mercredi 15 novembre 2017

How wrong was Aristotle?


Day before yesterday, I saw this on CMI:

In the 4th century BC, Aristotle described the water cycle more accurately, but like Thales, remained convinced that subterranean water was the main source of stream flow. He wrote that it was absurd “if one were to suppose that rivers drew all their water from the sources we see (for most rivers do flow from springs).”1

Referring to Thales, Plato, and Aristotle, Dooge writes, “A common error in all their thinking was the firm conviction that rainfall was not sufficient to provide the flow of springs and rivers.”2 This mistake was perpetuated well into the following centuries. Leonardo da Vinci (writing just after AD 1500) pondered on the underground mechanisms that would lift water into the mountains. And Galileo (around AD 1600) said that he was personally frustrated because he couldn’t understand the source of stream flow.

A correct understanding of the water cycle didn’t emerge until late in the 17th century. In 1674, Pierre Perrault published his research on the water cycle.3 “He presented a study of a substantial section of the Seine River, beginning at its source, northwest of the city of Dijon. Using numerical estimates, he demonstrated that the river runoff annually amounted to only one-sixth of the volume of water falling over the drainage basin as rain or snow in a year.”4

In determining this, a more complete understanding of the hydrologic cycle finally emerged.

From : CMI : The water cycle
by Ron Neller
https://creation.com/water-cycle


And footnote 1 is Aristotle, Meteorology, Book 1, Part 13, 350 BC, Tr. E.W. Webster.

Now, I think I owe some Aristotelians - including today's Saint, Albert the Great, teacher of St Thomas Aquinas, for very long accused of having written books of Magic (which are arguably not by him) and therefore canonised very recently, by Pius XI - to check out that section and find out precisely how wrong or nearly right Aristotle was.

Part 13

Let us explain the nature of winds, and all windy vapours, also of rivers and of the sea. But here, too, we must first discuss the difficulties involved: for, as in other matters, so in this no theory has been handed down to us that the most ordinary man could not have thought of.

Some say that what is called air, when it is in motion and flows, is wind, and that this same air when it condenses again becomes cloud and water, implying that the nature of wind and water is the same. So they define wind as a motion of the air. Hence some, wishing to say a clever thing, assert that all the winds are one wind, because the air that moves is in fact all of it one and the same; they maintain that the winds appear to differ owing to the region from which the air may happen to flow on each occasion, but really do not differ at all. This is just like thinking that all rivers are one and the same river, and the ordinary unscientific view is better than a scientific theory like this. If all rivers flow from one source, and the same is true in the case of the winds, there might be some truth in this theory; but if it is no more true in the one case than in the other, this ingenious idea is plainly false. What requires investigation is this: the nature of wind and how it originates, its efficient cause and whence they derive their source; whether one ought to think of the wind as issuing from a sort of vessel and flowing until the vessel is empty, as if let out of a wineskin, or, as painters represent the winds, as drawing their source from themselves.

We find analogous views about the origin of rivers. It is thought that the water is raised by the sun and descends in rain and gathers below the earth and so flows from a great reservoir, all the rivers from one, or each from a different one. No water at all is generated, but the volume of the rivers consists of the water that is gathered into such reservoirs in winter. Hence rivers are always fuller in winter than in summer, and some are perennial, others not. Rivers are perennial where the reservoir is large and so enough water has collected in it to last out and not be used up before the winter rain returns. Where the reservoirs are smaller there is less water in the rivers, and they are dried up and their vessel empty before the fresh rain comes on.

But if any one will picture to himself a reservoir adequate to the water that is continuously flowing day by day, and consider the amount of the water, it is obvious that a receptacle that is to contain all the water that flows in the year would be larger than the earth, or, at any rate, not much smaller.

Though it is evident that many reservoirs of this kind do exist in many parts of the earth, yet it is unreasonable for any one to refuse to admit that air becomes water in the earth for the same reason as it does above it. If the cold causes the vaporous air to condense into water above the earth we must suppose the cold in the earth to produce this same effect, and recognize that there not only exists in it and flows out of it actually formed water, but that water is continually forming in it too.

Again, even in the case of the water that is not being formed from day to day but exists as such, we must not suppose as some do that rivers have their source in definite subterranean lakes. On the contrary, just as above the earth small drops form and these join others, till finally the water descends in a body as rain, so too we must suppose that in the earth the water at first trickles together little by little, and that the sources of the rivers drip, as it were, out of the earth and then unite. This is proved by facts. When men construct an aqueduct they collect the water in pipes and trenches, as if the earth in the higher ground were sweating the water out. Hence, too, the head-waters of rivers are found to flow from mountains, and from the greatest mountains there flow the most numerous and greatest rivers. Again, most springs are in the neighbourhood of mountains and of high ground, whereas if we except rivers, water rarely appears in the plains. For mountains and high ground, suspended over the country like a saturated sponge, make the water ooze out and trickle together in minute quantities but in many places. They receive a great deal of water falling as rain (for it makes no difference whether a spongy receptacle is concave and turned up or convex and turned down: in either case it will contain the same volume of matter) and, they also cool the vapour that rises and condense it back into water.

Hence, as we said, we find that the greatest rivers flow from the greatest mountains. This can be seen by looking at itineraries: what is recorded in them consists either of things which the writer has seen himself or of such as he has compiled after inquiry from those who have seen them.

In Asia we find that the most numerous and greatest rivers flow from the mountain called Parnassus, admittedly the greatest of all mountains towards the south-east. When you have crossed it you see the outer ocean, the further limit of which is unknown to the dwellers in our world. Besides other rivers there flow from it the Bactrus, the Choaspes, the Araxes: from the last a branch separates off and flows into lake Maeotis as the Tanais. From it, too, flows the Indus, the volume of whose stream is greatest of all rivers. From the Caucasus flows the Phasis, and very many other great rivers besides. Now the Caucasus is the greatest of the mountains that lie to the northeast, both as regards its extent and its height. A proof of its height is the fact that it can be seen from the so-called 'deeps' and from the entrance to the lake. Again, the sun shines on its peaks for a third part of the night before sunrise and again after sunset. Its extent is proved by the fact that thought contains many inhabitable regions which are occupied by many nations and in which there are said to be great lakes, yet they say that all these regions are visible up to the last peak. From Pyrene (this is a mountain towards the west in Celtice) there flow the Istrus and the Tartessus. The latter flows outside the pillars, while the Istrus flows through all Europe into the Euxine. Most of the remaining rivers flow northwards from the Hercynian mountains, which are the greatest in height and extent about that region. In the extreme north, beyond furthest Scythia, are the mountains called Rhipae. The stories about their size are altogether too fabulous: however, they say that the most and (after the Istrus) the greatest rivers flow from them. So, too, in Libya there flow from the Aethiopian mountains the Aegon and the Nyses; and from the so-called Silver Mountain the two greatest of named rivers, the river called Chremetes that flows into the outer ocean, and the main source of the Nile. Of the rivers in the Greek world, the Achelous flows from Pindus, the Inachus from the same mountain; the Strymon, the Nestus, and the Hebrus all three from Scombrus; many rivers, too, flow from Rhodope.

All other rivers would be found to flow in the same way, but we have mentioned these as examples. Even where rivers flow from marshes, the marshes in almost every case are found to lie below mountains or gradually rising ground.

It is clear then that we must not suppose rivers to originate from definite reservoirs: for the whole earth, we might almost say, would not be sufficient (any more than the region of the clouds would be) if we were to suppose that they were fed by actually existing water only and it were not the case that as some water passed out of existence some more came into existence, but rivers always drew their stream from an existing store. Secondly, the fact that rivers rise at the foot of mountains proves that a place transmits the water it contains by gradual percolation of many drops, little by little, and that this is how the sources of rivers originate. However, there is nothing impossible about the existence of such places containing a quantity of water like lakes: only they cannot be big enough to produce the supposed effect. To think that they are is just as absurd as if one were to suppose that rivers drew all their water from the sources we see (for most rivers do flow from springs). So it is no more reasonable to suppose those lakes to contain the whole volume of water than these springs.

That there exist such chasms and cavities in the earth we are taught by the rivers that are swallowed up. They are found in many parts of the earth: in the Peloponnesus, for instance, there are many such rivers in Arcadia. The reason is that Arcadia is mountainous and there are no channels from its valleys to the sea. So these places get full of water, and this, having no outlet, under the pressure of the water that is added above, finds a way out for itself underground. In Greece this kind of thing happens on quite a small scale, but the lake at the foot of the Caucasus, which the inhabitants of these parts call a sea, is considerable. Many great rivers fall into it and it has no visible outlet but issues below the earth off the land of the Coraxi about the so-called 'deeps of Pontus'. This is a place of unfathomable depth in the sea: at any rate no one has yet been able to find bottom there by sounding. At this spot, about three hundred stadia from land, there comes up sweet water over a large area, not all of it together but in three places. And in Liguria a river equal in size to the Rhodanus is swallowed up and appears again elsewhere: the Rhodanus being a navigable river.

From Meteorology, Book I
Translated by E. W. Webster
http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/meteorology.1.i.html


Now, let us break this down a bit.

Let us explain the nature of winds, and all windy vapours, also of rivers and of the sea. But here, too, we must first discuss the difficulties involved: for, as in other matters, so in this no theory has been handed down to us that the most ordinary man could not have thought of.


OK, this means, in the status of a question, Aristotle is taking into account ALL theories traditional, including that of common men. Looks like sth scientists could learn from.

Some say that what is called air, when it is in motion and flows, is wind, and that this same air when it condenses again becomes cloud and water, implying that the nature of wind and water is the same. So they define wind as a motion of the air. Hence some, wishing to say a clever thing, assert that all the winds are one wind, because the air that moves is in fact all of it one and the same; they maintain that the winds appear to differ owing to the region from which the air may happen to flow on each occasion, but really do not differ at all. This is just like thinking that all rivers are one and the same river, and the ordinary unscientific view is better than a scientific theory like this. If all rivers flow from one source, and the same is true in the case of the winds, there might be some truth in this theory; but if it is no more true in the one case than in the other, this ingenious idea is plainly false. What requires investigation is this: the nature of wind and how it originates, its efficient cause and whence they derive their source; whether one ought to think of the wind as issuing from a sort of vessel and flowing until the vessel is empty, as if let out of a wineskin, or, as painters represent the winds, as drawing their source from themselves.


He gives us 5 things here:

  • 1) Some think wind and water are the same thing (he is not disagreeing with that), air turning into water by condensation (literally thickening)
  • 2) Some push this to all winds being one wind, and he disagrees with that : here a scientist or philosopher has tried to say a clever thing, but his view is less worthwhile than the ordinary one - this means, ordinary man is sometimes superior, if not to all specialists past or present, at least to some (and presumably it could in certain times be to all specialists then and there or here and now, on a certain matter, in case such a man trying to say a clever thing has swayed most specialist). The refutation of this view is very simple : "you could just as well say all rivers are the same river".
  • 3) He gives an alternative : if all rivers / winds flow from same source, the clever thing is true, otherwise it is false. It looks as if he has clinched the case, but wait ...
  • 4) We must check out where winds draw their air from. Presumably he has already mentioned the "all winds are one wind" theory, now he gives alternatives : do winds flow out of containers, like wineskins? do they draw the air from themselves?
  • 5) As you see with imagery, he has no problem with preferring vivid images (wineskins, like the painters paint them) over dry and firm terminology.


We find analogous views about the origin of rivers. It is thought that the water is raised by the sun and descends in rain and gathers below the earth and so flows from a great reservoir, all the rivers from one, or each from a different one. No water at all is generated, but the volume of the rivers consists of the water that is gathered into such reservoirs in winter. Hence rivers are always fuller in winter than in summer, and some are perennial, others not. Rivers are perennial where the reservoir is large and so enough water has collected in it to last out and not be used up before the winter rain returns. Where the reservoirs are smaller there is less water in the rivers, and they are dried up and their vessel empty before the fresh rain comes on.


Let me highlight:

"It is thought that the water is raised by the sun and descends in rain and gathers below the earth and so flows from a great reservoir, all the rivers from one, or each from a different one. No water at all is generated, but the volume of the rivers consists of the water that is gathered ..."

In other words, the water cycle as now believed and as correctly described in the Bible is a common view in Aristotle's day.

Aristotle thinks it is wrong - he thinks it is wrong on the precise point of denying that water is routinely "condensed from air" both on high and below, under influence of coolness, as we shall see.

But the fact that Aristotle saw this as a common view did not absolutely determine his rejecting it. He has other reasons, as we shall see.

But if any one will picture to himself a reservoir adequate to the water that is continuously flowing day by day, and consider the amount of the water, it is obvious that a receptacle that is to contain all the water that flows in the year would be larger than the earth, or, at any rate, not much smaller.


Here he has a problem. He has no apparatus for directly measuring either water flow in rivers or water flow by rainfall. He resorts to imagining as a "virtual" measuring.

The thing is, his conclusion is, if "all the water that flows" means in all rivers taken together over earth, nearly correct, as we now understand things. The receptacle is not some limited reservoir cut off from the rest of the land. It is, instead, all of the land within each river's area of contributaries, between the ...

"A drainage divide, water divide, divide, ridgeline,[1] watershed, water parting, is the line that separates neighbouring drainage basins."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drainage_divide
[Too many wikipedia articles cited to give a link to each subsequent to his one. It would look cluttered and take extra time.]

And obviously, since the actual land is corrugated, the "reservoir" is indeed bigger, if not than Earth's actual surface as such (it cannot be bigger than itself), at least than the area on a flat map or a round globe, which does not take this "corrugation" into account.

Hence, the fault in Aristotle's imagined comparison.

Though it is evident that many reservoirs of this kind do exist in many parts of the earth, yet it is unreasonable for any one to refuse to admit that air becomes water in the earth for the same reason as it does above it. If the cold causes the vaporous air to condense into water above the earth we must suppose the cold in the earth to produce this same effect, and recognize that there not only exists in it and flows out of it actually formed water, but that water is continually forming in it too.


Ah, in other words, he is not contradicting the water cycle's known parts, he is just saying they don't suffice. Water must be "forming from air". He attributes rainfall to this. He probably has demonstrated it to his satisfaction in previous 12 parts of book one, or in some book on physics. He believes in a cycle of elements.

Again, even in the case of the water that is not being formed from day to day but exists as such, we must not suppose as some do that rivers have their source in definite subterranean lakes. On the contrary, just as above the earth small drops form and these join others, till finally the water descends in a body as rain, so too we must suppose that in the earth the water at first trickles together little by little, and that the sources of the rivers drip, as it were, out of the earth and then unite. This is proved by facts. When men construct an aqueduct they collect the water in pipes and trenches, as if the earth in the higher ground were sweating the water out. Hence, too, the head-waters of rivers are found to flow from mountains, and from the greatest mountains there flow the most numerous and greatest rivers. Again, most springs are in the neighbourhood of mountains and of high ground, whereas if we except rivers, water rarely appears in the plains. For mountains and high ground, suspended over the country like a saturated sponge, make the water ooze out and trickle together in minute quantities but in many places. They receive a great deal of water falling as rain (for it makes no difference whether a spongy receptacle is concave and turned up or convex and turned down: in either case it will contain the same volume of matter) and, they also cool the vapour that rises and condense it back into water.


Here, no modern would contradict his observation. Except, of course on the two points that water usually originates from air, and that this process also takes place in subterranean manner : while air containing water vapour would probably condensate in caves, this would, on the modern view, be a minute part of the rain fall, evaporating and condensating again.

Construction of aquaeducts was disused at beginning of Middle Ages, but I did not know it has originated so long before the greatness of Rome.

The reason for their disuse was, they were manned by slaves, and in the day of Clovis and Belisarius these proved unreliable. As the Early Middle Ages came on as a time of more and more war, aquaeducts were therefore quickly seen as a security hazard, and probably disused rather quickly.

A medieval reading this just had to take Aristotle's word for what usually happened in constructions of aquaeducts.

Hence, as we said, we find that the greatest rivers flow from the greatest mountains. This can be seen by looking at itineraries: what is recorded in them consists either of things which the writer has seen himself or of such as he has compiled after inquiry from those who have seen them.


This is one point in Aristotle, where modern scholars would frown : he is content to compile from itineraries, knowing they are themselves compilations.

But while frowning, they often do so without telling us.

While J. P. Holding would tell me "wikipedia is for idiots", presumably some of the experts (on another matter, NT scholarship) he prefers to them will at one point or another have compiled rather than make own observations (as in reading relevant texts), whether wikipedia or other (some of which are less reliable, since liable to depend on some scholars abusing their position to "try to say a clever thing", while a wikipedian article can receive corrections from outside such charmed circles).

Aristotle relies on compilations, and he gives them due credit.

In Asia we find that the most numerous and greatest rivers flow from the mountain called Parnassus, admittedly the greatest of all mountains towards the south-east.


Checking English wiki:

"Parnassus is one of the largest mountainous regions of Mainland Greece and one of the highest Greek mountains. It spreads over three municipalities, namely of Boeotia, Phthiotis and Phocis, where its largest part lies."

Was Aristotle counting Balkan as Asia? Or is some word, like "West of..." missing?

Or did he mean another very great mountain in Asia, which a copyist exchanged for Parnassus as highest in Greece?

I don't know, I don't even find ... wait ...

When you have crossed it you see the outer ocean, the further limit of which is unknown to the dwellers in our world.


I get a hunch, Himalaya could have been called Parnassus, by the Greeks, unless it is Ural or Afghanistan, or something. Let's check following instances:

Besides other rivers there flow from it the Bactrus, the Choaspes, the Araxes: from the last a branch separates off and flows into lake Maeotis as the Tanais. From it, too, flows the Indus, the volume of whose stream is greatest of all rivers.


  • the Bactrus, [we don't know what river it is, whether it is one in Bactria [which includes Afghanistan] or one only named after same person as Bactria is named for - or if some uf us do, at least I don't] the Choaspes, we have two alternatives:

    • The Karkheh or Karkhen (perhaps the river known as the Gihon[citation needed]—one of the four rivers of Eden/Paradise to the Bible and as the Choaspes[1] in ancient times; also called Eulæus; Hebrew: אולי Ulai[2]) is a river in Khūzestān Province Andimeshk city, Iran (ancient Susiana) that rises in the Zagros Mountains, and passes west of Shush (ancient Susa), eventually falling in ancient times into the Tigris just below its confluence with the Euphrates very near to the Iran-Iraq border.
    • The Choaspes (also called Zuastus and Guræus) is a river that rises in the ancient Paropamise range (now the Hindu Kush in Afghanistan), eventually falling into the Indus river near its confluence with the Cophes river (which is usually identified with the Kabul river). Strabo's Geography, Book XV, Chapter 1, § 26 incorrectly states that the Choaspes empties directly into the Cophes. The river should not be confused with the river of the same name which flows into the Tigris.


I think we have nailed it. Parnassus, the greatest mountain in Asia, is Hindukush.

Parnassus is a copyists error (before or after Aristotle, in or after his text) for Paropamise.

I am not sure the Indian Ocean (mistaken by Aristotle for the outer one) can be seen from Hindukush, but there could be a further error in confusing it with Himalaya?

Parapomise is also called, keep the ... wait. Parapomise is called Caucasus Indicus, but Araxes is from another range called "Caucasus", namely, the Lesser Caucaus:

"The Aras or Araxes is a river flowing through Turkey, Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Iran. It drains the south side of the Lesser Caucasus Mountains and joins the Kura River which drains the north side of Lesser Caucasus Mountains. Its total length is 1,072 kilometres (666 mi), covering an area of 102,000 square kilometres (39,000 sq mi). The Aras River is one of the largest rivers in the Caucasus."

As mentioned, it flows to the "southeast" or more properly, to the east somewhat south.

Don is here identified with a branch of Araxes, which is wrong. And yes, we are dealing with Don:

"The Don rises in the town of Novomoskovsk 60 kilometres (37 mi) southeast of Tula (120 km south of Moscow), and flows for a distance of about 1,870 kilometres to the Sea of Azov. From its source, the river first flows southeast to Voronezh, then southwest to its mouth. The main city on the river is Rostov on Don. Its main tributary is the Seversky Donets."

No, Aristotle, Araxes and Donets are not the same river...

Here we see Aristotle at his worst. His geographic information has become garbled, before it reached him, gathered by people of less reliability and methodology than himself and this makes it possible to understand why an age of goegraphic discovery would be an age looking down on Aristotle unduly. If you can go to the places (including with wikipedia) you can see this is not so.

From the Caucasus flows the Phasis, and very many other great rivers besides.


Which Caucasus is he talking about now ... Phasis? Wow, it seems it is the one we call Caucasus, despite the fact an ancient source is using the word!:

"The Rioni or Rion River (Georgian: რიონი Rioni, Greek: Φᾶσις Phasis) is the main river of western Georgia. It originates in the Caucasus Mountains, in the region of Racha and flows west to the Black Sea, entering it north of the city of Poti (near ancient Phasis). The city of Kutaisi, once the ancient city of Colchis, lies on its banks. It drains the western Transcaucasus into the Black Sea while its sister, the Kura River, drains the eastern Transcaucasus into the Caspian Sea."

Now the Caucasus is the greatest of the mountains that lie to the northeast, both as regards its extent and its height. A proof of its height is the fact that it can be seen from the so-called 'deeps' and from the entrance to the lake.


He is speaking of Lake Maeotis, i e Sea of Azov. Now, Greater Caucasus continues NW along Black Sea coast a bit beyond Sochi.

How far is Sochi from Sea of Azov?

"The air travel (bird fly) shortest distance between Crimea and Sochi is 473 km= 294 miles."

Problem is, that line is traced from a point on Crimea, namely Simpheropol, well further away from Sochi than Sea of Azov need be. Kertch, Slaviansk, would be more like it.

Kertch-Sochi, 324.66 km, 201.73 miles.
Slaviansk-Sochi, 222.47 km, 138.24 miles

So, if you can see Greater Caucasus from Kertch or Slaviansk, how high does that prove Caucasus to be?

And are you seeing Sochi region, or are you seeing sth further away but also higher up?

I don't know.

Again, the sun shines on its peaks for a third part of the night before sunrise and again after sunset.


I am not sure whether this is diffraction or summer nights being longer further North:

Sochi
Coordinates: 43°35′07″N 39°43′13″E

Stagira (where Aristotle was born)
Coordinates: 40°31′49″N 23°45′09″E

Hmmm, just three degrees further North ...

Its extent is proved by the fact that thought contains many inhabitable regions which are occupied by many nations and in which there are said to be great lakes, yet they say that all these regions are visible up to the last peak.


Wonder what peak of Greater Caucasus he is speaking about? Or have his sources garbled it with some other mointain range further North?

From Pyrene (this is a mountain towards the west in Celtice) there flow the Istrus and the Tartessus. The latter flows outside the pillars, while the Istrus flows through all Europe into the Euxine.


It seems he has confused Alps and Pyrenees. Tartessus is basically Guadalquivir, Ister (which very certainly rises in the Alps, in post-Flood times, however this was a sea shore in pre-Flood times) is of course the Danube.

And any Romanian will agree that Ister flows into the Euxine, since it means the Danube flows into the Black Sea.

Most of the remaining rivers flow northwards from the Hercynian mountains, which are the greatest in height and extent about that region.


Hercynian forest is Schwarzwald, and it is not the highest or most extensive mountain range.

However, Alps, West of it, are highest, and Carpathians, East of it, are very extensive.

"The Mittelgebirge seem to correspond more or less to a stretch of the Hercynian mountains."

As said, Mittelgebirge, like Black Forest, are lower than Alps, less extensive than Carpathians. (Bonus, here is another modern writer scratching his head about Aristotle's geographic information).

In the extreme north, beyond furthest Scythia, are the mountains called Rhipae.


That would be Ural?

The stories about their size are altogether too fabulous: however, they say that the most and (after the Istrus) the greatest rivers flow from them.


Let's check. Istrus or Danube is greatest in Europe?

"The Danube Delta ... is the second largest river delta in Europe, after the Volga Delta"

Kama, one contributary to Volga, starts in Ural, Oka has a tributary called Ugra ... no ...

Checked against better geographic data than those available to Aristotle, his scheme seems to be too schematic.

He is far better a bit higher up, where he said:

"On the contrary, just as above the earth small drops form and these join others, till finally the water descends in a body as rain, so too we must suppose that in the earth the water at first trickles together little by little, and that the sources of the rivers drip, as it were, out of the earth and then unite."

He did just not know how right he was.

So, too, in Libya there flow from the Aethiopian mountains the Aegon and the Nyses; and from the so-called Silver Mountain the two greatest of named rivers, the river called Chremetes that flows into the outer ocean, and the main source of the Nile.


And yes, the Blue Nile does arise in Ethiopia.

Of the rivers in the Greek world, the Achelous flows from Pindus, the Inachus from the same mountain; the Strymon, the Nestus, and the Hebrus all three from Scombrus; many rivers, too, flow from Rhodope.


Pindus, Scombrus, Rhodope.

Those would be the examples best known to him.

Rhodope is, btw, in Bulgaria, it is where Orpheus was from. He was a Thracian, not a Greek.

All other rivers would be found to flow in the same way, but we have mentioned these as examples. Even where rivers flow from marshes, the marshes in almost every case are found to lie below mountains or gradually rising ground.


I suppose this may have been confirmed after his time?

It is clear then that we must not suppose rivers to originate from definite reservoirs: for the whole earth, we might almost say, would not be sufficient (any more than the region of the clouds would be) if we were to suppose that they were fed by actually existing water only and it were not the case that as some water passed out of existence some more came into existence, but rivers always drew their stream from an existing store. Secondly, the fact that rivers rise at the foot of mountains proves that a place transmits the water it contains by gradual percolation of many drops, little by little, and that this is how the sources of rivers originate. However, there is nothing impossible about the existence of such places containing a quantity of water like lakes: only they cannot be big enough to produce the supposed effect. To think that they are is just as absurd as if one were to suppose that rivers drew all their water from the sources we see (for most rivers do flow from springs). So it is no more reasonable to suppose those lakes to contain the whole volume of water than these springs.


I put this down to a flaw in the geometrical imagination. The whole earth, between watersheds, is sufficient, if you take into account that it is never just flat but always "gradually rising" this or that way, and sometimes less gradually too.

That there exist such chasms and cavities in the earth we are taught by the rivers that are swallowed up. They are found in many parts of the earth: in the Peloponnesus, for instance, there are many such rivers in Arcadia. The reason is that Arcadia is mountainous and there are no channels from its valleys to the sea. So these places get full of water, and this, having no outlet, under the pressure of the water that is added above, finds a way out for itself underground. In Greece this kind of thing happens on quite a small scale, but the lake at the foot of the Caucasus, which the inhabitants of these parts call a sea, is considerable. Many great rivers fall into it and it has no visible outlet but issues below the earth off the land of the Coraxi about the so-called 'deeps of Pontus'. This is a place of unfathomable depth in the sea: at any rate no one has yet been able to find bottom there by sounding. At this spot, about three hundred stadia from land, there comes up sweet water over a large area, not all of it together but in three places. And in Liguria a river equal in size to the Rhodanus is swallowed up and appears again elsewhere: the Rhodanus being a navigable river.


And Rhodanus being navigable is very true, it is Rhône. I have been to Marseilles. I have made a boat hiking from Avignon to Lyons.

B U T whereever he gets it from that Rhodanus is first swallowed up and then reemerges as Rhodanus ...

As said, he was not a first hand explorer, for most of his geographical lore (he was of course when it came to accompanying Alexander), he relied too much on indirect ones.

Hard facts, so to speak atomic ones, survive several sources taking from each other from a first one much better than complex and therefore gliding scale accurate facts, like features of landscapes or animals.

Whether the real unicorn was a Rhinocerus or a Triceratops, the Unicorns found on heraldics are far removed from either source. So is the map we can contemplate in Aristotle.

But this is no way any problem in his method, he was just unable to properly apply it.

Now, the real inventor of the water cycle, as in detail:

"Pierre Perrault (Paris circa 1608– Paris 1680) was a Receiver General of Finances for Paris and later a scientist who developed the concept of the hydrological cycle. He and Edme Mariotte were primarily responsible for making hydrology an experimental science."

He was a Catholic. His brother Nicolas Perrault was a theology doctor of Sorbonne, which in Ancien Régime was certainly only Catholic theology. He was a Jansenist and as such excluded from Sorbonne - after having been there.

No Perrault is on the 1948 version of Index Librorum. Not Pierre Perrault, obviously, since hydrology is accepted and since Galileo was even taken off the index, decades earlier.

Not Charles Perrault, despite some modern day Jansenists (or likeminded in morals) who consider reading Tolkien falls under Trentine ban on books of magic. No, if that had been meant, Charles Perrault would be on the index too. Trent meant things like certain works falsely attributed to St Albert.

And, not even Nicolas Perrault and his denunciation of Jesuits.

Pascal's provincials are there, presumably because containing calumny.

Pascal's Pensées are there, but only in the 1789 edition, with notes by Voltaire. So, presumably it is the notes by Voltaire, not Pensées as such which is banned.

If Pascal's "Les provinciales ou les lettres écrites à un provincial de ses amis et aux rr. pp. jésuites sur le sujet de la morale et de la politique de ces pères." (Edition of 1657) had been just disagreeing with Jesuits, and not strawmanning them, presumably, like Nicolas Perrault, it would not have been banned. Or is Nicolas Perrault's work simply nowhere in print?

Nope, that's not it. "Il a notamment écrit la Morale des jésuites extraite fidèlement de leurs livres, etc (1667), ouvrage qui a fait en son temps beaucoup de bruit"

I cannot guarantee it is not bad and strawmanning, it could also be censors overlooked it.

Now, what about Catholic Aristotelians, have they been generally misled by Aristotle in matters where this man could not access accuracy?

No, since it has been very clear that they have tried to attain higher accuracy, on point after point, and this being the origins of science - from St Albert dissecting the bee to Steno inventing geology (and, on top of that, it was a Flood geology he invented, not a Sickar Point one ...) Pierre Perrault was obviously part of this, and owed nothing to Bacon of Verulam, since his work had not been read in France.

"Baco, Franciscus De dignitate et augmentis scientiarum libri IX. Donec corrig. 1668"

Donec corrigatur means the ban is "until it be corrected" - one is open to a reedition incorporating Catholic and presumably Scholastic corrections. The 1668 edition was presumably the earliest available to Catholic censors.

Also, I don't think the Aristotelian view actually contradicts the Bible.

One of the oldest books of the Bible, that of Job, provides a clear description of many aspects of the water cycle. These include evaporation, condensation and precipitation (Job 36:27–28), and the formation of clouds (Job 26:8). Other books provide additional insights, including verses about evaporation (Psalm 135:7), precipitation (Psalm 104:13), infiltration (Isaiah 55:10), the release of groundwater through springs (Genesis 16:7; Psalm 104:10), dew and rainwater (Deuteronomy 32:2), floods in desert streams (Isaiah 44:3–4), as well as cloud movement and the ongoing nature of such (Ecclesiastes 1:6–7).

But the Bible goes well beyond a list of the components of the water cycle. In addition to these concepts, the Bible notes that they are linked by laws and that the process is cyclic. These are two concepts that were not well understood by early scholars.


The fact is, none of the Bible verses, except Ps 104, directly or even obliquely contradicts Aristotle.

Nor does the concept of cyclicity bound by laws : he had his own somewhat different cycle between the elements.

But what is more, it is even better consistent (esp Ps 104) with a view that Aristotle mentioned, though he disagreed with it. While it is correct that the Bible is correct on the water cycle, this correctness in itself is not miraculous. Cumulative correctness is, if Young Earth, Young Universe, and Geocentrism (Joshua 10!) can be shown not to break this cumulation of correctness.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
St Albert the Great
15.XI.2017

Coloniae Agrippinae sancti Alberti Episcopi et Confessoris, ex Ordine Praedicatorum, cognomento Magni, sanctitate et doctrina celebris, quem Pius Papa Undecimus Doctorem universalis Ecclesiae declaravit, et Pius Duodecimus cultorum scientiarum naturalium caelestem apud Deum Patronum constituit.

Colonia Agrippina is not a disputable location, except at Carnival. It is Cologne in Germany.

Acknowledgements:

Apart two quotes from CMI and one from Aristotle, all other quotes are from wikipedia, except the distances to Sochi, which are from https://www.distancefromto.net/

Oh, the citations about index librorum are from this site, incorporating the 1948 version:

http://www.cvm.qc.ca/gconti/905/BABEL/Index%20Librorum%20Prohibitorum-1948.htm

vendredi 27 octobre 2017

The Carbon Related Question, Update


Trying to Get a Carbon Related Question Answered · The Carbon Related Question, Update · Things Could Get a Bit Complicated with Carbon Question

As you can see on the previous post, which has been updated, I made three tries to get this question answered.

None of them got me any answer.

My own answer is, I suppose the relationship is linear, which means that with 11 times as fast carbon production you got 11 times as many milliSieverts from cosmic radiation.

3.9
0.39
4.29

And 4.29 per year is of course within the kind of total background radiations you find on Earth today.

I am of course biassed, since if I had had to multiply by eleven squared to get the milliSievers, during the buildup in Babel event, we would have been very bad off:

39
07.8
00.39
47.19

I think 47.19 milliSievert per year would have been too much for us. It is nearly five times one of the highest local total background radiations.

But then, at no time do I suppose the speed of new carbon was 121 times as fast, at Babel it was 11 times as fast, sometimes (before Babel) perhaps a bit faster than that. And, as I have, if not confirmed, at least not refuted when giving opportunity, the milliSievert per year go by linear proportion, not by squared in relation to carbon 14 production.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
Vigil of Sts Simon and Jude
27.X.2017

lundi 23 octobre 2017

Recorded History of China Too Old For Us?


I am not sure how many of you have heard a claim from RationalWiki or even read it there, but they do consider that human continuous historiography beginning about at Flood is seriously at risk, due to Martino Martini SJ writing that Emperor Fohius started ruling in China in 2952 BC, and due to Chinese history being so well buttressed by continuous and scientifically exact astronomical obseervations.

In fact, a Jesuit missionary, Martino Martini,Wikipedia's W.svg who was sent to China in the 1650s, was shocked to find that Chinese records chronicled the Imperial dynasty from the first emperor in 2952 BC. An emperor, of course, requires a large population to rule over, not a single individual. Even to a strict Jesuit the Chinese records appeared more reliable and detailed than those of the Jews, they contained no gaps, even the earliest entries were written by contemporary authors, they were strictly factual without any reference to myths or legends, and they could be cross-referenced to the dates of solar eclipses calculated by European astronomers.[91]


I don't know who their staff Latinist is, but it seems to be one who:

  • diagnoses surprise at so well made history so early without the words actually being epxressed by the author;
  • misses that while Martini sees this as absolutely irreconcilable with the newer Chronology (Ussher was becoming famous among Catholics too), had no problem reconciling this with the Flood with Septuagint based Chronologies.


In other words, while they are somewhat intermediate between a fullfledged site and a wiki with anonymous contributors, no staff of any kind at all, they seem they could use a staff Latinist. It won't be me.

Now, let us break down what Martino Martini actually writes, a bit!

  • Fohius is neither the first man nor the first to be in China, MM has not missed the mythology surrounding Pang Guo, he does not consider it as historic, though.
  • The pre-Fohian rulers could either be pre-Flood or coming to China after Flood but before Babel, in small groups living what we could call a palaeolithic lifestyle. Either way, their long added spans of rule are totally unrealistic.
  • Fohius, Xinnungus and Hoangtius are three regnal spans together spanning 355 years. I am not sure RationalWiki would like to defend that the astronomical observations in China are such a great clue to Chinese accurate historiography that we can safely conclude Fohius ruled 115 years, Xinningus 140 and Hoangtius 100 years. If they do, I think you might have to cross check their treatment of pre-Flood and especially post-Flood but pre-Egypt patriarchs. On RationalWiki, special pleading wouldn't do, would it?
  • Fohius begins writing, Xinnungus agriculture and medicine, Hoangtius administration and the cycle of years. 1 year of 1:st cycle is therefore year one of Hoangtius' reign - after Fohius and Xinnungus.
  • In none of these have I as yet seen any clear outlining of astronomical observations of eclipses, so I must conclude this independent confirmation is of a somewhat later date.


This said, let's check how this fits my chronologies, Syncellus and St Jerome. In the latter case, I'd have to identify Fohius with someone not totally unique to China, with Ham.

A Just
Martino Martini's words:

2952 BC
Fohius begins to rule.
2837 BC
Xinnungus begins to rule.
2697 BC
Hoangtius begins to rule.
2597 BC
Hoangtius died.

B Syncellus
or rather Byzantine Liturgic (8 years longer):

3366 BC
Deluge
2952 BC
Fohius begins to rule.
2837 BC
Peleg born
= 2837 BC
Xinnungus begins to rule.
2792 BC
Dispersion of Tongues
2697 BC
Hoangtius begins to rule.
2597 BC
Hoangtius died.

C St Jerome
with some reconstruction for Peleg:

2957 BC
Deluge
2952 BC
Fohius begins to rule!
2837 BC
Xinnungus begins to rule.
2697 BC
Hoangtius begins to rule.
2597 BC
Hoangtius died.

2556 BC
Peleg born
2511 BC
Dispersion of Tongues.


With St Jerome this becomes problematic enough to be interesting : Fohius starts ruling 5 years after Flood, who is he? Noah himself? Ham? Shem? A grandson born that year and said to begin ruling then?

Ham seems to be not quite unreasonable, since Peter Comestor places one "Zoroaster" originator of magic later brought to our civilisation by Pythagoras as identic to Ham.

And if Hoangtius died before dispersion of tongues, we would assume that his local rule (if at all such) in Chine would have been subsumed under a more general command centralised at Babel.

I could even imagine considering this a possibility, these three were transferred to China, their real names are Ham, Kush and Nimrod. Obviously this last would grossly gloss over the less flattering aspects of Nimrod's carreer.

Let us now briefly recall some factors of which we are aware, though MM was not yet so.

We have carbon dates for grains in China, at least I think millet being "20 000 BP" which is compatible with a pre-Babel and post-Flood date.

The lifestyle of Fohius, or generally up to Xinnungus (Fohius and previous) is described in fairly palaeolithic terms. This kind of makes it a bit relative to use "emperor" as indicator of a large population.

The idea that Chinese history embodies a memory of pre-Flood ancestry could be confirmed if Denisovan man was pre-Flood, because, as with fairly certainly pre-Flood Neanderthal, only traces remain of the Denisovan genome - and these among other places in China and in Americas.

Rational Wiki might be interested in hearing that Fuxi - I think that is the Pinyin spelling of Fu Hsi or Fo Hi - is now commonly considered to be mythological.

Nice they are rational enough to take mythology and legend seriously, I'd like them to start doing so on a larger scale. Maybe softly with non-Christian legend first ...

Before actually going on, one could imagine that the account of Xinnungus (Shennong) subduing a province by his sheer goodness, if really about a province, could be later, and that diverse rulers followed the three in diverse parts, but they were serialised as all ruling in all parts of China, and the later conquest of that province was pushed back to the time of Xinnungus to fit this scenario of long unity. That would of course make dates like 2952 BC spurious, inflated by serialising parallel dynasties.

So, let's look at the three emperors, supposing that the years given by Father Martino Martino are correct and that China is already geographically (but not politically or linguistically, of course!) separate in the time of Fu Xi and also that - as the two together require - Syncellus has the better chronology:

Using Syncellus
From Continuing Interim III to Joseph in Egypt
http://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2017/06/continuing-interim-iii-to-joseph-in.html


X 2988 BC
15.616 pmc 18 338 BC

Eber *
2963 BC

Fu-Xi / Syncellus
2952 BC

XI 2947 BC
20.239 pmc 16 154 BC

XI 2947 BC
20.239 pmc 16 154 BC

XII 2906 BC
26.23 pmc 13 969 BC

XIII 2865 BC
33.994 pmc 11 785 BC

Shem +
2858 BC

Xinnungus / Syncellus
2837 BC

Peleg *
2829 BC

XIV 2824 BC
44.057 pmc 9600 BC

Arphaxad +
2791 BC

XV 2780 BC
49.459 pmc 8600 BC

Cainan +
2763 BC

XVI 2739 BC
51.476 pmc 8229 BC

Reu *
2699 BC

XVII 2698 BC
53.577 pmc 7857 BC

Hoangtius
begins to rule
2697 BC

XVIII 2657 BC
55.763 pmc 7486 BC

Shelah +
2633 BC

XIX 2617 BC
58.038 pmc 7114 BC

Hoangtius dies
2597 BC

XX 2576 BC
60.405 pmc 6743 BC

Serug *
2567 BC


Supposing on the other hand that St Jerome has the better chronology, either we must conclude that the three first emperors belong to the close family of Noah, or that their years are later than Martini got together.

Any of these solutions allows the CMI claim to remain correct and rebuts the RationalWiki rebuttal. And no, the words of Martino Martini SJ so far do not indicate that this very early history was already crossreferenced as said.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
St John Capistrano*
St Theodore, Priest**
23.X.2017

Update, next day, Roger Pearlman, an observant Jew, told me:

under RCCF framework 5778 AM to date, Chinese year count calibrates statistically to birth year of Noach 1056 AM


Noah, a son and a grandson as Fohius and the rest? Possible, except that Noah would certainly have known of agriculture./HGL

* Apud Villackum, in Pannonia, natalis sancti Joannis de Capistrano, Sacerdotis ex Ordine Minorum et Confessoris, vitae sanctitate ac fidei catholicae propagandae zelo illustris; qui Taurunensem arcem, validissimo Turcarum exercitu profligato, suis precibus et miraculis ab obsidione liberavit. Ejus tamen festivitas quinto Kalendas Aprilis recolitur.

** Antiochiae item natalis sancti Theodori Presbyteri, qui, in persecutione impii Juliani comprehensus, et, post equulei poenam et multos ac durissimos cruciatus, lampadibus etiam circa latera appositis adustus, tandem, cum in confessione Christi persisteret, gladii occisione martyrium consummavit.

lundi 9 octobre 2017

Trying to Get a Carbon Related Question Answered


Trying to Get a Carbon Related Question Answered · The Carbon Related Question, Update · Things Could Get a Bit Complicated with Carbon Question

In 100 years, a carbon level in any sample except atmosphere goes down from 100 % modern carbon to 98.798.

100 - 98.798 = 1.202 %.

In the atmosphere, it does not go down, because 1.202 % of the modern carbon is added every 100 years.*

If instead for some period 2.404 % or 3.606 % of the modern carbon level were added in hundred years ...

  • would the cosmic radiation reaching the ground, as that above, be 2 or 3 times the normal one of 0.39 milliSievert per year?
  • would it instead be 4 or 9 times the normal one?
  • or would a square root suffice, would we deal with 1.414 * 0.39 or 1.732 * 0.39 milliSievert per year?**
  • or would the total background radiation at ground level be importantly contributing to the new carbon 14?


In cases one or three, I have tackled the challenge I was given at Nanterre University Campus grounds about 2 years ago.

The most drastic carbon rise I am at all dealing with as even a theoretical possibility would have been giving us new carbon 29.9 times faster than now. 2.133 milliSievert per year (below normal total background radiation in the case of square root) or 11.661 milliSievert per year (above the highest total background radiation, in the case of direct relation).

If on the other hand the cosmic radiation is adding little beyond half if even that of total new carbon, or if it is adding new carbon in relation to its square root, so that the radiation is squared by the factors of how much quicker carbon is forming, we would have been fried. 29.92 = 894.01 times. That would give 348.6639 milliSievert per year, 35 times the highest total background radiations we have now.

20 milliSievert per year is considered a threshold dose in nuclear security. In Japan, after Fukushima.

However, I have so far been presuming that the relation between radioactive dose and rapidity of carbon 14 production is a one to one, that the total background radiation at ground is only negligibly contributing to it, which would mean that most possible and all necessary*** carbon productions I have been dealing with are clearly inferior to this safety limit.

For instance, identifying Joseph with Imhotep (in the time of Djoser) will, in St Jerome's chronology, give us a carbon 14 level in atmosphere of 87.636 pmc : 2800 = 1709 BC. Identifying Kenyon's 1550 BC date for Jericho with the Biblical date acc. to St Jerome's chronology, 1470 BC, will give a carbon level of 99.037 pmc. This means that in 1709 to 1470, in 239 years, carbon has to rise 11.401 pmc units, while a dead stop of new carbon would have been giving us 97.15 % * 87.636 pmc, a level of 85.138374 pmc. So, in 239 years, total production of new carbon would have been 13.898626 pmc units. °

In 239 years, the normal decay and compensation in atmosphere is 100 - 97.15 = 2.85 pmc units. We are therefore dealing with a production 4.877 times as fast as normal. And the cosmic radiation dose would be 1.902 milliSievert instead of 0.39 milliSievert.

"French regulations set at 1 mSv (milliSievert) per year maximum permissible effective dose resulting from human activities outside the natural radioactivity and doses of medicine."


But cosmic radiation is not resulting from human activity. However, back then, there were no doses of medicinal radioactivity either.

And until I get a good reference or a clear proof this is not the 1:1 ratio I have so far been imagining, that it is for instance squared radiation dose for each factor of rapidity of carbon production, I will persist in believing I have shown the viability of the carbon rise model.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
St Denis bishop of Paris
and companions, martyrs
9.X.2017

PS, actually trying to get answers to the question beyond my confidence it is 1:1, 2:2 and not 1:1, 2:4 from resulting C14 production to causing cosmic radiation. I sent one the day after, giving him to tomorrow, then going on./HGL (16.X)

* 100 - 97.61 = 2.39 % each 200 years.

** 0.55146 and 0.67548 milliSievert.

*** necessary for getting Carbon 14 from c. 1.45 pmc (percent modern carbon) at a Flood 2957 BC to 100 pmc at 500 BC or earlier.

° See Creation vs. Evolution : Comparing Three Roads from Seven Cows to Seven Trumpets
http://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2017/06/comparing-three-roads-from-seven-cows.html


Update(s) on check effort:

A Pre-Flood Sea? Or More Than One?


Noting for several aquatic animals locations, and for any location any non-aquatic animals:

Cetotherium rathkii
Taman peninsula, Russia

Cetotherium priscum
Kertsch, Ukraine. Austria (Szentmargita, Leitha Limestone Formation, Langhian); Moldova (Chisinau, Serravalian); Romania (Madulari, Serravalian); Russia (Kutsay Mountain, Serravallian); Turkey (Kurtchu-Tchekmedje, Up. Miocene).

Cetotherium pusillum
Chisinau, Moldova

Cetotherium ambiguum
Nussdorf, Austria

Nussdorf also has:
Praepusa Vindobonensis, a seal

Cetotherium klinderi
Mykolayiv, Ukraine

Cetotherium maicopicum
River Belaia, Russia

Cetotherium mayeri
Russia (River Belaia, Derbent, Kuban) and Georgia

Titanocetus sammarinensis
near the top of Mount Titano, Republic of San Marino, northern Appennines, Italy

Cetotheriopsis lintianus
Near Linz, Austria

Micromysticetus tobieni
Lank Latum, Germany

Ichthyosaurus communis
(3) Belgian Lorraine (Belgium) (4)Canton Aargau Switzerland

Brachypterygius extremus
Volga region, Saratov region

Saratov also has:
Hesperornis rossicus Nessov & Yarkov, 1993 (Rybushka Fm, Up. Cret. [Camp.] Volgograd & Saratov, Russia & Sweden)

Volgograd also has:
Cerebavis cenomanica Kurochkin & Saveliev, 2006 (Melovatka Fm, Up. Cret. [Cenom.] Volgograd, Russia)

Oligolactoria bubiki
Bystrice/Olsi, Moravia

Acamptonectes densus
Cremlingen area, Lower Saxony, Germany

Lower Saxony
also has:

Haptodus baylei
Niederhäslich, Saxony, Germany

Europasaurus holgeri
Lower Saxony basin, Oker near Goslar

Dorygnathus banthensis
Flechtorf (Lower Saxony)

Stensioella heintzi
Hunsrück slates of Germany


Many thanks to Palaeocritti team!/HGL

An Evolutionist Blooper Revisited


I recently had the opportunity to hear someone say more recent things are in higher layers and older things in lower layers. As to geographical elevation over the sea, we can check with Palaeocritti:



So, Oligocene from Bistritz and Carboniferous from Nürschan are the lowest. The Pterosaurs "more recent than" the Diplovertebron punctatum and "older than" Oligolactoria bubiki are higher up in the geography than both.

You also get whales, a seal and an ichthyosaur in this region, probably because there was a pre-Flood sea here, Vienna and Nussdorf close to the shore.

Either way, the older things are also not deeper down in the ground whereever you look, rather what we find is what is close to the surface.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
St Dionysius bishop of Paris
with Companions, martyrs
9.X.2017

mardi 3 octobre 2017

CMI Strays into Protestant Hagiography Today (part 1 of series)


It is funny that Russell Grigg takes an eminent occasion of Catholic hagiography - the Story of a Soul, by St Thérèse of the Child Jesus - to laud with partiality and dishonesty against Catholicism, the greatest "saint" of Protestants. And Orthodox are not giving even the three "defenders of Orthodoxy" (Photius, Palamas and Mark of Ephesus) a comparable prominence, though they serve a similar purpose.

I might link later, but this is just a one shot against one aspect. Luther is quoted as saying:

Luther also wrote an essay against monastic vows: that they were not instituted by Christ and had no scriptural basis, so were futile in attaining justification or assurance of salvation. They sanctified the monastic order instead of sanctifying God, and they portrayed Him as a severe taskmaster rather than as a loving father.


You know, St Therese and St Bridge of Sweden had a very different opinion on that one. If most monks and nuns remain faithful, and if you really want to know how monastic vows work out in practise, it might be an idea to go to those faithful to their vows, not to those rare ones who broke them, like Luther. Oh, he was absolved from vow of obedience, but not those of poverty and chastity.

Why doesn't he quote other writings by Luther in which he admits having faked translation at Luke 1:28 and Romans 3:28?

Here is Luther's Sendbrief vom Dolmetschen :

Mgr. Radim Sochorek : Martin Luther: Sendbrief vom Dolmetschen
http://www.sochorek.cz/archiv/werke/luther.htm


Here is St Therese' L'Histoire d'une âme:

" HISTOIRE PRINTANIERE D'UNE PETITE FLEUR BLANCHE "
( D'après les manuscrits originaux ) Janvier 1895
http://livres-mystiques.com/partieTEXTES/Lisieux/Histoire/table.html


("Histoire d'une Ame", La Vocation de l'Amour, La miséricorde, l'ascenseur Divin.)

It should be added, just because I am defending monastic vows doesn't mean I made any myself. This means, if any Protestant imagines to be helping me toward marriage by prompting me to "return to Protestantism" as to a home, as to a place of kindness, this is wrong, and attempts to delay my marriage as a Catholic, i e up to any return to Protestantism, are simply and up to now, part of what I presume has been delaying my marriage, has been costing me girl after girl I had hoped to marry, for so many years, and I am already 49.

I might have more to add later against this straying off the usual fare on an otherwise good creationist site, and will, if so, link to Russell there.

For now, I wish a happy feast of St Thérèse!

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
St Therese, as mentioned
3.X.2017

Is now continued on Great Bishop of Geneva! : What Luther Got Wrong More (pt 2 of series)

jeudi 28 septembre 2017

Was Josephus Divided over Post-Flood Patriarchs?


Citing two passages of Josephus' Antiquities, Book I:

3:4. For indeed Seth was born when Adam was in his two hundred and thirtieth year, who lived :nine hundred and thirty years. Seth begat Enos in his two hundred and fifth year; who, when he had lived nine hundred and twelve years, delivered the government to Cainan his son, whom he had in his hundred and ninetieth year. He lived nine hundred and five years. Cainan, when he had lived nine hundred and ten years, had his son Malaleel, who was born in his hundred and seventieth year. This Malaleel, having lived eight hundred and ninety-five years, died, leaving his son Jared, whom he begat when he was in his hundred and sixty-fifth year. He lived nine hundred and sixty-two years; and then his son Enoch succeeded him, who was born when his father was one hundred and sixty-two years old. Now he, when he had lived three hundred and sixty-five years, departed and went to God; whence it is that they have not written down his death. Now Mathusela, the son of Enoch, who was born to him when he was one hundred and sixty-five years old, had Lamech for his son when he was one hundred and eighty-seven years of age; to whom he delivered the government, when he had retained it nine hundred and sixty-nine years. Now Lamech, when he had governed seven hundred and seventy-seven years, appointed Noah, his son, to be ruler of the people, who was born to Lamech when he was one hundred and eighty-two years old, and retained the government nine hundred and fifty years. These years collected together make up the sum before set down. But let no one inquire into the deaths of these men; for they extended their lives along together with their children and grandchildren; but let him have regard to their births only.

6:5. I will now treat of the Hebrews. The son of Phaleg, whose father Was Heber, was Ragau; whose son was Serug, to whom was born Nahor; his son was Terah, who was the father of Abraham, who accordingly was the tenth from Noah, and was born in the two hundred and ninety-second year after the deluge; for Terah begat Abram in his seventieth year. Nahor begat Haran when he was one hundred and twenty years old; Nahor was born to Serug in his hundred and thirty-second year; Ragau had Serug at one hundred and thirty; at the same age also Phaleg had Ragau; Heber begat Phaleg in his hundred and thirty-fourth year; he himself being begotten by Sala when he was a hundred and thirty years old, whom Arphaxad had for his son at the hundred and thirty-fifth year of his age. Arphaxad was the son of Shem, and born twelve years after the deluge. Now Abram had two brethren, Nahor and Haran: of these Haran left a son, Lot; as also Sarai and Milcha his daughters; and died among the Chaldeans, in a city of the Chaldeans, called Ur; and his monument is shown to this day. These married their nieces. Nabor married Milcha, and Abram married Sarai. Now Terah hating Chaldea, on account of his mourning for Ilaran, they all removed to Haran of Mesopotamia, where Terah died, and was buried, when he had lived to be two hundred and five years old; for the life of man was already, by degrees, diminished, and became shorter than before, till the birth of Moses; after whom the term of human life was one hundred and twenty years, God determining it to the length that Moses happened to live. Now Nahor had eight sons by Milcha; Uz and Buz, Kemuel, Chesed, Azau, Pheldas, Jadelph, and Bethuel. These were all the genuine sons of Nahor; for Teba, and Gaam, and Tachas, and Maaca, were born of Reuma his concubine: but Bethuel had a daughter, Rebecca, and a son, Laban.


when Adam was in his two hundred and thirtieth year,  230
Seth begat Enos in his two hundred and fifth year;  205, 435
whom he had in his hundred and ninetieth year.  190, 625
Malaleel, who was born in his hundred and seventieth year.  170, 795
Jared, whom he begat when he was in his hundred and sixty-fifth year.  165, 960
Enoch succeeded him, who was born when his father was one hundred and sixty-two years old.  162, 1122
the son of Enoch, who was born to him when he was one hundred and sixty-five years old,  165, 1287
had Lamech for his son when he was one hundred and eighty-seven years of age;  187, 1474
Noah, was born to Lamech when he was one hundred and eighty-two years old,  182, 1656 (!)


1656 Birth of Noah after Creation
0600 Age of Noah at Flood
2256 Flood after Creation

Abraham, who accordingly was the tenth from Noah, and was born in the two hundred and ninety-second year after the deluge;


2256
0292 Abraham after Flood
2548 Abraham after Creation

for Terah begat Abram in his seventieth year.  70
Nahor begat Haran when he was one hundred and twenty years old;  120, 190
Nahor was born to Serug in his hundred and thirty-second year;  132, 322
Ragau had Serug at one hundred and thirty;  130, 452
at the same age also Phaleg had Ragau;  130, 582
Heber begat Phaleg in his hundred and thirty-fourth year;  134, 716
he himself being begotten by Sala when he was a hundred and thirty years old,  130, 846
whom Arphaxad had for his son at the hundred and thirty-fifth year of his age.  135, 981
Arphaxad was the son of Shem, and born twelve years after the deluge.  12, 993


2256
0993 Abraham after Flood
3249 Abraham after Creation

So, the two informations, summary and detailed, given about Abraham's birth after Flood contradict each other like Masoretic on the summary and LXX on the detailed.

3249
2548
0701

There is a difference of 701 years between the two informations. Note that a summary one is not found in the Bible text, either for Flood or for Abraham after Flood, but the detailed one is found in the Bible text : this means that when Josephus as a very young Jew was learning Genesis by heart, he was learning LXX chronology.

And, since he is giving a summary in conflict with this, it seems he had been told this new sum of overlapping lifespans from the Synagogue, which sometimes was in conflict with him.

Anno Mundi for Exodus, Birth of Abraham, and Anno Diluvii for Birth of Abraham in St Jerome's chronology:

5199 5199 2957
1470 2015 2015
3729 3184 0942

So, the 942 years from Flood to Abraham in St Jerome's chronology (which Roman Catholics use at Christmas, if of Latin rite and not in misplaced obedience to a pseudo-Papal measure from 1994 using a newer and imprecise one), are fairly close to Josephus' detailed, but not at all to his summary chronology from Flood to Abraham's birth.

When in Contra Apionem he says that from Creation to Moses there were just a little less than 3000 years, he is of course using the summary chronology he seems to have learned as an adult.

It is a bit funny that I skim through Book I and don't find Melchisedec in it.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
St Wenceslas, Duke and Martyr
28.IX.2017

lundi 18 septembre 2017

Pat Robertson Called Dinos 65 Million Years Old Because of Carbon Dating?


Here is one still from a video clip with automatic subtitles:



Here is the video, listen if the subs were wrong:

Pat Robertson: Dumb to Believe in Young Earth Creationism
David Pakman Show | Ajoutée le/ added 15 mai 2014
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-F8vPFRCoT8


Shall we take another still, from Young Turks?



Pat Robertson v Ken Ham: EPIC THROWDOWN over Earth's Age
The Young Turks | Ajoutée le / added 19 mai 2014
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-OWIdrSow78


Well, it seems - I think two subtitles both showing he connects radio carbon to 65 million years are a bit odd, if he said something else - he does connect a figure like 65 million years to a dating method like carbon dating.

Too bad.

No carbon dating actual scientific user would do that. Guess why? 60 000 years is less than 1000 times shorter time:



Let's take ten times what we said, less than a 100dth of 65 million years:



Carbon 14 Dating Calculator
[same site, both images]
https://www.math.upenn.edu/~deturck/m170/c14/carbdate.html


In other words, how do you distinguish zero percent carbon 14 of the modern atmospheric level as in 600 000 years from equally zero percent as in 65 000 000 years? You can't.

So, Pat Robertson, while having a business bargain involved in petrol, involved in "rotting dinosaurs", may be well founded on the stock market of petrol, but has no clue as to the carbon dating of either petrol, dinosaur bones or other things, as far as we can gather from this clip. Perhaps he has improved since then, perhaps he hasn't.

But supposing he has improved, he at least used to share an attitude which very many still share today : a very huge confidence (or inversely suspicion) about carbon dates, without no real clue as to its conditions.

Now, suppose a thing, bone, tooth, piece of wood, sample, piece of charcoal, is carbon dated to 60 000 years ago. That means the carbon 14 in relation to carbon 12 is 0.07 % of what the carbon 14 in relation to carbon 12 is in today's atmosphere or a recent sample. It is the carbon 14 which machines can detect directly. The years are a conventional and programmed translation of it.

That leaves open the question how many of these years are real years of decaying carbon 14 content in sample, and how many of them are due to lower original carbon 14 content in atmosphere, before it rose to present level. Conventional dating says "zero" to the latter and therefore "all 60 000 years" to the former. And decaying level in sample for 60 000 years is a decay which normally takes 60 000 years to go through.

However, if the Flood is carbon dated to 40 000 years ago (0.792 % of the present carbon level left in samples from Flood), and the Flood was 2957 BC, 4974 years ago (we have 54.788 % of original content), this means the level at Flood would have been ...

0.00792 / 0.54788 = 0.014456

... 1.4456 % of present level. And if carbon 14 content rose from zero to 1.4456 % of present level before the Flood, well, for one it was rising slower, even forming of new carbon was slower than now, at least in relation to carbon 12 content of atmosphere, and for another, we can find a level from which the decay counted in actual years (somewhere between 4974 and 7216 - from which we would have 41.774 % left of any sample, if the isotope existed then) would leave us with the above mentioned 0.07 % of the present level. Let's try it.

0.0007 / 0.41774 = 0.0016757
0.0007 / 0.54788 = 0.0012777

So, between zero and 1.4456 %, the level is somewhere corresponding to between 0.12777 and 0.16757 %. That is, one tenth up. I don't think it means sth dated 60 000 BP is from year of Creation 224, but I'd rather think of a curve creeping near bottom for some time before it starts to rise.

If we instead assume the Flood was 5383 and the Creation 7526 years ago, you need to make minor adjustments to previous, but not to outright ditch the whole setup. And, in reverse direction, for the minor adjustments, if you take Flood 4365 years ago and Creation 6021 years ago.

So, the dinosaurs then have zero carbon 14, which means they were fossilised at creation, right? No. They do get carbon dates within the carbon range.

Some time ago, not sure up to exactly when, the carbon range was back to "40 000 BP", but we have dinos dated to younger than that, right Mr Armitage, 28 000 BP or sth?

And others outside the older but inside the younger limit like a Triceratops dated to 41 010 BP:

More recently, Brian Thomas and Vance Nelson carbon dated a number of dinosaur fossils including two specimens from Triceratops horridus.3 The two specimens gave a date in years of 33,570±20 and 41,010±220.4


And notes:

3)Thomas, B. and Nelson, V., Radiocarbon in Dinosaur and Other Fossils, CRSQ 51:299–311, ‎‎2015‎. Return to text.
4)A sample purporting to be from the Flood era would not be expected to give a ‘radiocarbon age’ of about 5,000 years, but rather 20,000–50,000 years. Indeed, that is consistently what one obtains from specimens of oil, gas and fossil wood from layers allegedly ‘millions of years’ old. The reason is: radiocarbon dating assumes that the current 14C/12C ratio of about 1 in a trillion (after adjusting for the Industrial Revolution) was the starting ratio for the objects dated. But this ratio would have been much smaller before the Flood due to the fact that the earth had a much stronger magnetic field. Because pre-and para-Flood objects would have started with a much lower initial 14C/12C ratio, the measured amount today would also be smaller, and be (mis-)interpreted as much older. See What about carbon dating? Chapter 4, The Creation Answers Book. Return to text.


And source:

Triceratops soft tissue
Feedback archive → Feedback 2016
Published: 19 November 2016 (GMT+10)
https://creation.com/triceratops-soft-tissue


You noted from pictures from Carbon 14 Dating Calculator that the present level of reliable detection is between 55 000 and 60 000 years? Good, this means you should realise even the higher value of Triceratops date is within detactable, and not just because zero carbon 14 used to be read "at least 40 000 years old" as back in those days.

I just hope Pat Robertson is not involved in some Transatlantic scheme to teach me a lesson or two while I am in France. He might have rather some lessons to learn from me, unless he's too old for that or already got it from someone else.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
St Joseph of Cupertino
18.IX.2017

PS, isn't he also claiming Ussher was both "Middle Ages" and "1800's"?

James Ussher (or Usher; 4 January 1581 – 21 March 1656)


Quoted from wikipedia. As following:

In the history of Europe, the Middle Ages or Medieval Period lasted from the 5th to the 15th century.


Do I need a reference for 1581-1656 not being in 1800's?/HGL

vendredi 15 septembre 2017

Short Reply to CMI (?) - Sorry, it's a Long One! - On Babel and After


  • 1) You are perfectly right human language is too complex for evolving from ape "language".

    However, the correct way of putting this is that every "statement" of an ape, is a unitary signal. This limits the number of signals to the avilable number of sounds, strength of voice also taken into account, and gestures.

    In human language, a statement is composed of or articulated into one or often MORE parts, known as words or morphemes, each bearing a meaning with a logical relation to the meaning of the statment as a whole, and these in turn are articulated into further smaller units, NOT bearing logical relation to the meaning of the morpheme or word as a whole. These even smaller units are called phonemes, and are in spoken language known either as "language sounds" or "letters" and in written language (with alphabetic writing), known as "letters" (sometimes graphemes are distinguished from phonemes).

    Both of these articulation which magnify the number of possible statements even while reducing the number of unitary signals a speaker must master, into infinity, are lacking from ape "language".

  • 2) Original complexity and degeneration is however NOT a linguistically documented fact.

    I am quoting you:

    Hence both Juola and Bane define complexity according to those aspects which can be quantified and analyzed mathematically; but without wishing to belittle these studies the question still needs to be asked, “Can language—and its complexity—be reduced to mathematics in this way?” Furthermore, these studies deal with contemporary languages on the plane of the present: no attempt is made to explicate any sort of historical trend to simplification.

    Yet, even with their approach and criteria, it is significant that in Bane’s study, where he selects twenty languages for comparison, the most ancient language of his group, viz. Latin, comes out as the most complex, while Bislama—one of his ‘Creole’ group, appears near the bottom of his list as a very simple language, as indeed it is.


    I am sorry, but this is not what Bane said. I looked up your reference, and it said something else:

    Bane, M., Quantifying and Measuring Morphological Complexity; in: Chang, C.B. and Haynie, H.J. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 26th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, Somerville, pp. 69–76, 2008.


    Did you catch the nuance? He said nothing about complexity of a language as a whole. He said something about complexity in a specified area : morphological complexity.

    Now, the thing is, morphological complexity is usually at inverse ratio with syntactic one. It is not simplifying relation of morphemes, but reshuffling it.

    English indeed had, morphologically, four cases for nouns, five for adjectives and pronouns in the time of King Alfred, and now has general case for all nouns, s-genitive for nouns denoting persons, genitive or related adjective plus nominative vs oblique case for pronouns, no case forms at all for adjectives.

    This is a reduction.

    But on the other hand, in the time of King Alfred, English had basically two tenses, past and present. You don't find many futures, you don't find many pluperfects or perfects, these come once in a while, perhaps (though I don't recall getting them explained in Sweet's Anglo-Saxon Primer), but future meaning is mainly represented by present form, pluperfect or perfect by past form.

    Now English has sixteen tenses. Past and present remain the simple forms, but you have three more parameters expressed in quasimorphological, phraseological ways:

    • continuous vs simple ("where are you going" would have been equivalent of "where goest thou" in KA's time)
    • perfect vs non-perfect ("I have [already] eaten" would have been "I ate already", precisely as "I ate" would have been "I ate")
    • future vs non-future ("I will go there" would have been "I go there", "I would go there" would have been - older sense - "I went theretoward" or "I willed to go there" - or - younger sense - replaced by present or past subjunctive).


    This means that the focus of morphological complexity has changed, and one can consider "analytical forms" (extra words) as "less complex" (needing fewer forms to learn separately) in morphology than "synthetic forms". But the complexity of meaning remains roughly the same.

    Also, vaunting morphological complexity as a a superiority is placing Sanskrit higher than Hebrew, since Sanskrit has higher both verbal and nominal complexity in morphology, Hebrew replacing it with stricter rules of syntax.

    But the original language was arguably Hebrew, therefore, your point of view is derogatory to the sacredness of Hebrew.

    Also, some racialists have pretended that Creoles are a sign of mental inferiority of black men, while the morphological complexity of Creoles arguably comes from them learning Portuguese, English or Dutch by replacing words in their own original West African languages, which, precisely like Chinese (hardly a simple language!) is putting the complexity burden on syntax rather than on morphology.

    If you take a sentence in English and a sentence in a Creole, and analyse the morphemes, they will be of similar or same number, probably not as often marking plural if understood, but in the Creole all of them will be separated by spaces, in English some will be joined into words of more than one morphem.

    And since Latin is a language you pretend to respect here (rightly so), though not over Hebrew (rightly so, once again), I can tell you my Latin professor Birger Bergh thought exactly the same things. Languages are as complex as the speakers need in vocabulary, and they are as potentially complex in logical relations, the difference being how many complexities have to be expressed, not how many can.

    When we say Sumerian is complex that is not a subjective judgment as to whether it is difficult (or easy) for person X to learn, but is so in its structure, its inflections and categories.


    An inflectional category is : how much complexity of meaning you are forced to show, not how much you can show.

    Finnish can, but need not, express whether a single person referred to is masculine or feminine, the pronoun being for both "hän" : this identic pronoun has nothing to do with gender theory, Finns are much more machist than Swedes, precisely as Russians are more machist than English (thugh Russian makes the difference in pronoun choice).

    We can see this, for example, in the Sumerian noun with its ten cases (!)


    Well, Finnish only has fifteen, what a reduction ! Assuming they are related, which perhaps they are. (Oh, that would be an increase!)

    but also class (personal and non-personal)


    Finnish too makes a distinction between "hän" and whatever they use for "it" - precisely as English, unlike French and Hebrew, does not replace "it" with either "he" or "she". Bantu languages lack gender and have a more intricate class system - right now - than either Finnish or Sumerian.

    One could indeed go on citing examples of ancient languages as to their complexity, their subtle nuances, their economy of words to express, at times, quite extensive sentences, and in turn the gradual loss of some of these nuances over the passage of time, but the point should nevertheless be clear. What can be stated emphatically is that evolutionary theory is at a loss to explain this phenomenon of original complexity and subsequent degeneration.


    Being lyrical about complexity of old languages (partly rightly, partly by misplaced apprehensions as a learner) does not justify claiming languages went downhill since then.

    The point of view comes from i a Grimm, who were not even Christians : have you read their text "supposing God had a language"? It is awful!

  • 3) Different phonemes coalesce, granted, but they compensate too.

    Latin had ten vowels, five long, five short. Plus perhaps also a schwa like vowel, which is variously spelled u or i in short internal syllables, between stem and ending : volumus and regimus need not have had different vowels before the m, it could have been voll-uh-mooss, rayg-uh-mooss, conventional different spelling (the spelling regumus exists). So, ten or eleven.

    These are reduced to seven detectable diverse vowels (detectable as bottlenecks for original Latin vowels), in most, not all, Romance languages, when long and short cease to make a difference, and then we have some explosions of new differences. Why is there an i in French pied, Spanish pié? Because Latin "pedem" had a short e. Makes an open e in proto-Romance, and that gives this diphthong, in a stressed syllable. Spanish perhaps has only seven sounds for stressed syllables (a, ie, e, i, ue, o, u), but French really explodes the variations.

    Also, when words originally distinct become homophones, one word tends to get replaced or modified. In what was becoming French, solum (soil, floor, ground) and solem (Sun) began to coalesce, and one word was modified, the French for Sun comes not from "solem" but from "soliculum", diminutive for "solem". Language change is not just thughtless evolution downhill, but also intelligent design uphill.

  • 4) language families :

    Greek and Latin belong to the Indo-European family; so too does Hittite, although the decipherment of the cuneiform script and its classification as Indo-European came as a shock to the system for Near Eastern scholars. Meanwhile, Linear B, since its decipherment by Michael Ventris, has been clearly recognized as an early form of Greek, a discovery which also upset the hitherto fond theories of scholars.


    Greek belongs to an identifiable person in table of nations : Iavan. Latin belongs to no one in particular in that list.

    Hittite seems to belong to a Canaanite, since the first born of Canaan was Heth. Actually, Hattic (Hattili in Hittite) may have been an earlier language of that stem, while Hittite (Nesili in Hittite) came from neighbouring descendants of Gomer ... except for one detail. It is related to Lydian, and the Lud in Anatolia was the Semitic Lud.

    And one scholar has pretended to identify Linear A as related to Indic and Iranian languages, to Vedic Sanskrit and to Avestic Old Persian. But since Crete was the land of Caphthorim, this places another Indo-European subfamily within ... yes : Ham.

    So, it is far safer to assume after Babel some 72 unrelated families exploded, and some of them started coalescing, like Assur and Chanaaen adopting languages related to the Hebrew of men like Abraham, or some may have had original affinities with Hebrew planted there by God, like Egyptian of Misraim was very similar in some very rough and general respects to Hebrew, like feminines in -t, like bi- or triliteral roots and so on.

    Ethiopians coming from Ham (from his son Kush) at least in part speak a language related to Hebrew, Gheez (and Amharic, which could be considered as "modern Gheez" or modern form of some sister language to Gheez). There was not ever a real linear simple decline for some of these languages, or even simple development, since they were in contact with each other.

    Your distinctions among ancient Near East families are, unlike your sharing the IE protolanguage craze, though somewhat discretely here, unobjectionable, as far as I can see.

    Making Etruscan descend from Thiraz is interesting : do you think Turkish and Hungarian also comes from him? Because, both genetics and linguistics are tying Etruscans to Hungarian and Asiatic origins, though some violently dispute this.

    See Alinei on this one (he dates proto-Indo-European to 10 000 BC or at least BP, which means he gives me a motive as Creationist to dispute original unity of this family).

    In regard to structure, the Etruscan noun has inflections for each of five cases; however, there is no gender distinction in common nouns, only with proper names.


    Sounds very Fenno-Ugric, except the five cases are comparatively few, closer to Turkish.

    Apart from the inevitable loan words from Greek, its vocabulary is sui generis, albeit some words passed into Latin as the latter took over as the language of the Italian Peninsula (figure 3).


    Except Alinei has shown this is wrong, many words become clearer and this in ways making short inscriptions intelligible (as opposed to totally garbled) if compared to Hungarian ones. What was the Etruscan version of Gyula again? Tried to check with Alinei, but this computer on Nanterre University Library does not allow me to open this pdf:

    www.continuitas.org/texts/alinei_etruscan.pdf

    I suspect it was Etruscan ZIL, ZILA, as given in this defense of Alinei (who has been attacked):

    http://tmajlath.byethost13.com/etruscan.html?i=1

    I applaud on the other hand this information:

    Finally in this survey of very ancient languages there are the Indus Valley texts. Widely regarded as indecipherable since their discovery in the early 20th century, Barry Fells attempted a decipherment in the 1970s following methods similar to those of Michael Ventris in his work on the Linear B script. His conclusion was that the script was alphabetic, with six vowels and 24 consonants, while the language, again complex in structure, was clearly Indo-European, in turn a direct ancestor of Sanskrit.


    If Barry Fells is correct, this means Caphthorim either were both on Crete and in Indus Valley (one could imagine commercial reasons, like for Chanaaenans to be in both Lebanon and Tunisia) or the Caphthorim on Crete were sharing a language with some other post-Flood tribe in Indus Valley (btw, Indus Valley is according to my recalibration of carbon 14 rather close after Babel), or, Hebrews knew one, but not both places where the Caphthorim went - assuming of course the French linguist who removed his site was right in supposing Linear A to be Aryan, in supposing he had identified Mitra-Varuna and Indra (Mount Ida, on Crete = Mount Indra, with Indra as Hindoo name for whoever Zeus was).

    The same could be said for the various other ancient languages of the Fertile Crescent: there is no evidence at all that any of the postulated ‘proto-languages’ ever existed. Bonfante does not venture to talk of a ‘proto-Etruscan’, but contents himself with the simple assertion that “the Etruscans were a pocket of non-Indoeuropean speakers in an area where everyone else spoke an Indoeuropean language”.55 The one possible exception to this scenario is the Indo- European family itself (biblically the Japhetic stream): there may have been an ancestor, a ‘proto-Indoeuropean’, for Luwian, Palaic, and Hittite, but even this is conjectural. In all, they are merely theoretical constructs, born ultimately of evolutionary assumptions.


    Indo-Europeans are neither purely Japhethic (see Anatolian Lud, in Shem's posterity in Genesis 10, see Caphthorim and - if Regma came to North India / Pakistan - also Regma for Hamite Indo-Europeans), nor the only Japhetics, since the Turks are very arguably Japhethic.

    Also, as language similarities go, Indo-European is by far the loosest language group I know of, perhaps rivalled by Ural-Altaic, and superseded only by the tenuous (not main sream, but required by Evolutionist logic) Nostratic and its rival Na Dene-Caucasian. Proto-Semitic is as unproblematic as Proto-Germanic : neither is documented, but both are probable on the ground of language similarities, if one did not have the problem with Proto-Semitic that one "descendent" of it, Hebrew, came before it.

    One could imagine Heber and his sons Peleg and Joctan were speaking Proto-Semitic, and that the tradition from early patriarchs, whether by word of mouth or by cuneiform tablets, changed pronunciation to either Aramaic or Hebrew, whichever of the two was the language of Abraham. Meanwhile, some people took over - as much and best they could - Proto-Semitic from them, because land of Chanaan was a bit narrow to have the language differences given from table of nations : instead of Jebusites and Moabites and Tyrians speaking widely divergent languages, we find historically and archaeologically attested Tyrians and Moabites spoke roughly same language as Biblical Hebrew, while Jebusites had no linguistic problems either communicating with Abraham (supposing as I do Melchisedec was a Jebusite, Masoretic and Jewish people will disagree) or getting conquered by King David.

    One could imagine that the real Proto-Semitic was either Biblical Hebrew or very close (Shalaam having neither become Shaloom, nor Salaam), and that the relationship with Proto-Semitic as reconstructed has been bungled : what sound changes to what is, excepting mergers, not totally clear. Supposing that IE family had an original unity, one can say Germanic emerged, on consonant side of phonemes, by Grimm and Verner sound changes, and Phrygian also independently had a Grimm like sound change : OR one can say Verner was the sound change leading to Germanic, while most non-Germanic versions (but not Phrygian!) come from an anti-Grimm sound change. There is no impossibility phonetically, when I discussed this with a linguist heavily prejudiced against Creationism, his main objection was it is not economic.

    Similarily, the sound changes "from Proto-Semitic to Hebrew" could, excepting the mergers (Verner involves a merger, and is therefore clinched) have gone, all or most of them, other way round.

    Ugaritic could fit either scenario : as a real Proto-Semitic very close to the Hebrew then spoken (and Hebrew Bibles, Masoretic, Samaritan or LXX identic fragments in Qumran have been phonetically updated to include sound changes since Moses presumably wrote sth close to Ugaritic), or Ugaritic can be derived from this movement of trying to learn Hebrew and partly failing.

    Obviously a Hebraist could imagine objections I don't even dream of, I have not studied Hebrew myself.

    This parallels my own earlier, and better founded, observations on Hittite, which seem not to have been totally lost on CMI:

    Hittite could well be seen as an ancestral Indo-European language.


    Especially if mergers deduced from Hittite spelling are really imprecisions in its spelling. But note, even then, Indo-European languages are very unequally in closeness to Hittite or indeed to any imagined or real language.

  • 5) Shinar:

    Whether an occurrence in an Egyptian text of šngr or a similar occurrence in an Amarna letter of Sa-an-ha-ar refer to the biblical Shin‘ar, i.e. Lower Babylonia, is disputed, the Hebrew is nevertheless clear, even if extra-biblical references are not. According to Genesis 11:2 the confusion of languages occurred in “the land of Shin‘ar”, also mentioned in Genesis 10:10 and 14:1. That this name refers to Lower Mesopotamia is undoubted: the association with other known cities of that region in Genesis 10:10, and the destination of Shin‘ar for the Jewish exiles in Daniel 1:2, make the identification certain.


    No, the word Shinar can equally be considered as all of Mesopotamie, including Assyria and beyond, which means Göbekli Tepe is not excluded. Also, confer the fact that geographic names can get restricted areas. "Australia" in early 19th C. used to refer not just to "Ulimaroa"* and Tasmania, but include Easter Island and New Zealand too - as is now referred to as Oceania. Louisiana of the Louisiana Purchase is a larger area than Louisiana as a State. The place names also are actually not quite as clinching as imagined. Are you aware there is a city called Ur near Göbekli Tepe? Urfa. Also known as Edessa. Has by orientals been credited with being Abraham's hometown, Ur of the Chaldees. Here a man considers it likelier as referring to Erech, Uruk, if I get him right:

    TheHoloGrid : The Builders of Gobekli Tepe, the Tower of Babel and the Saturn Myth Part I
    https://thehologrid.wordpress.com/2015/02/18/the-builders-of-gobekli-tepe-the-tower-of-babel-and-the-saturn-myth/


    I obviously disagree with datings like considering anything in Edessa as 13 500 years old. I do however note that if that statue has six fingers, it could be one of someone who "began to be a giant" (Nimrod comes to mind).

    And there is a Harran not far from Urfa.

    It is also close enough to ... "Including Neolithic sites such as, Çatalhöyük (7500 BC – 5700 BC) with evidence of bull worship."

    Hmm, 7500 BC = 1100 years after 8600 BC or end of Göbekli Tepe ...

    Let's do some redating ... on my Interim III recalibration, I am using the Syncellus chronology, not the one from Roman martyrology, but here goes:

    Reu
    2699 BC

    XVII 2698 BC
    53.577 pmc 7857 BC

    XVIII 2657 BC
    55.763 pmc 7486 BC

    Shelah +
    2633 BC

    Skipping
    some.

    Eber +
    2459 BC

    XXIII 2453 BC
    68.105 pmc 5629 BC


    With Babel / Göbekli Tepe ending [XV] 2780 BC in this scenario, Çatalhöyük begins rather close to:

    2780 BC
    2657 BC
    =123 years

    ... to 123 years after Babel. And Çatalhöyük lasts :

    "7486 BC" = 2657 BC
    "5629 BC" = 2453 BC
    = "1857 years" = 204 years.

    Well, that aside was a bit non-linguistic, but to return to Shinar, I have found it defined as = Mesopotamia rather than as = Sumer or lower Babylonia. so, yes, Göbekli Tepe could very well be Babel, and therefore the identity is a better hint on coupling Biblical and carbon years than Tas Walker's try at finding a Biblical year for Glacial Maximum by misreading evidence from Job (sorry, Tas, I respect your work in general, but I think your speciality gave you the wrong clue to look for). (On this one).


Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
Our Lady of Sorrows
15.IX.2015

Reference to their article:

CMI : Languages of the post-Diluvian World
by Murray R. Adamthwaite, today
https://creation.com/how-did-languages-develop


Note:

* I am not sure if you will ever find Ulimaroa as name for the larger island in Commonwealth of Australia used in English literature, I found it in a Swedish geography book from when Texas was a free state, and Ashanti kingdoms were not yet French colonies, but engaged in slave hunt and human sacrifice.