mardi 25 avril 2017

An Argument Not to Use and Why


"If all men come from apes, why are there still apes?"

Now, one reason why this is wrong is this:

"All men come from apes" does not equal "all apes turned to men".

And one simply way of illustrating this by parallel is these two parallels, one an objection to evolutionary view of much more recent (in their timescale) origins and one an objection to the Biblical and correct view:

"If all men come from Africa, why are there still black people?"

And:

"If all men come from Mounts of Ararat after the Flood, why are there still Caucasians?"

Bad logic is bad logic, even for a good cause./HGL

vendredi 14 avril 2017

Baraminological Note


Hedgehogs come in 5 genera and 16 species. Erinaceus, Atelerix, Mesechinus, Hemiechinus, Paraechinus. Together these are known as the "subfamily" Erinaceinae.

These are considered as belonging to the family Erinaceidae together with the subfamily Galericinae a k a Hylomyinae.

Echinosorex gymnura, Neotetracus sinensis, Neohylomys hainanensis, three species of Hylomys and two species of Podogymnura.

At least the 5 genera of hedgehogs, on my view would be from a single couple on Noah's Ark.

The 5 genera of Hylomyinae? Same couple, with loss of spines? One other couple? A separate one for Neotetracus sinensis too?

So, Erinaceinae would on my strictly amateur estimate be 1 to 3 couples of fairly small animals on the ark. Deinogalerix might be a relative of Hylomyinae which did not get on the Ark, because Noah wanted a smaller one (or got a smaller one from God).

If someone were to consider each species separately as a candidate for the Ark, we would get 24 species, 24 couples, not counting the extinct Deinogalerix, which is also another species, clearly, which would bring us to 25 couples, one of which is rather large.

When however Evolutionists say that these are part of Order Eulipotyphla together with "non-African" shrews, Soricidae*, with Talpidae, that is Desmans and Moles ... I feel like drawing a line.

On the other hand, Nesophontes being extinct is not a parallel to Deinogalerix, since Nesophontes went extinct in early 20th or perhaps 16th C. This means we cannot point to this as a separate pre-Flood entity, as far as I could gather about their fossils. Also, solenodons, considered to be relatives of them ("diverged 40 million years ago" said about a Nesophontes species in relation to solenodons sounds like evolutionary ideology, but take a look at the features) have a face clearly reminiscent of hedgehogs.

So, if all Eulipotyphla come from one couple on the Ark, that makes it real spacy. It is still spacy enough if for instance moles and shrews are all from one couple each.

Another Ark was not too crowded on Good Friday : the Church. Christ, the Blessed Virgin, St John, St Dismas, some women, it seems people weren't quite crowding up for salvation that day on Calvary.** However, Heaven is much spacier than Noah's Ark, so don't fear it will be too crowded up there if you make your eternal salvation. If visible universe is two light days across and the Heaven where blessed souls and angels are adoring God is outside that, this means it has really very much space. While a Hell which is about 6000 km below our feet, or less than 4000 miles down, risks getting very much more crowded than Scoffers consider that the Ark would have been. And it seems secular scientists agree it is very hot down there too.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
Good Friday
14.IV.2017

PS, CMI (one of authors Jonathan Sarfati, as yesterday, other Lita Cosner) did a better job today!

* One of Soricidae is African, but here I use "non-African" to distinguish from Afrosoricida. Considered an order on its own. ** Those who came uninvited by Romans were probably however crowded before arriving to the "one holier hill than Rome".

jeudi 13 avril 2017

CMI Does This Too, Time and Again


Attack Geocentrism.

Today - Maundy Thursday - is not an exception, for some reason. Perhaps because the people who do believe Christ meant what He said on the Last Supper we shall commemorate this evening like to express this belief in the ten categories of Aristotle and the attack on Geocentrism (not very well carried through in detail) allowed writers Robert Carter & Jonathan Sarfati to write a line like:

Similarly, many of Galileo’s opponents in the church read the cosmology of Aristotle and Ptolemy into poetic passages of Scripture and used those interpretations against him, just as many long-age compromisers read today’s long-age ideas into the Bible and then try to argue against biblical creation.


That is exactly all the couple are doing to support Heliocentrism. But it does involve confirming a Protestant culture of attacking the Scholastics or Aristotelians, one which has been on stage since the bad old days of Luther and Calvin. That just possibly MIGHT be the reason why attacking Geocentrism is here done on precisely Maundy Thursday.

Also, Joshua 10 is NOT a "poetic passage".

Now, for the details.

Before we get into this, however, let us be perfectly clear that government-based conspiracy (e.g. JFK assassination, 9-11 terrorist attack) are not part of our mission, while some science-based ones like flat earth or geocentrism are, hence the focus on these two below.


I don't see why "geocentrism" could equal a "science based one" i e conspiracy theory.

Like Evolution from amoeba to man, Heliocentrism and Acentrism and Modern Cosmography are usually at least on some level presented as being conclusions. Hence they can be wrong conclusions. Unless the one concluding reasoned right, of course. And not actively conspiring is not a guarantee of reasoning right. There is sth between conspiring to keep the public in dark and being as clearheaded as one is truthful in public discourse : namely reasoning wrong and doing so routinely because one wrong reason - or one wrong mode of reasoning even - is part of one's culture.

That is all I claim to denigrate either Evolutionists in general or Heliocentrics in general with. No need to say they are all conspiring.

The moon landings are also fair game for us, but only because they are part of (and clearly refute) the flat earth and geocentrism debates and also touch on the ‘how do we know what we know’ aspect of teaching biblical creation, basic science, and important ideas in the Bible. Our desire is not to isolate anyone so much as to encourage them to put on their thinking caps.


I am fairly neutral on Moon landing issue and curious. If I already have "the thinking cap" on, how about treating me accordingly?

I do not think it touches on geocentrism. For a certain Chaberlot, Frédéric, Swiss astronomer and science writer, of course moon landers have given the final positive proof of earth turning, since observing it to do so from Moon. I already answered that the observations from Moon can as easily be explained by "Earth's observed rotation" being parallactic and the real movement being that of Moon around Earth once every 25 hours. In other words, as to strict proof, this observation proves no more than our daily one of seeing Earth non-moving and celestial bodies moving. Indeed, as to probably argument, it proves less, since our daily observations are from where God put all of us, while those observations (if they happened) are from where some rich men put a few of us for a few days of their lives.

Hence, Moon landing is, observationally speaking, irrelevant for Geocentrism versus Heliocentrism. It would obviously be otherwise for Flat Earth, but as I am not into Flat Earth, that is another matter. Also, against Flat Earth there are observations less conspiracy prone, like polar days and polar nights on both poles. Or distant objects partly vanishing under the sea level and binoculars or telescopes allowing us to observe that (a favourite pastime of mine with ferry boats leaving Dragør back to Malmö before me and granny, back when I had binoculars).

How is it with kinetically speaking? In fact, the compound speed through space coordinates of solar system (not counting if that one is further moving fast through galaxy or galaxy through universe or multiverse), the speed you experience according to a Heliocentric standing on equator of a rotating Earth which is also spinning around the Sun, is about equal to the speed a Geocentric has to attribute in local movement to Armstrong on the Moon, if he came there.

In other words, I am not saying he had to endure any faster speed than you are saying we all endure. And this counting local movement.

If Newtonian gravitation is true, Armstrong experienced six times less gravity while on Moon. (If, etc ...). This means that the same speed would have been easier for him to bear.

Even more, on second considerations, I consider Moon is mainly moving with the aether. It is only movement in relation to aether which has vectorial physical properties (this comes in handy when explaining geostationary satellites, if you are geocentric). So, Moon is doing a full circle around Earth in 24 h 50 minutes. Aether, with and in which Moon moves, is doing so in 23 hours, 56 minutes and 4 seconds. What is the difference in local angular speed?

Let's count minutes per minutes, angular per temporal.

360°/(23*60 + 56) = 60*360 ' / (23*60 + 56) = 15.0417827298050139 min / min.

60*360 ' / (24*60 + 50) = 14.4966442953020134 min / min

So Armstrong was not experiencing a rotational movement of 14.4966442953020134 min / min vectorially, but only:

15.0417827298050139 - 14.4966442953020134 = 0.5451384345030005

Only this difference, what moon is lagging behind the general movement of the aether, would be vectorially relevant for his wellbeing.

In other words, Armstrong would on my view (if he came there) have had to deal with far less physical commotion than we all have to deal with if Heliocentrism is true. Hence, his possible moonlanding if genuine cannot be used to argue Heliocentrism from the fact he survived the speed of the Moon either.

This cannot be returned in equal measure by a Heliocentric, since as Michelson-Morley proves, an aether is only possible if Earth is not moving through space.

The atheopaths want to paint you into a corner. They often claim that the Bible teaches X (flat earth, geocentrism, etc.) and, since you believe the Bible, you must believe X, too. In response, many people then say, “Why yes, I do believe the Bible. Therefore X must be true and I will defend it.” But this is incredibly wrong! First, who made the skeptic an expert in Bible?


When it comes to Flat Earth, neither Sceptics nor certain Haredim Jews are experts in Bible. Both (and therefore also Hebrew Root Christians like Rob Skiba II) say the Bible teaches Flat Earth.

When it comes to Geocentrism, St Robert Bellarmine is and was in his time an expert in the Bible, who took on King James VI & I, the not author but authoriser of your version, who piqued himself on being well read. Please note that in his debate with Galileo, while judging his first book, he did not appeal exclusively or even mainly to what you would call "poetic passages", he appealed to Joshua's long day. As Sungenis has gone through in great detail. And as CMI has time after time avoided to enter on, when it comes to Geocentric implications.

There is a danger in rejecting evolution. By this we do not mean to indicate that evolution is right, but that if one does reject it they need to do so for the right reasons. Once someone comes to the conclusion that the majority of the scientists in the world are wrong about something, the next obvious question is, “What else are they wrong about?” But this is not the right question! Instead, they should be asking, “Why are they wrong?” Here the answer is plain to see. The majority of modern scientists have accepted a certain philosophy called naturalism.


The two questions are connected. If you are correct - as you are - to say they are wrong about Evolution due to a certain philosophy called naturalism, you should ask as follow up "what else are they wrong about due to naturalism".

My early experience of debating Heliocentrics, before more and more tried to stamp me as a "sociopath with an internet account", which stopped the debate, was that one after another rejected my Geocentric view, not because there were observations I couldn't account for, but because my accounting for them by God turning the aether around Earth (all the way up to the fixed stars) and by angels moving celestial bodies in relation to the aether, did not really seem a big hit with these, precisely, naturalists.

I have seen a purported Geocentric (at least he is friends with Sungenis and is on a Geocentric group on FB) take a stance like "Well, that's. Not. Really. Necessary." Naturalistic bias.

Some purport not to be naturalists, and say that angels moving the misnamed so called parallax and stellar aberration and Chandler wobble of celestial bodies would be deceptive. Neither less or more than allowing the C14 content or the K / Ar ratio in a bone or a piece of lava to spell out ages which contradict the Bible. And, as we come to age, I came to Geocentrism this time (I had flirted with it in my teens) over a debate on age of universe in which - as you may be aware - Distant Starlight is one of the arguments used by opposing side.

Now, for Moon Landing:

Several alternate theories unfairly and inaccurately pick on government bodies like NASA or the UN. But NASA is not a person. It is a government institution that employs thousands of people. It would be impossible to create a conspiracy of this scale and nature, and it would be impossible to maintain it in the face of so many contrary witnesses. ... Indeed, the weakness of any conspiracy is one of the main things to have convinced former corrupt Nixon staffer Chuck Colson of the fact of the Resurrection:

I know the resurrection is a fact, and Watergate proved it to me. How? Because 12 men testified they had seen Jesus raised from the dead, then they proclaimed that truth for 40 years, never once denying it. Every one was beaten, tortured, stoned and put in prison. They would not have endured that if it weren’t true. Watergate embroiled 12 of the most powerful men in the world—and they couldn’t keep a lie for three weeks. You’re telling me 12 apostles could keep a lie for 40 years? Absolutely impossible.


So belief in conspiracy theories inadvertently undermines a powerful apologetic for the Resurrection.


Well, actually Watergate is anecdotal, and its spill might have been programmed to undermine conspiracy theories - if there was a conspiracy behind the openly revealed one.

But my take is this : on Moon Landings a conspiracy is still possible. Most employees of NASA at all involved would be so as bona fide observers of what looked like them to a genuine entering and not leaving before take off.

You ask a stage magician how these witnesses could have been fooled. And then ask them how St John could have been fooled about crucifixion or St Thomas the Twin about the Resurrection. It is easier to make a conspiracy faking a moon landing than to make one faking Death and Resurrection of Christ.

And this fact, which I have pointed out, is an asset for Apologetics - especially as long as one can be open to even Moon Landing being genuine, which I am.

Also, there is a little difference between "no spill" and "no spill believed by the common public or admitted by authorities". With Armstrong, there is a footage of a man who confronted him and called him a liar. A cook? Perhaps. That is certainly what conspirators would like us to believe if it was a conspiracy. Other possibility (not sure if true and not sure there are no other ones) : he could have been a NASA employee who wanted to spill the beans, got eliminated socially by being stamped as a cook, then got out recently and said his story. Both possibilities are possible. As is the theory he was a doctrinaire, having concluded that Armstrong had to be lying, of course. To some this would be equivalent to "a cook", not to me.

I also see some problem with words like:

Several alternate theories unfairly and inaccurately pick on government bodies like NASA or the UN.


In Holy Land, Herod the Great is a national hero (he built the Masada fort after all), which may be one reason why my grandfather did not opt for Aliyah. Is St Matthew "unfairly and inaccurately" picking on him when describing the slaughter of the innocents?

In fact, keeping that slaughter unmentioned outside Christian "conspiracy theorists" as we may have been termed with slight anachronism of wording by those not accepting the true Messiah would have been harder than keeping Moon conspiracy mostly unmentioned and when mentioned those mentioning it decredibilised.

This feeling of ‘specialness’ can be attractive, and it is a psychological trap into which many have fallen lately.


So is the feeling of "specialness" in analysing feelings of others and denouncing psychological traps into which they have fallen. Hey, we didn't fall into that trap, but we can point to those who did!

In other words, the phrase is unwarranted speculation into other people's motivations, when secret, rather than actually dealing fairly and squarely with their arguments.

As to my own experience of debating above or other points I brought up but did not fully here support, I'll link below to the places where I did or debates where I experienced such attitudes.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
Maundy Thursday
13.IV.2017

Links:

samedi 8 avril 2017

If Carbon Date 45 000 BC is Pre-Flood - Where is 47 000 Years Old Nod or Henoch?


I think some Creationists may have been rejecting my conjecture (otherwise I think it is a well founded one too) about Neanderthals in Europe being pre-Flood and therefore dates when Neanderthals, Heidelbergians and very few Cro Magnon type men were in Europe being pre-Flood, because of precisely the problem above.

General culture associates Neanderthals, Heidelbergians and so on with a very unsophisticated culture. (Mark Twain found fault with Fenimore Cooper for saying "unsophisticated" instead of "primitive", but unsophisticated fits the case better than primitive like conditions going all the way back to Adam). If there was more to their culture, like if we found burial places which were deliberately toned down from artefacts, we seem not to have found any other situations in which they lived and in which they are preserved surrounded by city life.

Well, Flood covered different parts of the world in different quantities of mud.

Mesopotamia seems to have been very spared. Two rivers of Paradise still being there and on Palaeocritti site (the original one, not my backup blog) Iraq is not marked as having fossil finds.

On the other hand, if Alps, Himalaya and Andes are post-Flood heights, these places seem to have gotten very much of a mud cover.

My conjecture about the pre-Flood civilisation would be : we might find some if we did more things like the St Gotthard tunnel.

This is exclusive of the OOPArt claims, of which I don't know whether they are pre- or post-Flood, and I don't know if any have been carbon dated.

One got another type of radiometric dating, by Uranium Lead, I think, which gave 500 000 years BP - but what we want is a more exact method like carbon 14, if the rise in C14 is a not very wiggling curve.

With a first rise in C14 previous to Flood, then a depletion, then a re-rise, pre- and post-Flood material could even share same carbon ages, because involved in same percentage of modern carbon 14. This I have not counted on.

What I have counted on is mainly the post-Flood rise. On one article, I made an exception:

New blog on the kid : Une table peut-être évitable ou contournable?*
http://nov9blogg9.blogspot.com/2015/11/une-table-peut-etre-evitable-ou.html


I noticed back in late 2015 when writing that one, that if carbon 14 were added in same quantities pre-Flood as now, in the 2242 years of pre-Flood world, C14 would have risen from 0 to 22,87 percent modern carbon (pmc) last stop before Flood and to 24,54 pmc first stop after Flood. This means material from Flood (or latest time before a depletion before Flood) would date to (about) 14 900 BC, while a Vulgate, King James and Masoretic pre-Flood chronology would land the pmc on between 17,68 and 19,45 by the Flood. Meaning a date with between 14 300 and only 13 550 extra years.

But whether dinos in Europe are contemporary to Neanderthals in Europe or the ones are pre- and the other post-Flood, as the consideration seems to indicate, we can be sure that the pre-Flood remains (if any) dated to 40 000 BP or even 20 000 BP (supposing anything from pre-Flood would date "that recent"), still lack contemporary to them carbon dated civilised remains.

In either case, I think the idea the civilisation was so abhorrent to God that He buried it under lots of mud makes a fairly good explanation.

So, if you are looking for Henoch in Nod East of Eden, you might try to dig some under Mount Everest - not that it would be a very good thing to do. I think that is perhaps best left alone. Another option would of course be in the waters surrounding India, or perhaps Persian gulf.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
Saturday of First Passion Week
8.IV.2017

Update, Palm Sunday : On palaeocritti site I found that Pakistan or parts must have been under water previous to Flood. Not true for Balochistan, where land animals are found, but true for Kuldana Formation, Kohat Formation, Habib Rahi Formation, Domanda Formation, and Drazinda Formation. Though the last could also be coastal area./HGL (Link.)

* The credits to the site given for calculating carbon dates per percentages or inverse is by now still due as a gratitude, but no longer helpful to others wanting to use it, since the site is down. Use instead : ppt.li/3m8, which expands to:

Carbon 14 Dating Calculator
https://www.math.upenn.edu/~deturck/m170/c14/carbdate.html

jeudi 6 avril 2017

These Footprints Look Human to Me?


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

I am linking to article with the image, not showing it:

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


He seems, according to article, to have been 5 foot 5. To judge from footprints

Lucy or AL 288-1 was by contrast 3 foot 7.

He walked on feet (obvious very directly from footprints) - creationists have pointed out that Lucy had bone structure of fingers like a knucklewalker. She also has no preserved feet.

So, why is he supposed to have been of same kind as AL 288-1?

Why is he therefore supposed to have had a skull the size of that of AL 288-1?

Well, the dating game is one explanation. Both the AL 288-1 skeleton and he are above lava levels about 3.7 million years old, as per K-Ar, as per Potassium-Argon dating. AL 288-1 left no footprints. He left no skeleton - at least none dated by the lava under it. Hence her skeleton and his footprints are supposed to complement each other.

Another one : evolutionist assumptions. Even with dates as they are seen by those believing in K-Ar dating, one could have concluded she was an ape and the walker was human. Except that on evolutionist assumptions, apes and men must share common ancestry, this one being closer to apes, and therefore man's supposed evolution must be starting by something apelike - which Lucy or AL 288-1 is providing.

But the dating game comes to the rescue of this science.

"Oh, we cannot suppose there was anything looking more human than Lucy just from footprints, not if there are a million and a half years until we find such things. Therefore we must conclude footprints come from sth like Lucy until further evidence shows up."

Note, earlier footprints had been found at Laetoli, which came from smaller individuals than this recent find.

The smaller one seems to have been nearly as small as Lucy. Checkng wiki for the more classic Laetoli footprints:

 hominin 1 hominin 2
length of footprint 21.5 cm 18.5 cm
width of footprint 10 cm 8.8 cm
length of pace 47.2 cm 28.7 cm
reconstructed body-size 1.34-1.56 m 1.15-1.34 m


These hominins seem to have had human feet, unlike what can be verified (nothing) or predicted from knuckles (opposite) of Lucy.

And the new footprints are found just 160 yards (150 meters) away.

Well, duh, if I were 5 ft 5 or my own size, somewhat higher, and had relatives 3 ft 9 to 5 ft 1 tall, perhaps I would also prefer having them within a range of 160 yards!

The real solution to the Laetoli footprints is not that they are adult relatives of Lucy, but child and not full grown teen relatives of the person who left the newly discovered ones!

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
Thursday in I Passion Week
6.IV.2017

mardi 4 avril 2017

Protestant Roots of Old Age / Evolution


Creation vs. Evolution : Protestant Roots of Old Age / Evolution · Φιλολoγικά/Philologica : Cuvier's Analogy and Renaissance Humanism

I was drawn to Russell Grigg's article by the fact that C. S. Lewis was at least for long one of those old earthers and deep timers who were saying everything is getting toward final entropy. He obviously thought souls and even risen bodies could somehow be salvaged from that, but he thought that was what was going to happen.

C. S. Lewis was not mentioned in the article. Three other guys were. Not in the article itself, but in another one it linked to - also Russell Grigg.

CMI : The Future
Some issues for ‘long-age’ Christians
by Russell Grigg
http://creation.com/the-future-some-issues-for-long-age-christians


While it would have been fun to see what C. S. Lewis might have answered on the paradox of a new heaven and a new earth and still the universe "is running irreversibly down" (except that God Almighty can reverse it), we can do with what Russell Grigg had to say on another group of writers, not Inklings.

Since the 1800s—i.e. from the time Lyell, Cuvier, Darwin and others challenged the traditional view that the universe was only thousands of years old—various Christians have tried to harmonize long-age views with biblical beliefs.


Lyell, Cuvier, Darwin ... sounds like two Protestants and a Catholic, right? At least up to apostasies, since Darwin did not remain even Protestant Christian.

Well, sounds like two English and a French, but this does not necessarily mean two Protestants and a Catholic. You see, the Frenchman Cuvier was not a Catholic.

Louis XIV had of course expelled the Calvinists who refused to convert to Catholicism, but he had also conquered Alsatia from Holy Roman Empire (while it was still such). Alsatia included a lot of Lutherans. And the ancestry of "our" Cuvier was of these.

Georges Cuvier - Jean Léopold Nicolas Frédéric Cuvier1, dit Georges (il porte aussi les prénoms de Dagobert et de Chrétien selon les sources)2 Cuvier, né le 23 août 1769 à Montbéliard et mort le 13 mai 1832 à Paris, est un anatomiste français, promoteur de l'anatomie comparée et de la paléontologie au XIXe siècle. ... Né d'une modeste famille luthérienne de Montbéliard, il est le fils de Jean-Georges Cuvier (1715-1795) et de Clémentine Chatel (1736-1792) et le frère ainé de Frédéric Cuvier. Il épouse le 2 février 1804 Anne Marie Sophie Loquet du Trazail (1768-1849), veuve de l'ancien fermier général Duvaucel guillotiné en 1793, dont elle a eu une fille, Sophie Duvaucel (1789-1867), femme de lettres. Du mariage de Georges Cuvier et de Anne Marie Sophie Coquet du Trazail sont nés quatre enfants : trois enfants sont morts en bas âge et la quatrième, Clémentine Cuvier (1809-1827) est morte à l'âge de 18 ans.


Some more on this:

Cuvier was by birth, education, and conviction a devout Lutheran,[16] and remained Protestant throughout his life while regularly attending church services. Despite this, he regarded his personal faith as a private matter; he evidently identified himself with his confessional minority group when he supervised governmental educational programs for Protestants. He also was very active in founding the Parisian Biblical Society in 1818, where he later served as a vice president.[17] From 1822 until his death in 1832, Cuvier was Grand Master of the Protestant Faculties of Theology of the French University.[18]


This Lutheran was also racist:

Cuvier représentait la pensée scientifique dominante en France, en accord avec les préjugés racistes de l'époque, et son influence était grande9.

Dans ce contexte, il a fait des recherches sur les Noirs africains qu'il tenait pour « la plus dégradée des races humaines, dont les formes s'approchent le plus de la brute, et dont l'intelligence ne s'est élevée nulle part au point d'arriver à un gouvernement régulier »18. Peu après la mort de Saartjie Baartman, il entreprit de la disséquer19 au nom du progrès des connaissances humaines. Il réalisa un moulage complet du corps et préleva le squelette ainsi que le cerveau et les organes génitaux qui furent placés dans des bocaux de formol et exposés au Musée de l'Homme20. En 1817, il exposa le résultat de son travail devant l'Académie de médecine. La publication de ses Observations sur le cadavre d'une femme connue à Paris et à Londres sous le nom de Vénus hottentote21 témoigne des théories racistes des scientifiques de l'époque. Il fait notamment allusion à la classification des races humaines par le « squelette de la tête », et à une « loi cruelle qui semble avoir condamné à une éternelle infériorité les races à crâne déprimé et comprimé ». Saartjie Baartman est plus décrite par des traits simiesques que par son appartenance à la race noire : « Notre Boschimane a le museau plus saillant encore que le nègre, la face plus élargie que le calmouque, et les os du nez plus plats que l'un et que l'autre. À ce dernier égard, surtout, je n'ai jamais vu de tête humaine plus semblable aux singes que la sienne »22


This story we find also in the English wiki:

A major anthropological study done by Georges Cuvier was that of Saartjie Baartman. In 1815, Cuvier was a surgeon general to Napoleon Bonaparte. While in this position, the Naturalist received the body of a Khoikhoi woman by the name of Saartje or "Sarah" Baartman. Baartman was a South African immigrant who came to Europe based on the promise that she could become wealthy by displaying her body for Europeans. Based on this promise, Baartman sailed to England where she was treated like a slave and forced to continue displaying her naked body as a curiosity. During these showings, the emphasis was placed on Baartman’s prominent rear end and large sexual organs. In 1814, Baartman was taken to Paris and given to a travelling circus, and where she was subjected to scientific study. One of the scientists who examined her was Cuvier, who developed a fascination with her "ape-like" features.

Baartman died in poverty in 1815 from an unknown inflammatory disease (identified possibly as Syphilis). Her body was sent to Cuvier for scientific observation. Upon receiving the body, Cuvier first made several plaster casts and a wax mold of her body, and then proceeded to dissect her. He removed her skeleton and put it up for display, along with a cast, in the French National Museum of Natural History. Then, he separated her brain and genitals from the rest of her body. These organs were then preserved in jars that were on display for more than 150 years, first in the National Museum of Natural History, and then in the Museum of Man following its establishment in 1937. Her remains and casts were finally taken off display in the late 1970s, following complaints from the public. The display was replaced with one relating Baartman's story in the context of the history of scientific racism.[49][50]


And on his racialism itself:

Cuvier was a Protestant and a believer in monogenism, who held that all men descended from the biblical Adam, although his position usually was confused as polygenist. Some writers who have studied his racial work have dubbed his position as "quasi-polygenist", and most of his racial studies have influenced scientific racialism. Cuvier believed there were three distinct races: the Caucasian (white), Mongolian (yellow), and the Ethiopian (black). Cuvier claimed that Adam and Eve were Caucasian, the original race of mankind. The other two races originated by survivors escaping in different directions after a major catastrophe hit the earth 5,000 years ago, with those survivors then living in complete isolation from each other.[44][45] ... Cuvier's racial studies held the supposed features of polygenism, namely fixity of species; limits on environmental influence; unchanging underlying type; anatomical and cranial measurement differences in races; physical and mental differences between distinct races.[44]


Perhaps there is a reason why Uncle Andrew in The Magician's Nephew is depicted very much like George Cuvier by Pauline Baynes.

Obviously, an article like this cannot find favour with either J. P. Holding or Kent Hovind, they don't consider using the wikipedia as correct documentation.

I kind of think it is, if you use it in two languages and you know both (or if you use one language and come back some weeks later, or if the kind of information is not of a type likely to be filled in by ignorants or deformed by gross misunderstanding or partiality).

I will however not be a total dupe of either wiki or better renowned writers of similar culture to those behind the article.

They try to excuse Cuvier by claiming (or not directly claiming but leaving to be understood) that he was just following Academic standards of his time.

One answer is, wouldn't that be a warning against relying too much on Academic standards of any time, including one's own, that is now (when I am writing it + whenever you will be reading it)? But a more thorough one is, had be been a Catholic obedient to the magisterium, he could not have got away with it. His dissection of Saartjie Baartman would have been impossible if it hadn't been for the fact that the French Revolution humiliated the Catholic Church. His analysis could well have been on the Index Librorum for some time. Alas, I did not find it in the edition of 1949, online.

Earlier however, I think that Isaac de la Pereire (Jew, not Protestant, and then convert to Catholicism) was not just condemned as a writer due to polygenism, but also due to such judgements of "non-Caucasian races."

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
Tuesday after
Ist Passion Sunday
4.IV.2017

lundi 3 avril 2017

You heard of this meme?


Dear Religion,
Pics, or it didn't happen.

Sincerely,
Science


You can answer - hope you get a layout fitting what you've seen on the other meme on internet! - like this:

Dear Evolution,
Pics or witness accounts, or it didn't happen.

Sincerely,
Genesis

It seems reader of the blog noted the date when previous post was published


Not one of them thought I had gone over to Old Time and Theistic Evolution.

Everyone seems to guess I am too much Old Time Religion for that, at least when noting a notice to the contrary is posted on April 1:st.

Good job. As you see, I am capable of lying, but not of lying very convincingly. If every man is a liar, if God hates liars, perhaps He hates those least who lie least well .../HGL

samedi 1 avril 2017

But Perhaps Evolution is True


And Old Time and All That?

Should I cease writing this blog?

vendredi 31 mars 2017

Michael Oard Mixing Issues - and Avoiding What I Brought Up Previous to Now


Here is today's article from CMI:

Can the relative timing of radioisotope dates be applied to biblical geology?
by Michael J. Oard
http://creation.com/can-the-relative-timing-of-radioisotope-dates-be-applied-to-biblical-geology


Here are some "quotes" from it, with my comments under them.*

"The idea of using relative radiometric dating as a template for biblical earth history mostly sandwiches 4.567 billion years of uniformitarian history into 377 days of biblical earth history."

That is not even Anne Habermehl, since she is placing all of the radio dated timeline in post-Flood history. But as I will be seeing, there are others than she in the field.

And most who think that most of the million years dated things are from the Flood (as opposed to post-Flood or sometimes pre-Flood) are also not into using their relative dates as a relative timeline.

Carbon dates of Flood material usually do give about the same relative time : 20,000 - 50,000 BP.

I personally like to make the carbon dated place of the Flood be more precise, around 35,000 or 37,000 BP.

Now, I'll leave carbon dates for a moment and follow Oard's text:

"Both Baumgardner and Snelling make assumptions about the earth’s past outside of the Bible that drive their version of natural history and our ability to date its details by converting secular dates. One assumption is that the chronostratigraphic timescale is reliable. This allows them to claim the pre-Flood/Flood boundary is at or near the base of the Cambrian, and remain confident that this correlation point is valid all over the earth."

We are dealing with very different things when it comes to carbon dates and when it comes to chronostratigraphy.

With carbon dates you find one sample which dates as 40,000 BC, is a Neanderthal, and you ask if he or she died before the Flood, and you find another sample which carbon dates 15,000 BC and you feel confident it was after the Flood. The dates are related to the remaining content of C-14 as compared to the overall content of C, mostly C-12. The fudge factor behind the non-Biblical or Anti-Biblical Dates is how much the carbon 14 level rose.

That is one fudge factor which I am perhaps in today's world uniquely involved in circumscribing with relative constraints. On my view, anything which carbon dates 15,000 BC, unless it's an object which can be explained by reservoir effect, close to ice caps, must for instance be AFTER Flood but also BEFORE Exodus or even Abraham. When exactly is up for debate, and I am doing, not just one table but diverse tables, which are meant to give different options, some of which can then later be eliminated (though not from my writings) as not the true one because contradicting this or that or other certain fact from Bible, Tradition or History.

Chronostratigraphy, on the other hand, is a vicious circle in which two ends of one state (US) can have two types of fauna, one dinosaur and one pelykosaur, and then the excavated layer with the pelykosaur be considered as "lower" because it contains a fossil presumed to be "older" than the dinosaur.

"Thus, the Paleozoic is the ‘early Flood’, the Mesozoic is the ‘middle Flood’, and parts of the Cenozoic are the ‘late Flood’."

This is totally wrong, a pelykosaur is "late Palaeozoic (Permian)" or possibly "early Mesozoic (Triassic)", while a dinosaur is "Mesozoic" (especially "mid" or "late", i e "Jurassic" or "Cretaceous").

But the strata are NOT (and any familiarity with vertebrate palaeontology can tell you that, but it seems rare in CMI!) over and under each other on some one site where you find the dino higher or the pelykosaur lower. In other words, the evidence as we have it for vertebrate palaeontology is perfectly (at least for land vertebrates) compatible with having come there by the dinos and pelykosaurs simply having been buried fairly quickly in their natural habitat. The situation is a bit as if today's most typical fauna were buried and replaced by some which is now untypical, our mammals would be a matter for cryptozoology or palaeontology, and someone finds a wolf and a reindeer here and a moose and a bear there, and a third place, they find a wold with a bear and moose, but you never find moose with reindeers.

The reason as we know it is that reindeers and moose don't do the same habitat.

And then some palaeo considers wolf as extending over both "reindeer period" and "moose period" while reindeers are "index fossils" for the "reindeer period" only, moose and bear for the "moose period" only.**

The thing for sake of which geologists tend to overlook this is that, if you find the pelykosaur in a layer buried under some clearly other non-fossil layer of rock, that layer of rock gets the same name as a fossil bearing layer elsewhere.

If under the dino you find a non-fossil bearing layer of rock (at least as far as you are looking) it will tend to be labelled as a layer considered "older" where it bears fossils elsewhere, perhaps the layer of the pelykosaur.

This is why it is vital to distinguish the three meanings, the ideological and the two different empirical ones when dealing with chronostratigraphy. That is a "timescale" which should be reconstructed as a map, not one which should be squeezed.

Why datings by Ka-Ar tend to confirm it, at least somewhat, would probably be that many are discarded (this I trust CMI and other creationists on) but where the non-discarded ones do give a relative "timescale" it may well be because of argon dissipating later and therefore more in higher layers of lava. I don't pretend to have investigated that part, you are free to make experiments on it totally independently of any research I were to do, I have just given the general idea.

BUT, with all this, C-14 is a separate issue and therefore poses a separate challenge, one result of which may well be a squeezable time-scale.

"Humphreys makes much of the plot of radiometric dates over time,2 originally collected by Woodmorappe.9 It shows a roughly linear relationship between dates and the stages of the geological timescale (figure 2)."

[cited : Humphreys, D.R., Accelerated nuclear decay: a viable hypothesis? In: Vardiman, L., Snelling, A.A. and Chaffin, E.F. (Eds.), Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth: A Young-Earth Creationist Research Initiative, Institute for Creation Research, Dallas, TX, and Creation Research Society, Chino Valley, AZ, p. 342, 2000.
Woodmorappe, J., Radiometric geochronology appraised; in: Woodmorappe, J. (compiler), Studies in Flood Geology, Institute for Creation Research, Dallas, TX, pp. 147–175, 1999 [available from CRS Books].]

I suspect this is about non-carbon dates, and I suspect the easy way to get a solution is to do studies in lava flows and dating of lava.

"However, a closer look reveals that the dates vary by around 200 Ma and include outliers that are billions of years too old! One example of an outlier is the 1.3 Ga Rb-Sr isochron age for lava that erupted after the Flood on the northwest rim of the Grand Canyon.10 It is obvious that the precision of relative dates is far from satisfactory to be used for absolute biblical dates."

This very clearly has no bearing on carbon dates, since these do not involve dating ages of that magnitude.

"Making sense of relative dates and converting old dates to young ones, especially in light of the temporal asymmetry of the Flood, is crucial to the whole enterprise. Earth’s history extends over 6,000 years. The Flood, which produced the bulk of the sedimentary rock record, comprises only one of those years. Thus, advocates of relative dating must know when to convert old dates to years of non-Flood history, and also to days of Flood history. Thus, the location of the pre-Flood/Flood boundary becomes crucial."

No, I don't think so.

In Yacoraite, the Cretaceous as well as the Palaeocene layers are both from the Flood. Between them, there is probably (I got no answer when writing to them) a layer of Iridium.

In Karoo, the Permian, Triassic and Jurassic layers are all from the Flood. They are found side by side, and where you find Permian surrounded by Triassic faunal types, the Permian part is considered an "outcrop".

The thing is that Cretaceous and Palaeocene snails in Yacoraite, and in Karoo, the Permian Gorgonops torvus, the Jurassic Aardonyx celestae, the Triassic Eucnemesaurus fortis were all typically buried at roughly same time in the Flood in the places where they had been living.

I tried to get this through and got an answer that this research might be a good thing for later when we know more about two and three dimensional distribution of fossils, but the thing is we DO know them, if we look at palaeontology instead of looking at geology. I know this, I went through online resources. Obvious exception, marine fauna, where you do actually find trilobites clearly below (ordinary sense of the word) an Elasmosaur - as in Bonaparte Basin, as I found out in a debate.

The lacuna in my research, so far, is for where palaeontological finds are made by oil drillers rather than bone diggers. But I suspect they would all claim to have "all steps of geological column" and insofar as they could substantiate that, it would all be marine fauna steps. Whereever palaeontologists are digging, it is my picture which has so far emerged.

Unfortunately, Oard keeps overlooking this, as his words indicate:

"Therefore, until we have a better understanding of the placement of the pre-Flood/ Flood boundary, relative dating will not yield precise dates for the Flood, and the proposals of both Baumgardner and Snelling need further work."

He is still looking for a chronostratigraphical unit where you can say "these fossils are from Flood, these from after Flood". Presumably all valid kinds (as opposed to trasngenics horrors) are there both before and after Flood, because they were all on Noah's Ark.

I am not sure if Gorgonops got aboard the Ark, but then I am not sure if Gorgonops was a creature of God in roughly same form as God created it on day six, or some experiment gone horribly wrong in transgenics.

I am sure that "Jurassic" Tyrannosaur like Creatures did live both before and after Flood. I am sure that "Cretaceous" Brachiosaur like creatures (technically Sauropods***) were there both before and after Flood. Meaning, some Jurassic and Cretaceous are really Flood layers, some would rather be post-Flood layers.

When a dino carbon dates to 28,000 BP, I am for my part getting post-Flood vibes from the date.

This doesn't mean there are no pre-Flood lives and Flood burials in dinos of same type.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Friday after
Laetare Sunday
31.III.2017

PS : I am somewhat distracted this morning and early afternoon. Partly due to sleep privations (not voluntary on my part), partly due to a "hypno binge" as I term those occurrences in my life.

I have documented it on this and subsequent posts on a new blog, termed adult content (I don't want children under 13 reading about this, at least not without parental advise):

Blog 37, on Auto Hypnosis Experience : I Katherine Anne, Interactive Induction
https://hgl-hypno-journal.blogspot.fr/2017/03/i-katherine-anne-interactive-induction.html


I mentioned this distraction, because it explains why I didn't before signing mention why I place a carbon date limit for Flood at after "40,000 BP". Neanderthals being replaced by a purely "homo sapiens sapiens" or "anatomically modern man" population corresponds fairly well to Europe having in pre-Flood times been populated by men not of Noah's kin, mostly (with perhaps some exceptions, hence the earliest Cro-Magnon in Europe), but all died off in the Flood and were replaced by people who descend from Noah.

Now I have said this, and excuse me forgetting it./HGL

* In other words, quotes in quotation marks and italics, "like this", my comments no quotation marks and no italics, like this. ** And palaeoontolgists, if anything like today, would be saying "moose developed from reindeer, so reindeer period is the older of the two" or "reindeer developed from moose, so moose period is the older". *** Technical term for Tyrannosaurus, Allosaurus and the rest : Theropoda. I feel there is some symbolism in discovery of T Rex in 1905 by one Osborn - there is an Osborne who wrote a play I had to read, Look Back in Anger and 1905 was when Norway "divorced" from Sweden which it had been in personal union with since 1814.

mardi 21 mars 2017

About 5300 Years Ago There was a World Wide Flood? Iffy ...


Here is Syncellus, same kind of rebooting as previously between Ussher and St Jerome, and as a bonus, his tables involve lots of historical lore, I am omitting most of it, but not denying myself the dates of the seven kings of Rome:

I 3258 BC
2.142 pmc, + 31 800 years, 35058 BC
II 3086 BC
25.609 pmc, + 11 250 years, 14336 BC
III 2913 BC
40.195 pmc, + 7550 years, 10463 BC

2724 BC, Dispersion of Tongues
here comes before older layers of Göbekli Tepe.

A not further calibrated table according to Syncellus must therefore renounce on identifying the city of the Tower of Babel with Göbekli Tepe.

But it is not very difficult to recalibrate by shoving the following back a little.

IV 2741 BC
54.721 pmc, + 5000 years, 7741 BC
V 2568 BC
63.751 pmc, + 3700 years, 6268 BC
VI 2396 BC
72.689 pmc, + 2650 years, 5046 BC
VII 2224 BC
78.256 pmc, + 2050 years, 4274 BC

2189 BC
Birth of Abraham.
2089 BC
Birth of Isaac.

And beginnings of a unified Egypt (and Egypt existed 24 years before Isaac was born) are Narmer, whose raw carbon date is 3400 BC? Even if this is by Egyptologists adjusted to 3200 BC as beginning of Early Dynastic Egypt.

Here we are not yet even in 3501 BC.

Or suppose the raw carbon date was a Libby date ... 3400+1950=5350, 5350*1.03=5510.5, 5510-1950=3560.

If the raw carbon date of Cambridge halflife is 3560 BC, it is possible.

VIII 2051 BC
83.844 pmc, + 1450 years, 3501 BC
IX 1879 BC
87.316 pmc, + 1100 years, 2979 BC
X 1707 BC
90.665 pmc, + 810 years, 2517 BC

1685 BC
the Syncellus date for Exodus. Falls between 2517 and 2154 BC, Cambridge carbon dates, or 2387 and 2034 BC Libby dates.

Same thing for 1645 BC, the approximate date of fall of Jericho.

I think Kenyon would be happier with a higher than 100 pmc at this date, and taking Syncellus as giving the good date for fall of Jericho (still standing 1575).

But this omits that we are dealing with a rise in carbon levels.

If Kenyon's dates for Jericho are 1575 BC (see below), it would more probably be due to it being in 1470 BC (as St Jerome chronology suggests) and misdated as older.

XI 1534 BC
92.752 pmc, + 620 years, 2154 BC

1433 BC
Debora and Barac
1386 BC
Gideon

XII 1362 BC
94.992 pmc, + 430 years, 1792 BC

1282 BC
Iephtha
1211 BC
Samson

XIII 1190 BC
96.376 pmc, + 310 years, 1500 BC

1189 BC
Agamemnon becomes king of Mycenae and of Argives
1172 BC
Syncellus' date for taking of Troy.
1166 BC
Orestes becomes king of Mycenae and of Argives
1161 BC
Aeneas becomes king of Latins
1158 BC
... and three years later Ascanius follows him
1151 BC
Eli is Judge
1128 BC
Samuel is Judge
1112 BC
Syncellus places the election of Saul
1072 BC
King David
1032 BC
King Solomon

XIV 1017 BC
97.486 pmc, + 210 years, 1227 BC

992 BC
Roboam and Jeroboam (the editor takes exception to their rule starting same year).
944 BC / 938 BC
Omri of Israel
931 / 930 BC
Josaphath of Judah
930 / 926 BC
Achab of Israel
906 BC
Joram Judah and Israel (editor)
905 BC
Joram Judah (Syncellus himself)
903 BC
Joram Israel (Syncellus himself)
894 BC
Jehu (editor)
891 BC
Joas (editor) / Jehu (Syncellus himself)
888 BC
Joas (Syncellus himself)

XV 845 BC
98.188 pmc, + 150 years, 995 BC

800 BC
Macedon begins
825 BC
Syncellus poses the date when Medes take over after Assyrians.
770 BC
Athens ceases to be a monarchy and has "archontes decennes" (archons ruling ten years or archons ruling ten together per year?)
759 BC
Founding of Rome. Romulus.
754 BC
Achas of Judah
743 / 740 BC
Hosea of Israel
738 / 735 BC
Hezechias of Judah
721 BC
Numa Pompilius
680 BC
Tullius Hostilius.

XVI 672 BC
99.298 pmc, + 60 years, 732 BC

648 BC
Ancus Martius.
625 BC
Tarquinius Priscus
613 BC
Nabuchodonosor
588 BC
Servius Tullius
548 BC
Cyrus.
544 BC
Tarquinius Superbus.
520 BC
Rome has consuls.
515 BC
Egypt is conquered by Persia.

XVII 500 BC
100 pmc, no extra years, 500 BC


Here is a citation of Jericho for you:

A succession of settlements followed from 4500 BCE onward, the largest constructed in 2600 BCE.[20]

Jericho was continually occupied into the Middle Bronze Age; it was destroyed in the Late Bronze, after which it no longer served as an urban centre. The city was surrounded by extensive defensive walls strengthened with rectangular towers, and possessed an extensive cemetery with vertical shaft-tombs and underground burial chambers; the elaborate funeral offerings in some of these may reflect the emergence of local kings.[34]

During the Middle Bronze Age, Jericho was a small prominent city of the Canaan region, reaching its greatest Bronze Age extent in the period from 1700 to 1550 BCE. It seems to have reflected the greater urbanization in the area at that time, and has been linked to the rise of the Maryannu, a class of chariot-using aristocrats linked to the rise of the Mitannite state to the north. Kathleen Kenyon reported "...the Middle Bronze Age is perhaps the most prosperous in the whole history of Kna'an. ... The defenses ... belong to a fairly advanced date in that period" and there was "a massive stone revetment... part of a complex system" of defenses (pp. 213–218).[35] Bronze-Age Jericho fell in the 16th century at the end of the Middle Bronze Age, the calibrated carbon remains from its City-IV destruction layer dating to 1617–1530 BCE. Notably this carbon dating c. 1573 BCE confirmed the accuracy of the stratigraphical dating c. 1550 by Kenyon.

There was evidence of a small settlement in the Late Bronze Age (c.1400s BCE) on the site, but erosion and destruction from previous excavations have erased significant parts of this layer.


Unfortunately, Syncellus gives no date for Joseph in Egypt, that I could find in the tables, which would be with Djoser, carbon dated, like Narmer.

The most interesting line from Jacob to Syncellus is Levi, Caath, Amram, Moses.

I have omitted lots of material from Syncellus, though it is interesting. Some is a bit more bewildering than I can deal with, I am still no great knower of the enture kings of Judah and Israel.

On a totally other note, while I think Eusebius and St Jerome and Roman Martyrology are more correct than Syncellus, the editor of the work is actually, probably, a Catholic, from Germany, Niebuhr, and in 1829 it was published in Bonn, and involves a dedication by a Paris Dominican (I have seen their Church!) namely Jacques Goar OP to one Pierre Séguier, Chancellor of France.

That was written in Rue St Honoré (a road where now the French Presidents reside) and this was under King Charles X, who conquered Algeria.

Hans Georg Lundahl
ut supra (vel infra)

Corrected correlation between a set of Syncellus dates and the crucial points, 4.IV.2017/HGL

Around Five Thousand Years Ago, There was a World Wide Flood?


Here I have rebooted the last table I gave Ussher's chronology. Namely with other BC years for Biblical chronology.

And inserted a few hints about how fitting or less fitting this chronology would be:

I 2957 BC
2.142 pmc, + 31 800 years, 34757 BC
II 2803 BC
25.609 pmc, + 11 250 years, 14053 BC
III 2650 BC
40.195 pmc, + 7550 years, 10200 BC

Low feature in Göbekli Tepe
9559 BP, 7609 BC

IV 2496 BC
54.721 pmc, + 5000 years, 7496 BC

High Feature in Göbekli Tepe
8430 BP, 6480 BC

V 2343 BC
63.751 pmc, + 3700 years, 6043 BC
VI 2189 BC
72.689 pmc, + 2650 years, 4839 BC
VII 2036 BC
78.256 pmc, + 2050 years, 4086 BC

Ur of Woolley starts
a little before Birth of Abraham
Narmer's raw carbon date
before 3332, around Birth of Isaac

VIII 1882 BC
83.844 pmc, + 1450 years, 3332 BC
IX 1728 BC
87.316 pmc, + 1100 years, 2828 BC

Date of Joseph
is close to a raw carbon date of Djoser

X 1575 BC
90.665 pmc, + 810 years, 2385 BC

Exodus (1510 BC)
would carbon date between 2385 and 2041, if we had a trace of it.

XI 1421 BC
92.752 pmc, + 620 years, 2041 BC
XII 1268 BC
94.992 pmc, + 430 years, 1698 BC

Trojan War Date 1190 BC
falls between 1114 and 1268 BC, which means the carbon date would be between 1424 and 1698 BC. Could we be dealing with Troy V?

XIII 1114 BC
96.376 pmc, + 310 years, 1424 BC

Both Troy dates (VIh and VIIa)
from Hisarlik fall between 961 BC and 1114 BC, since carbon dated between 1171 BC and 1424 BC.

XIV 961 BC
97.486 pmc, + 210 years, 1171 BC
XV 807 BC
98.188 pmc, + 150 years, 957 BC
XVI 654 BC
99.298 pmc, + 60 years, 714 BC
XVII 500 BC
100 pmc, no extra years, 500 BC


The greatest weakness of this idea is perhaps introducing Troy V as the Troy of Priam. I don't know any archaeologist who suggests that.

So, on this view, either Trojan War would be a myth, or a chronologically displaced story, or we need to look harder at possible traces of destruction in Troy V - and I don't think looking other places than Hissarlik is a great option.

Hans Georg Lundahl
ut supra

(or, as seen on blog : ut infra).

What about Ussher and Kent Hovind? Checking with Troy


This Sunday, St Joseph's Day, I set out to refute the carbonic implications of Kent Hovind's timeline. We'll see how the attempt ended, but first the statement and my first sketching out of implications.

"About 4400 years ago, there was a world wide Flood"

Anyone who has heard Kent Hovind say those words on a video, raise a hand (jk).

2400 BC
2.15 pmc
1400 BC
51.075 pmc
400 BC
100 pmc


This is if the levels form a straight line on a graph.

Otherwise we get instead

2400 BC
2.15 pmc
1400 BC
62.6213 pmc
400 BC
100 pmc


This latter is calculated as a "Fibonacci intermediary", see previous post on how I calculated values II, IV, VI, and so on. Between 2400 BC and 1400 BC, you have 1900 BC.

2400 BC
2.15 pmc
1900 BC
26.6125 pmc
1400 BC
51.075 pmc
400 BC
100 pmc


Or

2400 BC
2.15 pmc
1900 BC
41.9932634 pmc
1400 BC
62.6213 pmc
400 BC
100 pmc


Between 2400 and 1900 BC, there is 2150 BC.

2400 BC
2.15 pmc
2150 BC
14.38125 pmc
1900 BC
26.6125 pmc
1400 BC
51.075 pmc
400 BC
100 pmc


Or

2400 BC
2.15 pmc
2150 BC
26.77313678 pmc
1900 BC
41.9932634 pmc
1400 BC
62.6213 pmc
400 BC
100 pmc


Between 1900 BC and 1400 BC, there is 1650 BC.

2400 BC
2.15 pmc
2150 BC
14.38125 pmc
1900 BC
26.6125 pmc
1650 BC
38.84375 pmc
1400 BC
51.075 pmc
400 BC
100 pmc


Or

2400 BC
2.15 pmc
2150 BC
26.77313678 pmc
1900 BC
41.9932634 pmc
1650 BC
53.92 pmc*
1400 BC
62.6213 pmc
400 BC
100 pmc


And between 1400 BC and 400 BC, there was 900 BC.

2400 BC
2.15 pmc
2150 BC
14.38125 pmc
1900 BC
26.6125 pmc
1650 BC
38.84375 pmc
1400 BC
51.075 pmc
900 BC
75.5375 pmc
400 BC
100 pmc


Or

2400 BC
2.15 pmc
2150 BC
26.77313678 pmc
1900 BC
41.9932634 pmc
1650 BC
53.92 pmc*
1400 BC
62.6213 pmc
900 BC
85.7221 pmc
400 BC
100 pmc


Let's see what these levels would mean as to fake dates to the real dates - and recall, archaeology is usually dated in fake dates, sometimes of this type.

Straight line graph, first:

2400 BC
2.15 pmc, 31700 extra years, 34100 BC
2150 BC
14.38125 pmc, 16050 extra years, 18200 BC
1900 BC
26.6125 pmc, 10950 extra years, 12850 BC
1650 BC
38.84375 pmc, 7800 extra years, 9450 BC
1400 BC
51.075 pmc, 5550 extra years, 6950 BC
900 BC
75.5375 pmc, 2300 extra years, 3200 BC
400 BC
100 pmc, no extra years, 400 BC


According to this model, stone age would still be going on at the approximate time of Exodus, it would just have turned Neolithic some while ago.

I suppose 1650 BC might be an Ussher date for Joseph in Egypt? I check Haydock comment, which gives Year of the World 2369, Year before Christ 1635. This is Genesis 50:25. This would then have been also in Neolithic and clearly before any visible Egyptian unity.

Abraham was according to Ussher called Genesis 12:10: Year of the World 2084, Year before Christ 1920. So Isaac was born five years after 1900 BC, in 1895 BC. And this was Late Palaeolithic?

And King Solomon's Temple coincides roughly with early dynastic Egypt, Solomon is contemporary with Narmer (one pharao who actually has been carbon dated, though the raw date 3400 BC has been revised despite C14 to 3200 BC).

I suppose you can see why this table is useless, other than as illustration of one of its premisses being flawed.

Now, next table, the graph with Fibonacci intermediates:

2400 BC
2.15 pmc, 31700 extra years, 34100 BC
2150 BC
26.77313678 pmc, 10900 extra years, 13050 BC
1900 BC
41.9932634 pmc, 7150 extra years, 9050 BC
1650 BC
53.92 pmc*, 5100 extra years, 6750 BC
1400 BC
62.6213 pmc, 3850 extra years, 5250 BC
900 BC
85.7221 pmc, 1250 extra years, 2150 BC
400 BC
100 pmc


In this version, Exodus from Egypt is before Ur was a real city, but Solomon was at least later than Djoser (another pharao who has been carbon dated, which is rare in Egyptology, I have heard).

With these tables, no wonder that people discard Kent Hovind's and Henry M. Morris' idea of a rising carbon level.

I didn't stay here, I actually thought it might do to give Kent Hovind and Ussher a better chance than this.

That is why I came up with the levels table on the previous message here. I will now insert this timeline in 16 subdivisions into those tables.

I 2400 BC
2.142 pmc, + 31 800 years, 34200 BC
II 2275 BC
25.609 pmc, + 11 250 years, 13525 BC
III 2150 BC
40.195 pmc, + 7550 years, 9700 BC
IV 2025 BC
54.721 pmc, + 5000 years, 7025 BC
V 1900 BC
63.751 pmc, + 3700 years, 5600 BC
VI 1775 BC
72.689 pmc, + 2650 years, 4425 BC
VII 1650 BC
78.256 pmc, + 2050 years, 3700 BC
VIII 1525 BC
83.844 pmc, + 1450 years, 2975 BC
IX 1400 BC
87.316 pmc, + 1100 years, 2500 BC
X 1275 BC
90.665 pmc, + 810 years, 2085 BC
XI 1150 BC
92.752 pmc, + 620 years, 1770 BC
XII 1025 BC
94.992 pmc, + 430 years, 1455 BC
XIII 900 BC
96.376 pmc, + 310 years, 1210 BC
XIV 775 BC
97.486 pmc, + 210 years, 985 BC
XV 650 BC
98.188 pmc, + 150 years, 800 BC
XVI 525 BC
99.298 pmc, + 60 years, 585 BC
XVII 400 BC
100 pmc, no extra years, 400 BC


I think this is still a bit too much squeezing of conventional timelines a bit too late, since last millennium BC was fairly well documented.

Also, just before it, we have Troy sacked. This is too much squeezing for the current identification of sacked Troy with Troy VI. Or is this identification still current? I'll be checking. Here are Troy VII and Troy on wiki. Here is a selective and composite quote:

Troy VII ... was built following the destruction of Troy VIh,[2] probably by an earthquake c. 1300 BC. A number of layers are distinguished:

  • Troy VIIa: ca. 13th century BC
  • Troy VIIb1: 12th century BC
  • Troy VIIb2: 11th century BC
  • Troy VIIb3: until c. 950 BC


The city of the archaeological layer known as Troy VIIa, which has been dated on the basis of pottery styles to the mid- to late-13th century BC, lasted for about a century, with a destruction layer at c. 1190 BC. It is the most often-cited candidate for the Troy of Homer and is believed to correspond to Wilusa, known from Hittite sources dating to the period of roughly 1300–1250 BC.

The layers of ruins in the citadel at Hisarlık are numbered Troy I – Troy IX, with various subdivisions:[note 2]

  • Troy I 3000–2600 BC (Western Anatolian EB 1)
  • Troy II 2600–2250 BC (Western Anatolian EB 2)
  • Troy III 2250–2100 BC (Western Anatolian EB 3 [early])
  • Troy IV 2100–1950 BC (Western Anatolian EB 3 [middle])
  • Troy V: 20th–18th centuries BC (Western Anatolian EB 3 [late])
  • Troy VI: 17th–15th centuries BC
  • Troy VIh: late Bronze Age, 14th century BC
  • Troy VIIa: c. 1300–1190 BC, most likely setting for Homer's story
  • Troy VIIb1: 12th century BC
  • Troy VIIb2: 11th century BC
  • Troy VIIb3: until c. 950 BC
  • Troy VIII: c. 700–85 BC
  • Troy IX: 85 BC–c. AD 500


Now, if the identification here of destruction layer carbon dated as 1190 BC with Trojan War is correct, there is no squeezing at all towards the beginning of first millennium BC.

If on the other hand the destruction identified as of an earthquake 1300 BC is really that of Trojan War, then the squeezing at beginning of the last millennium** BC was about 110 years. Or 60 years, if the earthquake is rather dated 1250 BC.

This is the position I was looking for when I started the tables : 1189 carbon dated as 1289.

If the above last table for Ussher chronology is right, we would have 1275 BC, a bit before Trojan War, dated as 1770 BC. This would make the city of Priam identic, not indeed to Schliemann's Troy II, but at least to Troy V.

On the other hand, if Schliemann was right, supposing this to be carbon dates, which is probable, "Troy II 2600–2250 BC (Western Anatolian EB 2)" would mean 1040 extra years at destruction of Troy. So, taking Schliemann's Troy for Priam's would mean above last table has a bit too little squeezing towards the end.

So, generally speaking, even with this best table, if my new start is better, Ussher's timeline is too short.

But of course, Kent Hovind might want to defend it by NOT taking the divisions I-XVII above in even chronological sequence, he might want to calibrate how fast and slow the progression goes.

I might want to do it myself in a while. For my own preference, the chronology of St Jerome, which is used in the Roman Martyrology, as usually with me. It might even be needed for Syncellus.

But more thereof, for another time.

Hans Georg Lundahl
ut "supra"***

* Omitting some zeros and further decimals.

** Or towards end of second to last millennium BC, rather.

*** Relative to layout on the blog, it is of course "ut infra".

New Fibonacci Calibration


My older Fibonacci Table was more complex in calculation, but had one possible flaw, apart from complexity : by going too far in Fibonacci series, it involved the earliest rise into too fast rising, if it was indeed too fast.

Here I have gone only from 1, 1, 2 to 21. Not to 610.

On the other hand, I have, perhaps unduly simplified, as if the carbon 14 level rising itself were following a Fibonacci curve of decreased augmentation.

In the older table it was one component of the production of new C14 which did so.

I'll explain for non-experts : a stable carbon 14 level in atmosphere means, for one thing, a stable level of normal carbon dioxide in atmosphere, which I take to have been stable since Flood, with less overall than before Flood, since some would have been buried - not sure how much this affects the result, though. Why so, you may ask? Because the C14 level is not measured against volume of atmosphere, since it is taken in samples of organic material which have long since ceased to be part of atmosphere. It is measured against weight of other carbon, all of which basically has been carbon dioxide in atmosphere.

A stable carbon 14 in atmosphere also means the decay rate is stable, which I grant, taking the Cambridge half life : 5730 years = after them any sample will have half as much C14 as it had before them. This includes the sample which is carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

But this means that a stable carbon 14 level involves one more thing too, namely a stable producttion of new carbon 14 which is in balance with what is lost through radioactive decay within the atmosphere itself.

And this means that a rising level of Carbon 14 either involves not enough time having lapsed since the rise from scratch began, if that is how it worked, or that some time the present level was simply given as part of creation, which I do not grant, though God could have done it, precisely as for similar mathematical reasons we cannot have had a rise to a stable level happen through normal today's production of new C14. Or, third possibility, a rising level could also involve new carbon 14 being produced faster than now, while the level is rising.

This is of course my view of the matter, since back in 2015.

Now, the Fibonacci Table of 2015 took the production of new carbon 14 during the period I study into two portions : the portion which is today's level of new production, and the portion which exceeds it, which portion I divided into Fibonaccian multiples of a certain dividend of it.

Here, it is much more clumsy as approach, I only take eight steps of rise in the resulting level itself.

And these I calculated on Sunday, St Joseph's Day and Third Sunday of Lent, or Third Lord's Day of Lent. However, that only gives 9 levels of C14, including 100 percent modern carbon and the presumed Flood level of modern carbon.

I wanted more levels, so this morning, St Benedict's Day, I added 8 intermediary levels, using a formula of intercalation which basically multiplies the difference between two levels by 0.618 and then decides that product is added onto lower level in order to produce the intermediate one.

And here we have the results, I did some rounding, reducing pmc exactitude to three decimal places:

I
2.142 pmc, + 31 800 years
II
25.609 pmc, + 11 250 years
III
40.195 pmc, + 7550 years
IV
54.721 pmc, + 5000 years
V
63.751 pmc, + 3700 years
VI
72.689 pmc, + 2650 years
VII
78.256 pmc, + 2050 years
VIII
83.844 pmc, + 1450 years
IX
87.316 pmc, + 1100 years
X
90.665 pmc, + 810 years
XI
92.752 pmc, + 620 years
XII
94.992 pmc, + 430 years
XIII
96.376 pmc, + 310 years
XIV
97.486 pmc, + 210 years
XV
98.188 pmc, + 150 years
XVI
99.298 pmc, + 60 years
XVII
100 pmc, no extra years


And to make sure that we are dealing* with Cambridge half life, here are some diagnostic pmc's: 70.7 should give half of a halflife, 2865 years, gives 2850. 50 should give a halflife, 5730, gives 5750. 25 should give two half lives, 11 460, gives 11450.

I suspect that the calculator* has been given some either calibration or rounding, and if rounding, I think it can basically be trusted. For our purpose, which is not identical to that of those putting it online.

You may notice that I have not given BC years either for Biblical or "carbon dated" chronologies, this because I think above table can very well be adapted to diverse Biblical chronologies and also get the years between its steps calibrated to faster or slower, if needed.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
St Benedict's Day
or Tuesday after
III Lord's Day in Lent
21.III.2017

PS, in case some are dense (or just need some tea or coffee) : the pmc levels given are not of what would be expected now from whatever the year, they are meant as normal pmc level of atmosphere and recent normal samples back then. Therefore they do not give the carbon age, they only give the extra years above the carbon age. As it would have been if carbon 14 level had been 100 pmc./HGL

* The Carbon 14 Dating Calculator is the one which I gave a short link http://ppt.li/3m8 because its full link is a bit long:

Carbon 14 Dating Calculator
https://www.math.upenn.edu/~deturck/m170/c14/carbdate.html

samedi 18 mars 2017

Quora : Does the Bible, Torah and the Quran tell us how long humans have been on this Earth and where they first appeared?


Q
Does the Bible, Torah and the Quran tell us how long humans have been on this Earth and where they first appeared?
https://www.quora.com/Does-the-Bible-Torah-and-the-Quran-tell-us-how-long-humans-have-been-on-this-Earth-and-where-they-first-appeared/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl


ARq
Answer requested by 1 person Anonymous

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Studied religions as curious parallels and contrasts to Xtian faith since 9, 10?
Written Wed
The Quran? No.

Islamic tradition, yes, when it says Mohammed was 39 or 40 generations from Adam (which I don’t believe), but the Quran, no.

It is a very short and incomplete document for a religion.

The Bible, notably the Torah, yes.

At least as far as when.

Where, depends on where you place the four rivers, two of them are the limits of Mesopotamia, as they flow now, but it is disputed where the other two went, though one was the Nile.

In one version, Euphrates and Tigris are the North Rivers and Nile and an Arabian river the South rivers, and the common source probably in Holy Land, with Jordan as the source of all four.

In another version, Euphrates and Tigris are the Central Rivers, Nile the West extreme and Ganges (possibly turning to Danube) the East Extreme.

You could also imagine Danube was one of the four and Ganges a false identification, in that case Euphrates and Tigris are the East Rivers and Danube and Nile the West Rivers.

How that hints about the common source is a guess (btw, when I speak of Danube, I mean same river bed but opposite direction before the Flood : palaeontology shows Vienna has been a sea shore.)

As for how long ago, that is not a guess, it is even more stricter limited.

Adam was 130 or 230 when he begat Seth. Depends on which text you find most reliable. Depending on text, the Flood was in 2242 or 1656 or 1305 after Creation.

Genealogies of Genesis - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genealogies_of_Genesis


After Flood, Abraham can have been born 3414/3184, 1948 or 2247 after Creation.

After that there are more years given in the life of each patriarch up to migration into Egypt. So, between Abraham and Joseph there is little room for doubt on how many years. Between Joseph receiving his family and Moses going out of Egypt with their descendants, there are two versions, 400 years or 215 years, the latter being most probable.

After Exodus, the timeline is 40 years up to entry into land of Canaan, after Moses died and Joshua succeeded him, so many years (40 I think) up to death of Joshua, some convoluted histories in the time known as the Judges between Joshua and King Saul and King David and King Solomon, probably straightened out if you read an overview in Paralipomena (a k a Chronicles), between King Solomon and Babylonian captivity the timeline is fairly straight forward, and Babylonian captivity occurred in … checking wiki:

The Babylonian captivity or Babylonian exile is the period in Jewish history during which a number of Judahites of the ancient Kingdom of Judah were captives in Babylonia. After the Battle of Carchemish in 605 BCE, Nebuchadnezzar, the king of Babylon, besieged Jerusalem, resulting in tribute being paid by King Jehoiakim. [1] Jehoiakim refused to pay tribute in Nebuchadnezzar's fourth year, which led to another siege in Nebuchadnezzar's seventh year, culminating with the death of Jehoiakim and the exile of King Jeconiah, his court and many others; Jeconiah's successor Zedekiah and others were exiled in Nebuchadnezzar's eighteenth year; a later deportation occurred in Nebuchadnezzar's twenty-third year. The dates, numbers of deportations, and numbers of deportees given in the biblical accounts vary. [2] These deportations are dated to 597 BCE for the first, with others dated at 587/586 BCE, and 582/581 BCE respectively.[3]After the fall of Babylon to the Persian king Cyrus the Great in 539 BCE, exiled Judeans were permitted to return to Judah.[4][5]According to the biblical book of Ezra, construction of the second temple in Jerusalem began around 516 BCE. All these events are considered significant in Jewish history and culture, and had a far-reaching impact on the development of Judaism.

Babylonian captivity - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babylonian_captivity


This means that the wikipedian article is probably written from Jewish perspective, it is possible that Christian chronologists have a century more between Babylonian captivity and Birth of Christ.

Birth of Christ is also dated in relation to Roman chronology, which was a good one.

Since first Christians were in Roman still Pagan Empire, which later converted under Constantine, we can date them by emperors, and see what pope was martyred under what emperor. And the emperors are well dated.

Other answers
to same question
https://www.quora.com/Does-the-Bible-Torah-and-the-Quran-tell-us-how-long-humans-have-been-on-this-Earth-and-where-they-first-appeared


ARq to Muhammad Ahmed
Answer requested by 1 person Anonymous

Muhammad Ahmed
Design Engineer at And or Logic (2014-present)
Written Wed
i dont know about Torah and Bible but Quran answers that

Hans-Georg Lundahl
How?

Mike Rommel
Retired
Written Tue
The Quran is out of the picture, has very little information that is historical except what it borrowed from the Bible. The Bible has genealogies from Jesus back to Adam, and through those we can be quite sure that the time back to Adam from now is about 6000 years. Where the garden of Eden was is not known.

Meghan Louve
former engineer, trans woman
Written Tue
No. It has been proven that modern man (homo sapiens) has been around for approximately 200,000 years, largely in Africa, and spread from there. The first five chapters of the Bible and the Torah are roughly 3300 years old. The story of Adam and Eve cannot be interpreted literally. The Qur’an was revealed to Muhammad in the seventh century.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
"It has been proven that modern man (homo sapiens) has been around for approximately 200,000 years, largely in Africa, and spread from there."

How is that proven?

"The first five chapters of the Bible and the Torah are roughly 3300 years old."

I'd say the written form together with the rest of Genesis in the lifetime of Moses, who was 80 in 1510 BC.

But their content can have been transmitted either purely orally, or with writing support in full though lost or yet in another way:

Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : ... on Genevieve von Petzinger's 32 late palaeolithic signs
http://assortedretorts.blogspot.com/2017/03/on-genevieve-von-petzingers-32-late.html


"The story of Adam and Eve cannot be interpreted literally."

It very often is, so how can you say it cannot be so?

If you mean "a literal translation of it cannot be true" I suppose of course you are referring to the supposed proofs of "200,000 years".

Ken Parson
I drink and I know things
Written Wed
Putting aside the issue of Biblical inerrancy, the Bible has, kinda. There are contradictory genealogies for Jesus in the Bible, but the one in the Gospel of Luke goes all the way to Adam (of “Adam and Eve” fame) to Jesus. The Old Testament lists the age at death for many of the major players, some of which appear in the Luke’s genealogy. There is also one event mentioned in the Bible for which there are multiple reliable secular sources corroborating the date for said event: The Death of Nebuchadnezzar. That happened in 562 BC.

So, many Biblical scholars from early Christianity to the present have added together the age at death for any the descendants whose longevity is listed in the Old Testament and estimated the lifespans for those whose longevity is not mentioned. The date of Nebuchadnezzar's death was then used as a reference point. This led most scholars to place the creation of Adam, as described in Genesis, to around 4000–5000 BC.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
“The Old Testament lists the age at death for many of the major players, some of which appear in the Luke’s genealogy.”

And more importantly, perhaps, age of a major player when siring the relevant son.

Richard Carrier Refutes Certain Evolutionists


Creation vs. Evolution : Richard Carrier Refutes Certain Evolutionists · somewhere else : Carrier on Tacitus

I once asked my natural science teacher at junior high school how he knows Big Bang happened or Evolution happened. Or Abiogenesis.

Or how he knew Solar System arose out of a whirl of gas getting hotter as whirling closer.

Or perhaps even how he knew Solar System was working on Newtonian mechanics.

Well, the reply I got was basically : "we are here, if it didn't work, we wouldn't be".

I had an objection which he broke off my trying to voice in class. Before you guess which one it is, here is Richard Carrier for you:

The probability that the evidence exists given that we are observing it, and the probability that the evidence would exist given that a particular event happened in the past, are not the same probability.


One immediate simplification I would make is:

The probability a given piece of evidence exists that we observe (1/1) and the probability that it is evidence of a particular explanation rather than another (not 1/1) are not same probability.

The observation of a piece of evidence is not a substitute for good logic about what it is evidence about.

Now, this latter is not exactly what Richard Carrier is saying, but what he is saying is one way of finally coming at this.

What he is saying is somewhat more intricate, I'll give that too, and also (though external to this blog) answer his anti-Christian application of it:

And accordingly, FoE, despite saying P(e) is always 1 because “that’s the evidence we have,” correctly shows on screen that this is not true for the meningitis testing. He posits for his example that the probability of e, “a positive test result,” is 0.5% when you don’t have meningitis (aka ~M) and 99.5% if you do have meningitis (aka M); and he posits a base rate of having M of 1 in 1000, which means a prior probability of 0.001, or 0.1%, one tenth of one percent. And that means P(e), the probability of a positive test result “whether or not” you have M, is not 100% but in fact [P(“positive test result for M”|M) x P(base rate of M)] + [P(“positive test result for M”|~M) x P(base rate of ~M)], or, as he correctly shows on screen, (0.995 x 0.001) + (0.005 x 0.999) = (0.000995) + (0.004995) = 0.00599 (or about 0.6%). Which is nowhere near 1 (aka 100%).

One therefore would never say the probability of a positive test result “whether or not you have meningitis” is 100%. Because, in his own example, it’s 0.6%! And FoE seems to know this, as that’s what he shows on the screen. But he doesn’t connect the two examples, so he never notices his mistake in saying P(e) equals 1. The really weird thing here is that if he really thinks P(e), the whole denominator of every Bayesian equation, is always 1 because we always “have the evidence we have,” then you don’t need the denominator at all. The probability of anything is then just P(e|h) x P(h). That should have clued him in that he was making an error in his statement here. I will charitably assume he misspoke and didn’t really mean to say that.

Otherwise, he is confusing two completely different probabilities, and to help anyone else from making that mistake even if he didn’t mean to, remember this:

The probability that the evidence exists given that we are observing it, and the probability that the evidence would exist given that a particular event happened in the past, are not the same probability.

So, for example, if assessing the evidence of a murder, FoE found blood on the accused, he could rightly say “the probability that the accused is bloody, given that I observed and verified the accused is bloody” is 1 (or near enough; there is always some nonzero probability of still being in error about that, but ideally it will be so small a probability we can ignore it). But that doesn’t answer how the blood got there. What we want to know is: What is the probability that the accused is bloody given that they murdered the victim? And then, what is the probability that the accused would be bloody (= that they will test positive for meningitis / that the accounts of Jesus we have would be written when and as we have them) whether or not they murdered the victim (= whether or not they have meningitis / whether or not Jesus existed)?

That is not going to be 1. The blood could be their own; it doesn’t follow that the blood is from the victim. Or the blood could be there because they tried to rescue the victim, not because they murdered them. It doesn’t even follow that every time someone murders someone, they get or keep the victim’s blood on them. Like a positive meningitis test, many people test positive, whether or not they have meningitis. Moreover, many test negative, whether or not they have it. Similarly, many a biography is written of men, whether or not those men existed. So P(e) is frequently not 1. And in fact whenever it is 1, that means there is no evidence for the hypothesis at all.


I disagree with Richard Carrier's following assessment about biographies often getting written about men who never existed.

If we mean biographies of men taken by the normal first readership as historical, this is not true, and biographies of Bilbo or Frodo Baggins or of Peter, Susan, Edmund and Lucy Pevensey have by normal readers not been taken as historical (nor by me, if anyone imagining I am not a normal reader, because I keep returning to these examples, both as inspiring stories and because they fit this point).

What Carrier means is that biographies of Hercules, Romulus, Theseus, Aeneas, Perseus and Andromeda and quite a few more, as well as of Moses and Aaron, Joshua, King David, as well as of King Arthur, some seem ready to add Charlemagne, as well as of Adils and Rolf Kraki, Rolf's father Roar or Hrothgar and Beowulf as well as his uncle Hygelac / Hugleik / Chlochilaicus and a few more have been written without these men existing.

I think he is wrong, these men have existed, even if some details about some of them are wrong.

As a Christian I am not obliged to believe Perseus and Andromeda never lived. I am obliged to believe they did not get first raptured and then trasnformed to constellations instead of dying, and that is it. I am not obliged to believe Hercules never existed, I am obliged to believe he didn't suckle Hera in such a way as to produce the Milky Way. And while disbelief in them is not directly against any dogma, I will not do Richard Carrier the favour of diseblieving them so he can say I am inconsistent in believing Jesus and Moses.

That is on the topic of Richard Carrier's own essay, now back to the topic of this blog.

Some seem to think that the probability of:

  • bodies starting to orbit each other;
  • chemicals starting to combine;
  • living brains including neuron exchanges


producing

  • stable orbits lasting for billions of years;
  • a series of cells produding cells and evolving;
  • consciousness, thought, evolving into reason and language


is very close to 1, given that we observe

  • stable orbits of Earth around Sun and other planets around Sun (except we don't really, since we don't observe Earth orbitting, we have also not observed the billions of years);
  • life in a myriad of forms;
  • the fact that we are conscious.


I think they are wrong, as Richard Carrier just told us:

The probability that the evidence exists given that we are observing it, and the probability that the evidence would exist given that a particular event happened in the past, are not the same probability.


Or, as I concluded from this:

The observation of a piece of evidence is not a substitute for good logic about what it is evidence about.

Those who deduce

  • astronomy is there because bodies starting to orbit each other;
  • biology is there because chemicals starting to combine;
  • mind is there because living brains including neuron exchanges


are making the totally wrong assessment about the real likelihoods of what bodies starting to orbit each other, chemicals starting to combine or brains including neuron exchanges would produce on their own, and are being illogical about what can be certainly deduced from the fact that we have astronomy, biology and mind capable of observing both.

Most likely, bodies starting to orbit each other would not achieve stability, especially not if many are involved, disturbing each others' orbits, see however the discussions about this with a physicist under my post on topic, where however orbits are presumed as already in stable directions and distances:

New blog on the kid* : Newtonianly speaking, Can Earth Still Orbit Sun After 4.5 Billion Years?
http://nov9blogg9.blogspot.com/2017/01/newtonianly-speaking-can-earth-still.html


And most likely chemicals starting to combine would disintegrate, and most likely, or even certainly, if neurons in brain cells were only a matter of physics complicated a bit by chemistry, electricity and biology, mind would not be a resulting operation or quality.

And as they are wrong about their explanations being logically deduced, they are (or could at least) also be wrong about God NOT being deduced from these observations. Carrier, thanks for a neat logics lesson!

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
Sabbath after
II Lord's Day in Lent
18.III.2017

* It is my present main blog. Geocentrism is so unknown, they would hardly seek out a blog for Geocentrism, and in France, YEC is so unknown, French speakers hardly seek out a blog about YEC. Hence, Geocentrism in any language or Young Earth Creationism in French would rather go to my main blog than here, some exceptions.