 300 million years ago is hardly even Mesozoic, probably Palaeozoic.

But when it comes to a dinosaur being 100 million years old, or from the Flood, we are dealing with opinion, namely opinion or belief or conviction or rational conclusion on which of two systems for dating Ceratopsians is better : using Genesis chapters 6 to 8 as a clue or using chronostratigraphy as a clue. Or on which authority is better, using Bible as inerrant or using scientists as "best we have", and nothing contradicting their (from your p o v) presumed consensus can be backed up by anything else (including Bible or especially Bible) to YOUR satisfaction.

Now, Huxley tried to make a more detailed case and I will go to his characteristics one by one.

“I am fairly at a loss to comprehend how anyone, for a moment, can doubt that Christian theology must stand or fall with the historical trustworthiness of the Jewish Scriptures…

Very correct.

if Abraham is more or less a mythical hero …

I don't know what you mean exactly by mythical, I don't think you know it yourself.

If you mean "non-historic" that does in a way follow, but the problem is that "mythical heroes" are much more likely to be historic than "mythical [Pagan] gods".

the Story of the Deluge a fiction;

If it were a fiction, it is very noteworthy that people not in a position to plagiarise it from a common original (whether Bible or Babel) have nevertheless plagiarised it across the Atlantic Ocean as well as the Ural Mountains.

I do not think it is fiction for a moment.

that of the Fall a legend;

Sound like you accepted the Protestant view of how trustworthy legends are.

Calvin didn't like how Catholics venerated relics of the Holy Cross, so he attacked the Legend of St Helen and the Finding of the Cross.

Calvin didn't like how Catholics considered devoutly Papist saints holier and more trustworthy than he, so he attacked legends about them making miracles.

In the process, he redefined - for Protestants - the content of the word "legend".

To a Catholic "legenda" simply is the Latin for "shall be read" or "things that shall be read". And the legend of the Finding of the Cross shall indeed be read in Matins of May 3, along with other legenda:

Hierosolymis Inventio sacrosanctae Crucis Dominicae, sub Constantino Imperatore.		In Jerusalem, Finding of the Most Holy Cross, under Emperor Constantine.
Romae, via Nomentana, passio sanctorum Martyrum Alexandri Papae Primi, Eventii et Theoduli Presbyterorum. Ex his Alexander, sub Hadriano Principe et Aureliano Judice, post vincula, carceres, equuleum, ungulas et ignes, punctis creberrimis per tota membra confossus ac peremptus est; Eventius vero et Theodulus, post longos carceres, ignibus examinati, ad ultimum decollati sunt.		In Rome, on Via Nomentana, passion of holy martyrs Pope Alexander I, and the Priests Eventius and Theodule. Of these, Alexander, under Hadrian as Prince and Aurelian as Judge, after chains, gaols, easel, nails (pulled out?) and fire, most tight stings, was buried by all members and killed; but Eventius and Theodule, after long gaoling, tortured by fire, were at last beheaded.
Narniae sancti Juvenalis, Episcopi et Confessoris.		In Narnia, sorry, in Narni, Saint Juvenal, Bishop and Confessor.
Apud montem Senarium, in Etruria, natalis sanctorum Sostenaei et Uguccionis Confessorum, e septem Fundatoribus Ordinis Servorum beatae Mariae Virginis; qui, caelitus admoniti, eadem die et hora, salutationem Angelicam recitantes, e vita migrarunt. Ipsorum autem ac Sociorum festum pridie Idus Februarii celebratur.		At Monte Senario, in Tuscany, birthday of holy confessors Sosteneo and Uguccione, of the seven Founding Fathers of the Order of the Servants of the Blessed Virgin Mary; who, following adminishment from heaven, at the same day and hour, reciting the salute of the Angel, migrated from life. But their and their companions' feast is celebrated on February 12.
Constantinopoli sanctorum Martyrum Alexandri militis, et Antoninae Virginis. Haec, in persecutione Maximiani, sub Praeside Festo, ad lupanar damnata, et ab Alexandro, qui pro ipsa ibi remanserat, mutatis vestibus clam educta, cum eo postmodum jussa est torqueri; et ambo simul in ignem, praecisis manibus, pro Christo sunt injecti, atque ita, egregio peracto certamine, coronantur.		In Constantinople of holy martyrs the Knight/Soldier Alexander and the Virgin Antonina. She, in the persecution of Maximian, under the praeses Festus, condemned to the brothel, and after changing clothes brought out from there in secret by Alexander who had remained there for her, was afterwards ordered to be tortured with him, and both were at the same time cast into the fire, with hands cut off, and so, after going through an outstanding competition, were crowned.
In Thebaide sanctorum Martyrum Timothei et Maurae conjugis, quos Arianus Praefectus, post multa tormenta, cruci jussit affigi; in qua, per novem dies cum vivi pependissent ac se ipsos in fide roborassent, martyrium consummarunt.		In the Thebaid, holy martyrs Timotheus and his wife Maura, whom Arian the prefect (or whom the prefect who was an Arian), after many torments ordered to be fastened to a cross, on which, after having hung alive for nine days and strengthened each other in faith, they consumed their martyrdom.
Aphrodisiae, in Caria, sanctorum Martyrum Diodori et Rhodopiani, qui, in persecutione Diocletiani Imperatoris, a civibus suis lapidati sunt.		In Aphrodisia, in Caria, of holy martyrs Diodore and Rhodopian, who, in the persecution of Diocletian the Emperor, were stoned by their own (fellow) citizens.
Et alibi aliorum plurimorum sanctorum Martyrum et Confessorum, atque sanctarum Virginum. R. Deo gratias.		And elsewhere of many other holy Martyrs and Confessors, and of (many other) Holy Virgins. R. Thanks be to God.

And the legend of St Francis of Assisi is similarily read on the Matins of October 4th.

In this clearcut sense, the Fall IS a legend, because it SHALL be read, namely each Easter Vigil. Before you come to Flood, Exodus, other passages, Epistle and one of the Gospels for the Resurrection of Christ.

The Protestant use of the word "legend" is shilly-shallying. To one it means anything next to "total lie" and to another it means "nearly history, just not so well documented".

Those who use the words like this obviously thinks the above legends for Finding of the Cross and so on are not good documentation for these things actually happening.

Apparently, the extremely corrupt Roman Catholic Church, as per some Jack Chick tract, spent centuries without reading a word in the Bible, then someone panicked and said "why don't we get sth to read?" and then they started a committee to write all this, for each day of the year, just for fun.

Needless to say, the hypothesis for Jack Chick's view of Catholic legend is less well dated and placed (between which years they didn't read the Bible and when and where someone panicked) than the legends within the Roman Martyrology.

So, though I see no problem in calling the Fall, technically "a legend", it depends on what you mean, and it obviously does NOT mean fiction. It does not even mean "not historic".

and that of the Creation the dream of a seer;

The days preceding creation of Adam, thus up to beginning of day Six, obviously had no human witness, either Adam or Moses or both of them received this information in a vision.

Which is less problematic if you are, as I, a Catholic, and respect the visions of St Bridget or of Blessed Anna Katherina Emmerich.

Obviously, Huxley had the Protestant view of visions, at least of visions after the Bible was written, and Huxley, not quite unintelligibly, extended this view to the Biblical or Biblically implied (like this) visions as well.

if all these definite and detailed narratives of apparently real events

Yes, that is a point.

Do definite and detailed narratives of apparently real events spring up from nothing, just like that?

To a Protestant it would seem so, since they will not admit that St Francis cured lepers. And yet we have very definite and detailed narratives about that as an apparently real and recurring event in his life.

To a Catholic, it is obvious he is making an argument "ad homines" and that those men are Protestants. He was only too steeped into Protestant culture himself to notice that and he took his own p o v as a universal truth - accepted by everyone except backward Catholics and other Young Earth Creationists. (Yes, back then the Catholic Church was rather solidly, though not totally, Young Earth Creationist).

have no more value as history than have the stories of the regal period of Rome

Apparently he did not give any credence to the stories in Livy.

Perhaps "pour cause". Perhaps he lived in a Protestant culture to which these were obviously "legendary" (in the loose sense of the word), meaning, a polite word for "false".

What happened in Rome before the Republic had to be entirely rewritten by men who "had the good sense" not to trust Livy.

And with this attitude, why stop at the Bible?

Even a Protestant would have to admit, that Bible authors included material which a 19th C. historian would have rejected as spurious.

And there are two alternative logical conclusions to be drawn from that. Either Bible authors were wrong or 19th C. historians were, at least on that point.

For me it is the 19th C. historians who go.

—what is to be said about the Messianic doctrine, which is so much less clearly enunciated:

Namely in the prophecies of the Old Testament.

Correct. And one of the clearest is obviously also from one of the "legends", the "legend" of the Fall. Genesis 3:15. On top of that, one can be suspicious about that passage with more Protestant Anti-Catholic prejudice than Christianity - aren't those Papists using it to prop up their Mariolatrous superstitions?

And what about the authority of the writers of the books of the New Testament, who … have not merely accepted flimsy fictions for solid truths, but have built the very foundations of Christian dogma upon legendary quicksands?

If the 19th C attitude to proving history were right, then his view of the Old Testament stories would also be right, and his assessment of the New Testament authors would be rather fair too.

Now, after completing this article, I'll go off and see how Dominic Statham answered.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
Octave of All Saints
8.XI.2016

PS: Perhaps I shouldn't have. He said:

The church must return to “the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints” (Jude 1:3).

Ouch!

When St Jude says it was once for all delivered to the saints, he is not saying the saints must return to it. He is saying the saints can never have lost it. You can't return to something you never left. Cfr. Matthew 28:20./HGL

PPS: Re-viewing the page, I find comments have been made.

Geoff W., Australia, 8 November 2016

Judaism stands or falls on Genesis. Christianity stands or falls on Jesus. ;-)

Dominic Statham responds

The problem with this argument is that the Gospel of Jesus Christ stands or falls on the truth of Judaism. As Jesus said, "salvation is from the Jews" (John 4:22). [etc.]

Not quite.

Rather the Gospel of Jesus Christ stands or falls on the truth of the Old Testament religion. That is another religion than Christ rejecting, either Talmudic or Karaite or Chassidic Judaism.

I have explained the difference here:

Φιλολoγικά/Philologica : Is Hinduism Older than Judaism and Christianity?
http://filolohika.blogspot.com/2016/04/is-hinduism-older-than-judaism-and.html