mardi 18 octobre 2016

Graham Hancock had sth to Say on Göbekli Tepe


Creation vs. Evolution : 1) Henry Makow wrong about OT · 2) Graham Hancock had sth to Say on Göbekli Tepe · Φιλολoγικά/Philologica : 3) Stonehenge and Göbekli Tepe?

Never mind he misspells it Gobekli Tepe. Here is the link:

Gobekli Tepe image on Sumerian tablet?
Graham Hancock | Published 17th May 2016
https://grahamhancock.com/gobekli-tepe-image-on-sumerian-tablet/


And I will be giving two quotes on dates, and comment as per my recalibration of C14 method.

Gobekli Tepe itself was founded around 9600 BC and deliberately buried about a thousand years later after which it remained completely unknown and untouched by later cultures until the excavations of the German Archaeological Institute began in the second half of the 1990’s.

9600 BC - 8600 BC - Carbon dates, I presume? I'll use my Fibonacci table*.

2778 av. J.-Chr.
40,23593 % + 7550 ans, 10 328 av. J.-Chr.
2599 av. J.-Chr.
62,75068 % + 3850 ans, 6449 av. J.-Chr.


2778
2599
0179 real years appear as

10328
06449
03879 carbon dated years

3879:1000 = c. 4.

179:x = 4?

179 = 4x
179:4 = 4x:4
45 = x

So, was GT perhaps on stage for 45 years? Or were earliest times of it not recorded by any organic remains from them? Strictly non-organic ones can't be carbon dated.

Early Sumerian tablet discovered by Madeleine Daines ... Uruk V (3500 - 3350 BC), five thousand years after etc. [I am assuming pictorial accuracy is good enough, comparably to the usual standard on such tablets. It is not all like but not all unlike, but rather blurred on tablet.]

8600 BC to 3500 BC. Still Carbon dates, I presume.

2778 av. J.-Chr.
40,23593 % + 7550 ans, 10 328 av. J.-Chr.
2599 av. J.-Chr.
62,75068 % + 3850 ans, 6449 av. J.-Chr.
2420 av. J.-Chr.
76,66562 % + 2200 ans, 4620 av. J.-Chr.
2241 av. J.-Chr.
86,26541 % + 1200 ans, 3441 av. J.-Chr.


2778
2241
0537 real years appear as

10328
03441
06887 carbon dated years

6887:5100 = 1,350392156862745
537:1,350392156862745 = 398 years (rounding off, since years count as units)

So, the tablet was not made 5100 years after they covered GT, but only 398 years after it.

Short enough time to keep a tradition going - especially if GT was, as I presume, a "Cape Canaveral" type Tower of Babel. Especially if its project leader was being elevated to the status of a god in the meantime.

Some things get less mysterious when the time perspective is radically shortened. Precisely as two exoplanets (presumed comparable in size to Earth) having years around their stars of only days become less mystical if both star and planet in each case are closer and smaller.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
St Luke the Gospeller**
18.X.2016

* It is so named because one parameter in deciding the successive additions of C14 to athmosphere, counted along with deterioration in same period (each time from 100% of what is already there to 97.8572%, thirtysecond root of 50%), one of the parameters is multiplied by a Fibonacci series starting c. 2500 years ago and rising back towards Flood. Since 610 is a Fibonacci number, the first rise involves one addition which is 610 times as great as the ones about 2500 years ago. The next one is only 377 times as great and so on. I am sorry, but I forgot the exact details apart from that.

** In Bithynia natalis beati Lucae Evangelistae, qui, multa passus pro Christi nomine, obiit Spiritu Sancto plenus. Ipsius autem ossa postea Constantinopolim translata sunt, et inde Patavium delata.

Saint Augustine Again


The very quote which Galileo used.

St Augustine as quoted
It is to be held as an unquestionable truth that whatever the sages of this world have demonstrated concerning physical matters is in no way contrary to our Bibles, hence whatever the sages teach in their books that is contrary to the holy Scriptures may be concluded without any hesitation to be quite false. And according to our ability let us make this evident, and let us keep the faith of our Lord, in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom so that we neither become seduced by the verbiage of false philosophy nor frightened by the superstition of counterfeit religion.

Galileo's words after quote
From the above words I conceive that I may deduce this doctrine That in the books of the sages of this world there are contained some physical truths which are soundly demonstrated, and others that are merely stated; as to the former, it is the office of wise divines to show that they do not contradict the holy Scriptures And as to the propositions which are stated but not rigorously demonstrated, anything contrary to the Bible involved by them must be held undoubtedly false and should be proved so by every possible means.

Now if truly demonstrated physical conclusions need not be subordinated to biblical passages, but the latter must rather be shown not to interfere with the former, then before a physical proposition is condemned it must be shown to be not rigorously demonstrated─and this is to be done not by those who hold the proposition to be true, but by those who judge it to be false.


Quoted here from on the Stanley Jaki blog : Galileo on Science & the Bible
http://stanleyjaki.blogspot.com/2016/04/galileo-on-science-bible.html


Well, for one thing, Galileo's theses about geokinetism and heliocentrism (the latter in an absolute sense now abandoned by mainstream science) were shown not to have been rigorously demonstrated, before they were condemned in connexion with his first book on the matter in 1616, and therefore also before the next condemnation, in connexion with Galileo himself being a suspect in 1633.

Furthermore, the not rigorous demonstration back then has not been supplemented with a more rigorous one since.

And for another thing, Galileo seems a bit mistrusting about clarity of Bible, so that St Augustine's liberty to start either way, the Christian confronted with un-Biblical or apparently such matters being free to chose where he first wants to seek the error, is here being shifted to a kind of priority of the physical or generally speaking scientific research.

I think this wrong.

I think someone who does correctly condemn a physical thesis as un-Biblical even before investigating the physical evidence, because the Bible is sufficiently clear, will defintely be rewarded for the confidence by later finding the physical evidence insufficient for the thesis he condemned.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
Feast of St Luke
the Gospeller
18.X.2016

samedi 15 octobre 2016

Henry Makow wrong about OT


Creation vs. Evolution : 1) Henry Makow wrong about OT · 2) Graham Hancock had sth to Say on Göbekli Tepe · Φιλολoγικά/Philologica : 3) Stonehenge and Göbekli Tepe?

Somewhere he [Makow] wrote that the God of the OT is not God, but an egregore. Context was about Judaism, where the non-OT book was gong to be described as worse. But even for OT, he considered the God it presents as "not God, but an egregore".

I had to look that up.

You see, I am not a specialist in esoterica.*

Egregore means emanation of a collective mind.

There are individual minds, there is collectively shared mind content, but there are no collective minds, and therefore no emanations of collective minds, no egregores.

Moreover, believing there are such things as egregores is the kind of thing which Cabbalistic philosophies (not that I know such beyond generalities and a few details I didn't manage to avoid hearing about) are more prone to than Christianity is. In fact, Christianity doesn't believe such things. God is creator of all spirits as well as of all material objects and also all living things with a spirit in them. There is no room for egregores.

Moreover, if this were true, where would that leave Our Lord Jesus Christ?

Would He be an egregore of a newer community? Or would He have been mistaken about the God of the OT?

In the latter case, how would He be divine, how would He be God?

In the former case, how is that different from the old heresy of docetism?

So, for the sake and honour of Our Lord Jesus Christ, do not call the God of the OT an egregore.

Now, perhaps Makow is the kind of half Christian who doesn't really care about the honour of God Who Became Man for our sake.

Seeing he's of Jewish origin and these often do convert to half Christian rather than fully Christian theology, it would not be surprising.

However, no. I cannot share the sentiment.

Christ is True God and True Man. If He said the God of the OT is God, if He called Him Father, that is good enough for me.

Now, perhaps Makow meant God (in OT) was behaving more like a reflex of Jewish good but also bad traits than as one could expect from God.

But the fact remains, God is God.

It is our expectations which fall short of Him, not the other way round. Otherwise He would be just OUR egregore. He's not.

I can with full honesty, intellectually and morally, say that whatever passage in OT gave this impression, the passage can be understood in a better way.

God kills off all men because some are wicked? except Noah of course?

Or God buries a world contaminated with radiactivity in the waves, so as to give post-Flood humanity a better future (for some Millennia) than a third killed off by nuking, if not more.

God disperses tongues because jealous?

Or God avoids a second nuke disaster just after previous ones, by depriving a tyrant of the men he had come to use as tools.

You see, I certainly DO think and of whole heart believe every thing in the Bible is inerrant. Also, that every positive thing all Church Fathers agree on about it is infallible. But I do not believe it is always straightforward.

Here are two verses or passages that hide something, until you stumble across the solution, if mine is the right one.

[5] And God seeing that the wickedness of men was great on the earth, and that all the thought of their heart was bent upon evil at all times, ... [11] And the earth was corrupted before God, and was filled with iniquity. [12] And when God had seen that the earth was corrupted (for all flesh had corrupted its way upon the earth,) [13] He said to Noe: The end of all flesh is come before me, the earth is filled with iniquity through them, and I will destroy them with the earth.

I think this wickedness is described in more historic detail - but without the theological understanding - in Mahabharata. That would argue atomic bombs and waste were used as weapons. Not just perpetrators, but also victims would be bending their heart - that is intellect - on wickedness all the time. And so much flesh would have been sacrificed to wicked perversions, even among the most innocent ones. That too, even more, was a hopeless situation in which death, in itself the last enemy, in God's wise hands (and not in someone else's) became a deliverer.

But suppose there could have been a general repentance (and some did repent while waters rose), it would have required a physical miracle to clean up the radioactive waste if this scenario is true. It came, but in a punishing way.

[4] And they said: Come, let us make a city and a tower, the top whereof may reach to heaven: and let us make our name famous before we be scattered abroad into all lands.

A first note : Nimrod didn't first get power, then become a tyrant, then foist this on them. THEY decided, and he became a tyrant when carrying out their will, democratical or oligarchal as the decision might have been. It was certainly in a sense popular - for the moment.

But more, it does not say "a tower reaching into heaven", but "a tower, the top whereof may reach to heaven".

Cape Canaveral. Rocket on ramp looks like top of the overall tower. Rocket itself looks like a tower, and only its top is finally going into space.

Now, we are using H2 as rocket fuel. We are so far not provoking nuke disasters, whatever else we may provoke by this. But imagine Nimrod hadn't known about this use of H2. Imagine he only came across U as an idea. U as in Uranium, that thing which some still recalled not just the effects of in the later poem Mahabharata, but the causes of.

Imagine he had come across the idea this could cause a disaster on earth, but given up or even not cared to contemplate to warn people. "Oh, some people left on earth would no doubt die" - one can imagine him saying - "but would it matter for Humanity if instead of Earth we could invade and live in Heaven?"

And he didn't know, in order to get past the pearly gates alive, you need Sanctifying Grace. And he and the hopeful aspiring astronauts who were planning on knocking them down and chasing God from above (yes, Satan as seen in Isaiah inspiring his and their fury) most certainly didn't have it and would have died if passing the Pearly Gates that way.

God prevented not just this disaster from happening, but even another attempt from being made the next, say 4500 years. Up to now.

No, that is NOT an egregore of a traumatised nation which reflects their pettiness in some things. Not even an egregore in the psychological sense the word might also carry.

It is a God who can act with utmost concern for the wellbeing of His creatures, and then stand back not taking full credit for it until, millennia later, some geek with lots more curiosity than goodwill, lots more learning than holiness, gets caught in a debate about this - and gives an answer, a guess.

A geek who might not have thought even this far, if he hadn't been educated by reading Tolkien's Akallabêth. One of the best novels there are about what Flood, what Tower of Babel and Nimrod, what end of days and Matthew 24 are all about.

But a geek who has - at least in theory, when not put to the test - full confidence in the God of the OT being the loving Father - or the loving Son, the Saviour. His answer to Nimrod's plan was going down and knocking down the gates of Hades.

And really doing some good to those caught down there by Adam's sin.

The plouman ansuered then the preste
Sir I beleue in Ihesu Christe
who suffred deth and harwed Helle
as I haue herd mine elders telle.


Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
Saint Teresa of Spain
15.X.2016

* I had read a French fantasy novel in which egregores are taken back to the land of the collective unconscious. Only four or six egregores had actually become human during the training which had made them agents. However, I do not recommend the concept. It sounds a bit too much like "mental hygiene" of the type which gave us psychiatry.

80 002 / 80 015 Readers Yesterday


All time:

Land and total Thousands Hundreds Decades Units
United States 18775 18 000 700 70 5
Ukraine 10953 28 000 1600 120 8
Russia 10599 38 000 2100 210 17
France 10368 48 000 2400 270 25
Germany 3592 51 000 2900 360 27
China 2110 53 000 3000 370 27
Netherlands 1232 54 000 3200 400 29
Poland 1036 55 000 3200 430 35
United Kingdom 1015 56 000 3200 440 40
Australia 872 56 000 4000 510 42


56 000 Thousands above
04 000 Hundreds above
00 510 Decades above
00 042 Units above
60 552 Total for top ten

80 002 Total
60 552 Total for top ten
19 450 Total for other countries

Australia "could theoretically" be first of 24 countries with 872 readers, except the last having fewer page views, but more probably they grade down from 872 downward and are lots more numerous than 24.

Most read posts and pages, excluding indexing, number furthest to the right is the number of views:

AronRa, did I mention you are worthless on history...
http://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2012/02/aronra-did-i-mention-you-are-worthless.html
 27 Feb 2012, 2 comments  1073
 
I Like "Miacis Cognitus"
http://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2012/09/i-like-miacis-cognitus.html
 3 Sep 2012, 8 comments  842
 
Have "Humans Interbred with Neanderthals and Denis...
http://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2012/08/have-humans-interbred-with-neanderthals.html
 22 Aug 2012, 1 comment  442
 
Dr. Jonathan Sarfati takes out one Heliocentric YE...
http://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2015/03/dr-jonathan-sarfati-takes-out-one.html
 10 Mar 2015, 2 comments  417
 
Was St. Jerome Calling Genesis a Myth, and if so i...
http://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2012/08/was-st-jerome-calling-genesis-myth-and.html
 24 Aug 2012, 1 comment  412
 
Note on this one, the reference by C. S. Lewis was at best a lapse of memory on the latter's account.
 
Dawkins said Edgar Andrews had his book From Nothi...
http://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2013/03/dawkins-said-edgar-andrews-had-his-book.html
 19 Mar 2013  410
 
On Reading The Greatest Show by Dawkins - Parts of...
http://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2012/10/on-reading-greatest-show-by-dawkins.html
 13 Oct 2012, 1 comment  407
 
The Abiogenesis Problem
http://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2014/02/the-abiogenesis-problem.html
 28 Feb 2014, 1 comment  391
 
(it seems stats were deflated, when writing the comment they were 452)
 
Following pages not indexing or redirecting had over 200 readers:
 
FR : Un blog a été donné à vos étudiants.
http://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/p/un-blog-ete-donne-vos-etudiants.html
 15 Jun 2011  1094
 
Can we get this straight? I never said I was atheist up to becoming Catholic
http://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/p/can-we-get-this-straight-i-never-said-i.html
 10 Oct 2014  611
 
Weakness of CMI : Church History
http://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/p/weakness-of-cmi-church-history.html
 5 Nov 2014  600
 
A Catholic who will go unnamed
http://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/p/a-catholic-who-will-go-unnamed.html
 5 Nov 2014  503


Last month 1,338

1088 from six countries mentioned in all time

Turkey 23
Netherlands 15
Romania 14
Canada 13 = 65

185 from at least 15 countries, probably more.

Radioactive Methods Revisited, Especially C-14
http://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2016/09/radioactive-methods-revisited.html
 22 Sep 2016  33
 
Sandwalk blogger does not get what "observed" mean...
http://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2015/09/sandwalk-blogger-does-not-get-what.html
 7 Sep 2015, 2 comments  27
 
What Some of You are Thinking / Ce que certains de...
http://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2016/10/what-some-of-you-are-thinking-ce-que.html
 6 Oct 2016  24
 
Were Evolutionists More Willing to Debate in Early...
http://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2016/09/were-evolutionists-more-willing-to.html
 23 Sep 2016  23
 
Archaeology vs Vertabrate Palaeontology in Geology...
http://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2016/06/archaeology-vs-vertabrate-palaeontology.html
 4 Jun 2016  16
 
A Taste of NioC?
http://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2016/09/a-taste-of-nioc.html
 22 Sep 2016  14
 
Searching for the Cretaceous Fauna (with appendix ...
http://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2013/11/searching-for-cretaceous-fauna-with.html
 15 Nov 2013  13
 
C14 Calibrations, comparing two preliminary ones, ...
http://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2016/08/c14-calibrations-comparing-two.html
 23 Aug 2016  12


Last week, no total

Country not mentioned so far:

Spain 5 (8 of top 10)

Posts not mentioned so far:

"They even have little papers they sign that say t...
http://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2016/10/they-even-have-little-papers-they-sign.html
 13 Oct 2016  6
 
Answering Rationalwiki on Genesis 5:1 to 6:4
http://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2016/10/answering-rationalwiki-on-genesis-51-to.html
 7 Oct 2016  6
 
Creation Ministries International - a Galileo Fan ...
http://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2015/02/creation-ministries-international.html
 25 Feb 2015  5
 
Letter to Nature on Karyotype Evolution in Mammals...
http://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2011/11/letter-to-nature-on-karyotype-evolution.html
 7 Nov 2011, 7 comments  4
 
How do Fossils Superpose?
http://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2013/11/how-do-fossils-superpose.html
 2 Nov 2013, 1 comment  4


Last 24 h

Countries not mentioned so far:

Brazil 1
Portugal 1
Singapore 1

Post not mentioned so far:

Guy Berthault's Results May Not Prove the Flood Fa...
http://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2016/07/guy-berthaults-results-may-not-prove.html


15 Jul 2016, 2 views

I will actually give 24 more hours ... integrally, all of the stats:

United States 182 Supplementary Evidence from Fayetteville, Noah's A...
http://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2016/10/supplementary-evidence-from.html
  14 Oct 2016, 11 views
Turkey 30 What Can the Altaic Flood Legend Teach about the R...
http://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2016/09/what-can-altaic-flood-legend-teach.html
  12 Sep 2016, 6 views
France 15 I wish He had Linked the Parts, if not indexed
http://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2016/06/i-wish-he-had-linked-parts-if-not.html
  24 Jun 2016, 5 views
Germany 2 Radioactive Methods Revisited, Especially C-14
http://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2016/09/radioactive-methods-revisited.html
  22 Sep 2016, 5 views
Russia 2 "They even have little papers they sign that say t...
http://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2016/10/they-even-have-little-papers-they-sign.html
  13 Oct 2016, 5 views
Bangladesh 1 Archaeology vs Vertabrate Palaeontology in Geology...
http://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2016/06/archaeology-vs-vertabrate-palaeontology.html
  4 Jun 2016, 5 views
China 1 Some Rabbis consider(ed) Holy Land was an Exceptio...
http://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2016/08/some-rabbis-considered-holy-land-was.html
  10 Aug 2016, 5 views
India 1 Cardinal Lavigerie Fought Slavery
http://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2016/05/cardinal-lavigerie-fought-slavery.html
  31 May 2016, 5 views
Mauritius 1 What Some of You are Thinking / Ce que certains de...
http://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2016/10/what-some-of-you-are-thinking-ce-que.html
  6 Oct 2016, 5 views
Poland 1 Guy Berthault's Results May Not Prove the Flood Fa...
http://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2016/07/guy-berthaults-results-may-not-prove.html
  15 Jul 2016, 5 views
  Blogs by same author
http://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/p/blogs-by-same-author.html
  22 Feb 2016, 3 views
  Apologetics Section
http://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/p/apologetics-section.html
  1 Feb 2016, 1 view

vendredi 14 octobre 2016

Supplementary Evidence from Fayetteville, Noah's Ark was Built on Highest Mountain


Fayetteville, NC Flooding 8OCT2016 Kayaking INSIDE a building. Hurricane Matthew
Mark Huneycutt
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MXc9c2Vuv1A


If you look at the video, someone is kayaking on the rather low Flood (about height of car roofs, so far) in Fayetteville.

IF the Ark, a lot bulkier than this kayak, had been running into snags that often, it would arguably have got a hole and sunk.

How was God avoiding this?

Well, God had probably told or inspired Noah (or directed him by providential placing of whereabouts of building) to start building precisely on the highest mountain.

This way, once the Ark was floating it was not running into any snags that were stuck in the ground below the sea.

And of course, this allowed Noah to make an accurate measure about how high waters were over that Highest Mountain (as well as the rest) when he was floating or nearly so.

Genesis 7:[18] For they overflowed exceedingly: and filled all on the face of the earth: and the ark was carried upon the waters. [19] And the waters prevailed beyond measure upon the earth: and all the high mountains under the whole heaven were covered. [20] The water was fifteen cubits higher than the mountains which it covered.

Noah was in measure to measure that - AND Noah's Ark got stuck on no snag. Both are very easy to understand if the Ark was built on one of them.

It would not have been safe to come close enough to one of them to measure height if starting from lower, since it could have stuck the Ark (unless of course the measure was taken from when it was stuck over the mountains of Armenia or just before it got stuck, but that was after waters had started residing, so makes somewhat less sense). And it would also not have been safe to be on the plains when they were flooded, since the objects on them would have jagged up over bottom of ark while still being stuck in ground. But if Noah's Ark was on a mountain, it rested safely there while the plains were being flooded, as now at Fayetteville, and once it floated, all that was stuck in the plains was deep under where the Ark was floating and all that was abreast the Ark was already loosened from bottom. So, whatever flotsam they came across, whatever snag, it would not have been blocked in any way from responding smoothly to contact with the outside of the Ark.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
St. Burchard of Würzburg
and Burial of St Dominic
with the Chainmail
14.X.2016

jeudi 13 octobre 2016

"They even have little papers they sign that say they must fit everything into the Bible."


I suppose Shane Wilson was referring, when it came to CMI, to their Statement of Faith. She referred to it in a polemical way, but that doesn't mean such a thing does not exist.

Not sure if I already commented on theirs, here it is cited and commented again:

STATEMENT OF FAITH

[omitting a link]

  • (A) PRIORITIES

    • The scientific aspects of creation are important, but are secondary in importance to the proclamation of the Gospel of Jesus Christ as Sovereign, Creator, Redeemer and Judge.
    • The doctrines of Creator and Creation cannot ultimately be divorced from the Gospel of Jesus Christ.


  • (B) BASICS

    • The 66 books of the Bible are the written Word of God. The Bible is divinely inspired and inerrant throughout. Its assertions are factually true in all the original autographs. It is the supreme authority, not only in all matters of faith and conduct, but in everything it teaches. Its authority is not limited to spiritual, religious or redemptive themes but includes its assertions in such fields as history and science.
    • The final guide to the interpretation of Scripture is Scripture itself.
    • The account of origins presented in Genesis is a simple but factual presentation of actual events and therefore provides a reliable framework for scientific research into the question of the origin and history of life, mankind, the Earth and the universe.
    • The various original life forms (kinds), including mankind, were made by direct creative acts of God. The living descendants of any of the original kinds (apart from man) may represent more than one species today, reflecting the genetic potential within the original kind. Only limited biological changes (including mutational deterioration) have occurred naturally within each kind since Creation.
    • The great Flood of Genesis was an actual historic event, worldwide (global) in its extent and effect.
    • The special creation of Adam (the first man) and Eve (the first woman), and their subsequent fall into sin, is the basis for the necessity of salvation for mankind.
    • Death (both physical and spiritual) and bloodshed entered into this world subsequent to, and as a direct consequence of, man’s sin.


  • (C) THEOLOGY

    • The Godhead is triune: one God, three Persons—God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit.
    • All mankind are sinners, inherently from Adam and individually (by choice) and are therefore subject to God’s wrath and condemnation.
    • Freedom from the penalty and power of sin is available to man only through the sacrificial death and shed blood of Jesus Christ, and His complete and bodily Resurrection from the dead.
    • The Holy Spirit enables the sinner to repent and believe in Jesus Christ.
    • The Holy Spirit lives and works in each believer to produce the fruits of righteousness.
    • Salvation is a gift received by faith alone in Christ alone and expressed in the individual’s repentance, recognition of the death of Christ as full payment for sin, and acceptance of the risen Christ as Saviour, Lord and God.
    • All things necessary for our salvation are set down in Scripture.
    • Jesus Christ was conceived by the Holy Spirit and born of the virgin Mary.
    • Jesus Christ rose bodily from the dead, ascended to Heaven, is currently seated at the right hand of God the Father, and shall return in like manner to this Earth as Judge of the living and the dead.
    • Satan is the personal spiritual adversary of both God and man.
    • Those who do not believe in Christ are subject to everlasting conscious punishment, but believers enjoy eternal life with God.


  • (D) GENERAL

    The following are held by members of the Boards (Directors) of Creation Ministries International to be either consistent with Scripture or implied by Scripture:

    • Scripture teaches a recent origin for man and the whole creation.
    • The days in Genesis do not correspond to geologic ages, but are six [6] consecutive twenty-four [24] hour days of Creation.
    • The Noachian Flood was a significant geological event and much (but not all) fossiliferous sediment originated at that time.
    • The ‘gap’ theory has no basis in Scripture. Nor has the day-age idea (so-called ‘progressive creation’), or the Framework Hypothesis or theistic evolution.
    • The view, commonly used to evade the implications or the authority of Biblical teaching, that knowledge and/or truth may be divided into ‘secular’ and ‘religious’, is rejected.
    • Facts are always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information. By definition, therefore, no interpretation of facts in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record.


And here are my comments on it, not any signature.

(A)
PRIORITIES

1
The scientific aspects of creation are important, but are secondary in importance to the proclamation of the Gospel of Jesus Christ as Sovereign, Creator, Redeemer and Judge.

2
The doctrines of Creator and Creation cannot ultimately be divorced from the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

HGL comments
Both are reasonable priorities per se. This does not mean they need to be reasonably applied to everyone. Someone can have the talent for being a creationist writer but for instance not the integrity or strength or spirit of sacrifice necessary to be really proclaiming the Gospel of Christ as a bishop, priest or deacon ordained by the Church which Christ founded.

G. K. Chesterton wrote some fine pieces of creationism - or at least one, where he identified the problem of irreducible complexity, in its most basic form.

But if you had asked him to abstain from wine as relatively more than his usual as priests do (except when he was dieting) or to abstain absolutely from sex and marriage, well, he would have said "no way!"

I do not believe it is quite correct to describe as a ministry in the full sense any activity by a layman which is not endorsed by his ecclesiastical superiors, except perhaps charismatic one man ministries, like prophets.

I know CMI don't claim to be a charismatic one, neither do I. Therefore I do NOT claim to be exercising a ministry.

You compare me with how Chesterton was equipped for being a writer, not with how St Paul told St Timothy a bishop needed to be equipped for being a bishop.

(B)
BASICS

HGL comments
Some of these are basically wrong on some level.

1
The 66 books of the Bible are the written Word of God. The Bible is divinely inspired and inerrant throughout. Its assertions are factually true in all the original autographs. It is the supreme authority, not only in all matters of faith and conduct, but in everything it teaches. Its authority is not limited to spiritual, religious or redemptive themes but includes its assertions in such fields as history and science.

HGL comments
The 66 books of the Bible are the written Word of God. Make that 73 (72, or 73 if you count Baruch separately). Catholic Church, not Jewish Synagogue is final authority on what books are in the Bible.

It is the supreme authority, add here : under God and with Tradition, in all etc.

2
The final guide to the interpretation of Scripture is Scripture itself.

HGL comments
Then it uses that guiding role in pointing to another intepreter. CHURCH.

2 Thessalonians 2:14, 1 Timothy 3:15, Luke 10:16, Matthew 28:16-20

One having traditions not written out explicitly in the Bible, and a clergy and a perpetuity since the time of the apostles.

3
The account of origins presented in Genesis is a simple but factual presentation of actual events and therefore provides a reliable framework for scientific research into the question of the origin and history of life, mankind, the Earth and the universe.

HGL comments
No problem with this one. Unless you add "only", which CMI didn't do, typological reference to Christ, Eucharist, Church, Blessed Virgin Mary are not excluded.

Or unless you understand "simple" as "always most straightforward possible, never showing any sophistication allowing Easter eggs". I think Tower of Bable narrative shows admirable reticence about what I suspect was a proto-version of Cape Canaveral (confer Göbekli Tepe which actually look a little like launching ramps).

4
The various original life forms (kinds), including mankind, were made by direct creative acts of God. The living descendants of any of the original kinds (apart from man) may represent more than one species today, reflecting the genetic potential within the original kind. Only limited biological changes (including mutational deterioration) have occurred naturally within each kind since Creation.

HGL comments
No problem with this one.

Wonder if fauns and centaurs are splice hybrids between men and beasts, since they seem to have existed (Ephron may have been a faun, St Anthony the Great saw one of both).

But if this is true, this change is not natural, it came at a price, and if God has shown mercy on some of the results, that doesn't mean hybridisation is right.

But that is not a problem with this one, since it states "have occurred naturally".

5
The great Flood of Genesis was an actual historic event, worldwide (global) in its extent and effect.

HGL comments
Yes.

Recently a Jewish legend of Holy Land having been miraculously excepted from Flood was probably debunked by the finding of an Elasmosaurus fossil there.

6
The special creation of Adam (the first man) and Eve (the first woman), and their subsequent fall into sin, is the basis for the necessity of salvation for mankind.

HGL comments
Background, not so much "basis". They are forgetting a bit about the Protogospel in Genesis 3:14-15 as very much basis.

7
Death (both physical and spiritual) and bloodshed entered into this world subsequent to, and as a direct consequence of, man’s sin.

HGL comments
Yes. At the very least human death, but according to some Fathers and more probably also death of beasts.

(C)
THEOLOGY

HGL comments
Some is right, some is wrong. Some is incomplete.

1
The Godhead is triune: one God, three Persons—God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit.

HGL comments
Yes.

2
All mankind are sinners, inherently from Adam and individually (by choice) and are therefore subject to God’s wrath and condemnation.

HGL comments
Being a sinner and sinning in small things, being a sinner and being subject to the law of sin in the limbs in some, are two different things.

Sinners in the full sense - we are all born that, though the Blessed Virgin Mary and Christ were not even conceived that way and some more saints were delivered from that state before birth ARE subject to God's wrath and condemnation.

We are not all sinners in that sense.

A newly baptised child is no longer a sinner. A sinner who repents and makes a good confession is no longer a sinner after absolution.

We all sin in small things (except Christ and the Blessed Virgin), but venial sin does not constitute a state of sin, does not make one a sinner.

However, all except Adam and Eve before the Fall and especially except Christ and the Blessed Virgin begin as sinners and all who are saved were at some time drawn out of that horrible state. Except the Blessed Virgin who was instead preserved (also through the merits of Calvary) and including Adam and Eve (also through the merits of Calvary).



From Blog de Karla Rouillon krouillong : APRENDAMOS A CONFESARNOS
blog.pucp.edu.pe/blog/krouillong/2016/09/13/aprendamos-a-confesarnos/


If I don't endorse those priests in particular, but rather some like Pope Michael, that doesn't change that the advise given here is the same as he would give.

3
Freedom from the penalty and power of sin is available to man only through the sacrificial death and shed blood of Jesus Christ, and His complete and bodily Resurrection from the dead.

HGL comments
Which in turn are made available to us through the sacraments.

4
The Holy Spirit enables the sinner to repent and believe in Jesus Christ.

HGL comments
Yes.

5
The Holy Spirit lives and works in each believer to produce the fruits of righteousness.

HGL comments
In each believer who is in the state of grace and not in the state of original or mortal sin. The produced fruits also have to be willed finally by the man, "do not grieve the Holy Spirit".

6
Salvation is a gift received by faith alone in Christ alone and expressed in the individual’s repentance, recognition of the death of Christ as full payment for sin, and acceptance of the risen Christ as Saviour, Lord and God.

HGL comments
By faith, by the sacraments of faith - as to received. It is also needing an upkeep, which implies good works.

7
All things necessary for our salvation are set down in Scripture.

HGL comments
In Scripture and in traditions not written down, if given at Revelation (Christ's life, death, resurrection, appearing to Saints Paul and John, etc).

Some rather vital things, like certain sacraments, are more hinted than clearly written out in full detail in Holy Writte.

8
Jesus Christ was conceived by the Holy Spirit and born of the virgin Mary.

HGL comments
Yes.

9
Jesus Christ rose bodily from the dead, ascended to Heaven, is currently seated at the right hand of God the Father, and shall return in like manner to this Earth as Judge of the living and the dead.

HGL comments
Yes. Moreover, "is currently" and "shall" imply He has a body, same as when rising from the dead. He has not become a bodiless spirit being, nor is He living in a "pure spirit world", but in a material space where risen bodies from His believers have joined Him (as to the Blessed Virgin, possibly Saint John) or will join Him (at the general Resurrection).

In the time of Innocent III, it seems the first Protestants, namely Waldensians denied this, so when Innocent determined what they had to sign or pronounce if and when returning to the Church, was a creed with certain explicitations.

I will rise again in the same flesh which now I carry.

10
Satan is the personal spiritual adversary of both God and man.

HGL comments
Yes.

11
Those who do not believe in Christ are subject to everlasting conscious punishment, but believers enjoy eternal life with God.

HGL comments
Not all believers, only doers of the word. As to unbelievers, those who culpably reject Christ are most certainly bound for Hell.

(D)
GENERAL

The following are held by members of the Boards (Directors) of Creation Ministries International to be either consistent with Scripture or implied by Scripture:

HGL comments
I'm not part of that board or those boards, but we'll see if there is disagreemnt or not.

1
Scripture teaches a recent origin for man and the whole creation.

HGL comments
For man and at least all material creation.

Saint Jerome imagined angels might have been created eons before the rest of Creation, I will not go into that, but not call him heretical either. He's a Church Father.

2
The days in Genesis do not correspond to geologic ages, but are six [6] consecutive twenty-four [24] hour days of Creation.

HGL comments
Rather obviously, yes. Unless one should say days one and six were some shorter.

Since Earth is round, we presume the days and nights are those of Jerusalem time zone (where Christ was to die later).

For day one, light may have been created later than in the morning, like angle of light at 9am or midday. If light even had an angle before the Sun was created. But anyway, the day could have been starting sooner.

Day six would normally have gone one from morning which ended day five, to the evening and then on to Saturday morning. It is probable that instead day six was replaced by God's rest already Friday evening.

So, days 1 - 6 would not have been 6*24 h, but 6*24 - (3+12) or sth like that hours.

3
The Noachian Flood was a significant geological event and much (but not all) fossiliferous sediment originated at that time.

HGL comments
If gap theory is excluded in all forms, yes.

4
The ‘gap’ theory has no basis in Scripture. Nor has the day-age idea (so-called ‘progressive creation’), or the Framework Hypothesis or theistic evolution.

HGL comments
Tolkien's Silmarillion is obviously not for real, but it reveals his struggle with conjugating a real belief in every stated word of Genesis (as he saw it) with the long age he thought necessary.

In that sense, apart from being a kind of novel, it is also embodying a theological hypothesis. Either something like gap or sth like day age (with Ungoliant biting the two trees as end of the "day 3" when trees were created, with Varda making (under God, obviously) moon and sun of its fruits as beginning of "day four", perhaps?) One I think is wrong, but one which is less absurd than considering Cro Magnon men 20 000 years ago as pre-human, not yet rational. He even goes to the length of dividing angelic beings between both sexes to give some reconciliation between supposed knowledge of pre human millennia and Mark 10:6.

Most other versions are probably heretical, that is contradict very directly some part of Scripture. His is at least not free from error. So good he didn't mean it as doctrine. It served as basis for some meditations on those matters and therefore helped at least me to Geocentrism and Creationism.

5
The view, commonly used to evade the implications or the authority of Biblical teaching, that knowledge and/or truth may be divided into ‘secular’ and ‘religious’, is rejected.

HGL comments
There is God revealed and therefore totally certain and manmade and therefore at least in further ramifications fallible knowledge, however one cannot speak of non-overlapping fields of information.

6
Facts are always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information. By definition, therefore, no interpretation of facts in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record.

HGL comments
It is the validity of God's word, not the weakness of man's which makes it true that no interpretation of facts in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record.


So, I suppose I could not be a CMI worker. But they do sometimes take freelance articles too, like from a South African Presbyterian on Patristics and death of subhuman animals./HGL

vendredi 7 octobre 2016

Oil Drillers See Several Sea Layers



I should have answered this one earlier.

Claim CD101:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD101.html
The geological column is a fiction, existing on paper only. The entire geological column does not exist anywhere on the earth.

Source
Huse, Scott, 1983. The Collapse of Evolution. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, p. 15.

Response:
  • 1. The existence of the entire column at one spot is irrelevant. All of the parts of the geological column exist in many places, and there is more than enough overlap that the full column can be reconstructed from those parts.

    Breaks in the geological column at any spot are entirely consistent with an old earth history. The column is deposited only in sedimentary environments, where conditions favor the accumulation of sediments. Climatic and geological changes over time would be expected to change areas back and forth between sedimentary and erosional environments.

  • 2. There are several places around the world where strata from all geological eras do exist at a single spot -- for example, the Bonaparte Basin of Australia (Trendall et al. 1990, 382, 396) and the Williston Basin of North Dakota (Morton 2001).


Links:
Matson, Dave E., 1994. How good are those young-earth arguments?
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/howgood-gc.html#G3


Morton, Glenn, 2001. The geologic column and its implications to the Flood.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/geocolumn/

or
http://home.entouch.net/dmd/geo.htm

References:
  • 1. Morton, Glenn, 2001. (see above)
  • 2. Trendall, A. F. et al., (ed.), 1990. Geology and Mineral Resources of Western Australia, Memoir 3. Geological Survey of Western Australia. State Printing Division, Perth.


Index to Creationist Claims, edited by Mark Isaak, Copyright © 2005
created 2001-3-31, modified 2004-9-8


Now, how should I respond to this? Bonaparte Basin, which in some debate I sloppily renamed Napoleon Basin ... (I am as much a pastry pontiff as ever Mark Shea, here is a Napoleon pastry, which may have led my associations astray):



Av User E23 on sv.wikipedia - E23, CC BY-SA 3.0, Länk

... as said, the Basin, named for Napoleon Bonaparte, but unlike the Swedish pastry after his last name, not his first, has an elasmosaurus above a trilobite.

Despite some coral between, which Tony Reed admitted at last could have arrived in bits and pieces and which I reasoned could also have been a place where the trilobites scurried under previous to Flood, I think the elasmosaur and the trilobite were contemporary, and that their placing has more to do with habitat level in sea while living than with respective "geological timescale".

Now, more on that when my debate with Tony Reed will have been edited to more argument by argument and less combox per combox.

However, the other one seems to have an "upper Ordovician Brachiopod" somewhat above a "lower Ordovician trilobite". Well, again we are dealing with sea critters, in Williston Basin too. And the Palaeocene leaves could be early post-Flood - or even pre-Flood, if triloobites and brachiopods, meaning mussles, were beside some wood.

I wonder how many oil drillers are NOT getting trilobites. If all oil wells are with trilobite content, petrol could be some aquatic beast's remnants, and therefore not necessarily from human or nephelim corpses. Even by a statistic chance.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
Feast of Holy Rosary
7.X.2016

Answering Rationalwiki on Genesis 5:1 to 6:4


Commented on :
Rationalwiki : Annotated Bible : Genesis Chapter 5
Boring Genealogies, part 1
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/RationalWiki:Annotated_Bible/Genesis#Genesis_Chapter_5_.28Boring_genealogies.2C_Part_1.29


Genesis 5:1 Notes
This starts the genealogy listed in the Bible, following the other religious figures. Note that the ages listed in the Bible imply that the individuals lives to around 800 years in a generation, compared to the modern life expectancies that aren't known to often exceed 120.

HGL
Mentions later that life spans are to be reduced to 120 (Catholic commentator saying if this reading is right, that was by degrees, not directly after Flood for all).

Genesis 5:2 Notes
Apparently they were all called Adam.

HGL
Sure. Adam as in Mister Adam. Then Eve is Mistress Adam.

Genesis 5:3 Notes
Adam was 130 years old when Seth was born.

HGL
Yes, that particular one.

Genesis 5:4 Notes
Yay, finally some girls are born. We're still left with the vexing problem of who were the mothers of all the children born prior to now.

HGL
Not very many mentioned as born prior to this. ALSO the verse gives us two informations, namely, A) "And the days of Adam after he had begotten Seth were eight hundred years:" AND B) "and he begat sons and daughters:"

It is not as if "after he had begotten Seth" was a qualification of BOTH informations.

Genesis 5:5 Notes
And all that nine hundred and thirty years he never manages to pass down the essentials of enjoying such longevity (Maybe the Global flood did destroy it).

The general argument from apologists is that prior to the flood humanity had much longer life spans. The idea that before the Fall we had longer lifespans is plausible (in context at least), but why the flood took this nifty attribute away is not at all apparent.

HGL
Check the text. Later.

Genesis 5:5 Notes
There is no known correlation between the human lifespan and being around a lot of rain or water (apart from falling in and drowning, which has a very strong correlation).

HGL
Indeed, so much that some have said that "120 years" refer to the remaining lifespan for all except Noah and his family.

Genesis 5:5 Notes
Some have argued that there was a mistranslation of the Hebrew and this number actually represents 930 lunar months, which puts Adam's age at a far more plausible 75 or so. Unfortunately there are references to other people siring children at the tender age of 35 (which in lunar month terms is only three years), so this argument is weak.

HGL
Very weak, indeed.

Genesis 5:5 Notes
The most plausible explanation is probably simple "superhero" status - throughout history and in to the present day there has been a tendency to drastically exaggerate the attributes of mythic figures, from Hercules to Superman.

HGL
Very unlike Superman, Hercules seems to have a tangible connexion to later history. Spartan royalty descend from his grandsons, and in exile they had founded Pergamon.

How many recently independent states or recently constructed cities (wasn't there one in Brazil?) count Superman as father of their founder?

But generally speaking, pre-Flood man has a kind of superhero status compared to those born after Flood. Especially LONG after Flood.

Genesis 5:5 Notes
Also in case you forgot, Adam was supposed to die after eating from the tree of Good and Evil. Some apologists have argued that he did receive the assigned punishment, because he would have lived forever if he had not eaten the fruit and remained in the Garden of Eden. However if that is so, what was the tree of "Eternal Life" (the other tree mentioned in Genesis 2:9) for?

HGL
He would have lived forever, since He would have eaten of that tree.

He also died "same day" he had eaten the forbidden fruit. Namely same thousand years, since he died at only 930. There is a Psalm verse appropriate for this one.

Genesis 5:6 Notes
It took Seth this long to get his wife pregnant with his first son, Enos. Suggested explanations:

  • Seth receives really good abstinence education from God.
  • Seth has really advanced contraceptive technologies but the global flood destroyed it.
  • Seth is so unpopular with the ladies (which are probably his sisters or nieces anyway) that it take him this long to get a woman to like him enough to have sex with him.


Similar explanations apply for almost everyone in the lineage mentioned.

But if you're keeping track, Adam is 235 years old at this point.

HGL
Two explanations are not mentioned.

Enos is the seventh SON (after six sons and so many daughters) OR, pre-Flood people came into puberty much later than now.

Better ease for abstinence is also a very good point. If puberty was around the age of 100 years, why did Noah get his three sons at age 500?

Well, maybe he HAD to wait a few centuries with all iniquity going on. And in that case abstinence is an asset.

Btw, forget about HIS using contraceptive technologies (they existed and have existed to this day): they are a mark of iniquity and a Jewish legend about the pre-Flood world says there was a smaller Flood in which Mediterranean formed as punishment for THAT.

Whether it be true as fact, it is certainly true as morals. The godly lineage are not using such things and the Lambeth conference of 1930 is dead wrong in allowing that. Catholic Church has obviously condemned it.

Genesis 5:7 Notes
This is pretty much how the rest of Chapter Five is going to go. Feel free to skip to the end, everyone else does.

HGL
Er, no.

Not the apologist who notes that 800 years was a pretty common age before the Flood.

Not people keeping track on how many years after Creation of Adam people lived, and in what year Flood occurred or Christ was born (there are two / three versions of the text and St Jerome's chronology based on LXX has Flood come in 2200 - 2240? - after Creation).

Not Chuck Missler and Rob Skiba who make a translation of each name in this genealogy:

Hebrew  English
Adam  Man
Seth  Appointed
Enosh  Mortal
Kenan  Sorrow;
Mahalalel The Blessed God
Jared Shall come down
Enoch Teaching
Methuselah His death shall bring
Lamech The Despairing
Noah Rest, or comfort.


A Hidden Message: The Gospel in Genesis
by Chuck Missler
http://www.khouse.org/articles/1996/44/


And not people interested in Henoch ... oh, it appears that the commentator actually didn't do that, didn't skip to the end:

Genesis 5:23 Notes
Unlike other pre-flood individuals mentioned by name, Enoch lasted only 400 years compared to the parents (and thus, Jared must have watched his son die but at least have a grandson.)

HGL
Note commenter commented before reading next verse.

Genesis 5:24 Notes
Enoch did not die. The Lord took him. This implies that Enoch is still alive in Heaven with God, making him the oldest living person named in the Bible.

HGL
Yep, and he's probably getting back, see Apocalypse 11. Most Latin Church Catholics identify them with Henoch and Elijah.*

Genesis 5:27 Notes
Methuselah is, besides the possible exception of Enoch, the longest living human in the bible, although it isn't explained why God was so ok with him living so long. The general idea is that he died either the year of the flood or a little while before.

HGL
Why was God ok with it? Well, it's still within the 1000-year post-Fall limit of human life.

Genesis 5:29 Notes
the curse is probably a reference to 3:17. Noah's name apparently means or shares a root with the word for rest.[2] It seems to me that basically the parents are saying oh good a child let's put him to work so we don't have to work as hard. In an era before child labor laws more kids meant more farm labor.

HGL
And should mean so.

Actually, the child labour laws were meant as a defense against putting children in HIGHLY unsuitable places such as down coal mines or chimneys.

Genesis 5:31 Notes
At this point, 1057 years passed since the birth of Adam, or 127 years since his death. Combined with at least 600 years that Noah took before the great flood, it basically requires squeezing most modern human history all since 2400 BCE if you take a simple guess that the Earth is only ~6014 years old (the current year + 4000).

Also of note is the age of which Lamech died - 777 years. It is parallel with Genesis 4:24, where Lamech notes that Cain was avenged sevenfold, and Lamech seventy-seven fold. Despite them being two different people, that name has an odd affinity for the number seven, and indicates that that age of death in multi-generational pre-history was purposely chosen by the author.

HGL
There is LOTS of not just pre-history, but pre-Greek and pre-Roman history that can do some squeezing and still be meaningful. Suppose carbon 14 levels are rising fast during 100 years, that will stretch carbon datings into tens of thousands.

(Yes, I did the maths on this, also using a "carbon date calculator" no longer on line to verify how many extra years a remains of organic type gets for each level of carbon 14 below 100%**)

Age chosen by author, well, yes. God punned on the boasting of the Cainite Lamech when deciding the lifespan of a very different other Lamech, the Sethite one. Or perhaps 777 shall be seen as young, a short life span for pre-Flood conditions. The Cainite Lamech shown as punished through punishment by proxy.

And God is author of events before being author of text, through Moses and whoever his sources were.

Genesis 5:32 Notes
Noah, one of the prophets, never manages to tell his followers (which should also be his offsprings/wives given the Global Flood) how to live for five hundred years, or even half as long. The goat definitely ate the secret and whoever kept the goat patched up the scripture in Genesis 6:3.

For those interested, the genealogy continues at Genesis 9:28

HGL
Ah, thanks for mentioning the chronological relevance of genealogies!

Genesis 6:3 Notes
The age limit is 120 years, but Genesis 11:10 and beyond still shows people lasting longer than that. A short life for humans, except when plot demands otherwise. Also, much more closely and much more provably, Jeanne Calment died after the age of 122.

HGL
As said, if 120 years is the new age limit, either it was gradually, or God made it different for Hebrews up to the time of Moses, who died at 120 precisely. Jeanne Calment probably got two years extra for being a good Catholic.

Genesis 6:4 Notes
See PZ Myers Pharyngula threads re.: Giants and Dwarfs(sic)

Translations other than the KJV have this differently. But based on the King James Only view that's what we're talking about here. ("Nephilim" is claimed by others to mean "fallen" - whatever that may mean in context - and is left untranslated in new English translations.)

HGL
I'd have liked to go to PZM and refute him. BUT when clicking, I don't get to the post.

Has it disappeared?

Or was it meant to be a link to a more general search from start? One link gives this:

Pharyngula : If you doubt this is possible, how is it there are PYGMIES + DWARFS??
Posted by PZ Myers on August 9, 2006
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/08/09/if-you-doubt-this-is-possible/


His quote :
NOTE: If you doubt this is possible, how is it there are PYGMIES + DWARFS??

His answer :
Man, the existence of pygmies and dwarfs has nothing to do with whether men were 15 feet tall 6000 years ago, and I had to laugh out loud. It’s an incredibly useful phrase that’s going to come in handy.

Ever wonder how the hell a moron like George W. Bush got elected? “If you doubt this is possible, how is it there are PYGMIES + DWARFS??“

How can people be so gullible to believe the nonsense peddled by the Discovery Institute? “If you doubt this is possible, how is it there are PYGMIES + DWARFS??“

HGL
Sorrreee, but it seems PZM would have needed some more caffeine that day (I'll go down and take some myself, this beautiful day*** of Saint Teresita!).

How is it possible that PZM missed the implication : we are pygmies compared to Adam and Noah, and pygmies are pygmies compared to us who are already pygmies.

Apart from that, I think the nephelim were more gigantic than the rest. Though not as bad as in Book of Jasher or as in the non-Catholic books of Baruch (there is a Catholic book of Baruch and it mentions giants of old in a way clearly exluding Adam and Noah, but does not give any measure).


Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
Rosarium BMV
7.X.2016

* All Catholics more or less agree Elijah is one of the two. There is less general agreement on the other one being Enoch.

** What Some of You are Thinking / Ce que certains de vous sont en train de penser
http://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2016/10/what-some-of-you-are-thinking-ce-que.html


*** By now it is already Rosary Feast, I took this post in a few steps before getting it done. Thérèse of Child Jesus, 3.X, Rosary of the Blessed Virgin, 7.X. A holy person and a holy practise, which won a victory over Turks in Lepanto, since the Pope prayed for Don John of Austria.

jeudi 6 octobre 2016

What Some of You are Thinking / Ce que certains de vous sont en train de penser


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

1) [Creation vs. Evolution :] What Some of You are Thinking / Ce que certains de vous sont en train de penser · 2) [New blog on the kid :] Jouons un peu avec 0,84 · 3) Posons environs 8 - 9% plus ou moins de Carbone 14 - ça donne combien d'années? · 4) Bonne Nouvelle!

At least I can guess some think that a small raise in Carbon 14 content cannot really make tens of thousands of years difference for the datings.  Au moins je devine que quelques-uns pensent qu'une minuscule hausse en carbone 14 n'a pas une chance de faire des dizaines de milliers d'années en différence pour les datation.
 
Well, it can. Compared to the present level, 1st halflife back is when there remain 50% of present state. 2 halflives back, in dating, there remain 25% - the difference is now smaller. 3 halflives back there remain 12.5 %, and the difference is smaller still. The less there is left, the less you need to take away or to add to make another halflife older or younger. Oui, il y a bien une chance pour ça. Comparé au niveau d'à présent, la première demi-vie qu'on va en arrière est quand il y a 50% du taux d'à présent. 2 demi-vies en arrière, en datation, c'est quand il reste 25% - la différence est nettement moindre. 3 demi-vies en arrière, on retrouve 12,5 % et la différence est encore moindre. Moins il reste, moins on a besoin de retrancher ou d'ajouter pour vieillir ou de rajeunir une demi-vie.
 
Or some of you may have thought I must have used wrong correspondences between percentages of C14 when the things were alive and the years that were added. Well, on an occasion or two that lapsus may have happened. See the exclamation marks, where trends for added years are reversed twice. Ou quelques-uns ont pu croire que j'ai dû avoir utilisé les mauvaises correspondances entre les pourcentages de carbon 14 (par rapport au niveau présent) quand les objets étaient en vie d'un côté et d'un autre le nombre d'années ajoutées. Bon, une fois ou deux, ce lapsus a pu se passer, voir les points d'exclamation, là où la tendance se renverse deux fois.
 
Either way I have taken the following correspondences from three tables, the Fibonacci one and two more, and somewhere something went wrong, but not much. Fortunately in the results I got, not the premisses, where a very small difference - as you can see, if in right end of spectrum - can make a huge difference in results. Quelle que soit été votre pensée dessus, j'ai ici pris les correspondences de trois tables, dont celle de l'essai où Fibonacci avait joué un rôle majeur, et de deux autres, et quelque chose est allé à travers, mais pas beaucoup. Heureusement, ceci dans les résultats obtenus, et non pas dans les prémisses, là où une très petite différence - comme vous pouvez voir et s'il se trouve dans le bon bout du spectre - peut en donner une très grande dans les résultats.
 
Verify for yourselves, it would have been better if there had still been available the carbon 14 calculator, where you could just put in a percentage of remaining carbon 14 and you got an output in years of age, which you can easily translate to added years for original carbon 14 content, same thing, but as there isn't, and until something similar goes online again, make do with this table. Vérifiez pour vous-même, ça aurait été mieux si on avait encore eu la calculatrice de carbone 14, où on pouvait entrer un pourcentage de carbone "restant" et obtenir un nombre d'années "de vieux", ce qui se laisse traduire directement en pourcentage de carbone du début et années ajoutées au delà de l'âge véritable.


3,90625 %  26 800 ans / years  67,924276 %  3200 ans / years
4,6875 %  25 300 ans / years  73,4152 %  2550 ans / years
7,6619 %  21 250 ans / years  73,71734 %  2500 ans / years
10,6130 %  18 550 ans / years  76,66562 %  2200 ans / years
11,4686 %  17 900 ans / years  79,41989698 %  1900 ans / years
13,5411 %  16 550 ans / years  80,3039 %  1800 ans / years
16,4464 %  14 900 ans / years !  85,0333 %  1350 ans / years
16,7849 %  16 765 ans / years !  85,903547 %  1250 ans / years
18,1438 %  14 100 ans / years  86,26541 %  1200 ans / years
24,7147 %  11 550 ans / years  90,559086 %  820 ans / years
28,10266 %  10 500 ans / years  90,82498977 %  800 ans / years
31,1829 %  9650 ans / years  91,58056 %  730 ans / years
37,5500895 %  8100 ans / years  94,86521 %  440 ans / years
38,6528 %  7850 ans / years  95,0788 %  420 ans / years
40,23593 %  7550 ans / years  95,9984858 %  340 ans / years
43,81775 %  6800 ans / years  96,89571 %  260 ans / years
48,447 %  6000 ans / years  98,14985 %  150 ans / years
49,987 %  5750 ans / years  98,6755 %  110 ans / years
56,06 %  4800 ans / years  98,92632 %  90 ans / years
57,49837 %  4600 ans / years  99,40408 %  50 ans / years
62,03925 %  3950 ans / years  99,70269 %  30 ans / years
62,75068 %  3850 ans / years  99,88185 %  10 ans / years
65,817145 %  3450 ans / years


Hans Georg Lundahl
Bibliothecâ Universitariâ
Nemetoduri
Sancti Brunonis sive
6.X.2016