Creation vs. Evolution: février 2017

lundi 27 février 2017

This Morning I Read it's 77 and 68 Years of Radiocarbon

77 years, on the day, since Carbon 14 was discovered in 1940, and about 68 years since in 1949 the first radiocarbon actual datings were done. These then within Egyptology.

Carbon-14 was discovered on 27 February 1940, by Martin Kamen and Sam Ruben at the University of California Radiation Laboratory in Berkeley, California. Its existence had been suggested by Franz Kurie in 1934.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon-14

Citing:

Kamen, Martin D. (1963). "Early History of Carbon-14: Discovery of this supremely important tracer was expected in the physical sense but not in the chemical sense". Science. 140 (3567): 584–590.

Early History of Carbon-14
Science 10 May 1963:
Vol. 140, Issue 3567, pp. 584-590
DOI: 10.1126/science.140.3567.584
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/140/3567/584

Libby and James Arnold proceeded to test the radiocarbon dating theory by analyzing samples with known ages. For example, two samples taken from the tombs of two Egyptian kings, Zoser and Sneferu, independently dated to 2625 BC plus or minus 75 years, were dated by radiocarbon measurement to an average of 2800 BC plus or minus 250 years. These results were published in Science in 1949.[8][9] Within 11 years of their announcement, more than 20 radiocarbon dating laboratories had been set up worldwide.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiocarbon_dating

Arnold, J.R.; Libby, W.F. (1949). "Age determinations by radiocarbon content: checks with samples of known age". Science. 110 (2869): 678–680.
[dead link? hbar.phys.msu.ru/gorm/fomenko/libby.htm ]

Aitken (1990), pp. 60–61.

"The method". www.c14dating.com. Retrieved 2016-10-09.
http://www.c14dating.com/int.html

If Djoser had been dated by Cambridge halflife to 2800 BC in 1950, the remaining C-14 would have been 56.293 %. A full Cambridge half life is however further back.

However, as usual, this presumes that the C-14 content back then was c. 100% of the present value.

Also, the Libby date is off, so instead of 4750 years, 4892,5 years. 4892 years gives a content of 55.334 %.

Why is this important?

Well, Djoser, as well as Neferkasokar seem to be Joseph's pharao.

Look what I found on Famine Stela (which by the way as physical object is far later):

The Famine Stela is an inscription written in hieroglyphs located on Sehel Island in the Nile near Aswan in Egypt, which speaks of a seven-year period of drought and famine during the reign of the 3rd dynasty king Djoser. It is thought that the stela was inscribed during the Ptolemaic dynasty, which ruled 332–31 BC.

...

The story told on the stela is set in the 18th year of the reign of king Djoser. The text describes how the king is upset and worried, as the land of Egypt has been in the grip of a drought and famine for seven years, during which time the Nile has not flooded the farm lands. The text also describes how the Egyptian people are suffering as a result of the drought and that they are desperate and breaking the laws of the land. Djoser asks the priest staff under the supervision of high lector priest Imhotep for help. The king wants to know where Hapy (a river deity directly identified with the Nile) is born and which god resides at this place.

Imhotep decides to investigate the archives of the temple Hut-Ibety (“House of the nets”), located at Hermopolis and dedicated to the god Thoth.

...

At the time of first translating the stela, it was thought that the story of a seven-year-famine was connected to the biblical story in Genesis 41, where also a famine of seven years occurs. But more recent investigations have showed that a seven-year famine was a myth common to nearly all cultures of the Near East. A Mesopotamian legend also speaks of a seven-year-famine and in the well known Gilgamesh-Epos the god Anu gives a prophecy about a famine for seven years. A further Egyptian tale beside the Famine Stela about a long-lasting drought appears in the so-called “Book of the Temple”, translated by German Demotist Joachim Friedrich Quack. The ancient text reports about king Neferkasokar (late 2nd dynasty), who faces a seven-year-famine during his reign.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Famine_Stela

Neferkasokar (Ancient Egyptian Nefer-Ka-Seker; which means “beautiful soul of Sokar” or “the soul of Sokar is complete”) is the name of an Ancient Egyptian king (pharaoh) who may have ruled in Egypt during the 2nd dynasty. Very little is known about him, since no contemporary records about him have been found. Rather his name has been found in later sources.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neferkasokar

So, we cannot carbon date Neferkasokar differently than Djoser, we can rather assume he is a double of Djoser.

And of course, the seven year famine happened, and while Gilgamesh can't be dated as a person by it, the writing of the Gilgamesh poem could be in the time of Joseph or later.

Thus, assuming the c-14 measure Libby found was 55.334 % of present carbon 14 or 55.334 pmc (percent modern carbon), we can by conferring what date Joseph's famine was determine sth more on radiocarbon.

Abraham was born in 2015 BC, which is later than Djoser dates too, but Djoser ruled later than Abraham, in the time of Joseph.

Note : very many pharaos have not been carbon dated as to their coffin.

Note also, Imhotep may be a Pagan rationalisation of Joseph. Precisely as the Christians in Legio whatever the number Fulminatrix were rationalised into an Egyptian Magician, so as to not disturb the Paganism and persecution of Christians prevailing under Marcus Aurelius.

The location of Imhotep's self-constructed tomb was well hidden from the beginning and it remains unknown, despite efforts to find it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imhotep

So we cannot check "Imhotep" was buried as a Pagan. Was Joseph then by Pagans elevated to a false godhood? Very probable. Unless Joseph was Imhotep's apparently companion Hordadaf.

Djedefhor or Hordjedef was an ancient Egyptian prince of the 4th dynasty. His name means "Enduring Like Horus". ... Djedefhor was a son of Pharaoh Khufu and half-brother of pharaohs Djedefre and Khafre.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Djedefhor

Or perhaps not. Djedefhor or Hordjedef was perhaps later, and Hordjedef could have been named in a fashion of names in -ef coming after Joseph.

Or Djedef (as such, without the Horus reference) could even be how Egyptians pronounced Joseph.

Haydock comment, using Ussher's chronology, has in Genesis 41 : 1: Year of the World 2289, Year before Christ 1715. 54: Year of the World 2296, Year before Christ 1708.

This shall be compared to Vocation of Abraham, Genesis 12:10: Year of the World 2084, Year before Christ 1920. (So, Ussher is 20 years off for birth of Abraham).

1995
1708
0287

2015
0287
1728

This means that carbon dated 2800 BC = 1728 or rather less, later, BC.

We can get a little closer even. Supposing Djoser was still ruling when Jacob blessed his sons in Genesis 49, this was in 32: Year of the World 2315, Year before Christ 1689.

1995
1689
0306

2015
0306
1709

Carbon dated 2800 = 1709.

2800 C-14 year
1709 real year
1091 excess age due to lower carbon content.

The carbon content in Joseph's time when Jacob died was therefore about 87.636 pmc.

So, the content noted in a previous post, of 90.86 pmc was too high.

Let's redo the table a bit.

Mid pt. 1928 BC: 83.689 % + 1472 years, 3400 BC
XIII 1883 BC: 84.882 %
XIV 1794 BC: 89.378 %
XV 1704 BC: ~~90.86 %, + 790 years, 2494 BC~~; 87.636 %, + 1091 years, 2800 BC
XVI 1614 BC: 93.634 %
XVII 1525 BC: 94.553 %
XVIII 1436 BC: 96.269 %
XIX 1346 BC: 96.839 %
XX 1256 BC: 97.895 %
XXI 1167 BC: 98.245 %
XXII 1078 BC: 98.905 %
XXIII 988 BC: 99.125 %
XXIV 898 BC: 99.52 %
XXV 809 BC: 99.652 %
XXVI 720 BC: 99.872 %
XXVII 630 BC: 100.004 %, 0 years ±. 630 BC
Mid pt. 1928 BC: 83.689 % + 1472 years, 3400 BC
XIII 1883 BC: 84.882 %
XIV 1794 BC: 89.378 %
XV 1704 BC: ~~90.86 %, + 790 years, 2494 BC~~; 87.636 %, + 1091 years, 2800 BC

90.86-83.689 = 7.171 %
87.636-83.689 = 3.947 %

XIII 84.882-83.689 = 1.193
1.193 / 7.171 = 0.1663645237763213
0.1663645237763213*3.947 = 0.6566407753451401711
0.6566407753451401711+83.689=84.3456407753451401711
84.35 %, + 1400 years, 3283 BC

XIV 89.378-83.689 = 5.689 %
5.689 / 7.171 = 0.7933342630037652
0.7933342630037652*3.947 = 3.1312903360758612444
3.1312903360758612444+83.689= 86.8202903360758612444
86.82 %, + 1150 years, 2944 BC

Mid pt. 1928 BC: 83.689 % + 1472 years, 3400 BC
XIII 1883 BC: 84.35 %, + 1400 years, 3283 BC
XIV 1794 BC: 86.82 %, + 1150 years, 2944 BC
XV 1704 BC: 87.636 %, + 1091 years, 2800 BC

What about what comes after?

XV 1704 BC: 100-90.86 % = 9.14 %; 100-87.636 % = 12.364 %; 12.364 / 9.14 = 1.3527352297592998
XVI 1614 BC: 100-93.634 % = 6.366 %; 6.366*1.3527352297592998 = 8.612; 100-8.612 = 91.388 %, + 740 years, 2354 BC
XVII 1525 BC: 100-94.553 % = 5.447 %; 1.3527352297592998*5.447 = 7.3683487964989060106; 100-7.368 = 92.632 %, + 630 years, 2155 BC
XVIII 1436 BC: 100-96.269 % = 3.731 %; 1.3527352297592998*3.731 = 5.0470551422319475538; 100-5.047 = 94.953 %, + 430 years, 1866 BC
XIX 1346 BC: 100-96.839 % = 3.161 %; 1.3527352297592998*3.161 = 4.275996 ... %; 100-4.276 = 95.724 %, + 360 years, 1706 BC
XX 1256 BC: 100-97.895 % = 2.105 %; 1.3527352297592998*2.105 = 2.847507658643326079; 100-2.848 = 97.152 %, + 240 years, 1496 BC
XXI 1167 BC: 100-98.245 % = 1.755 %; 1.3527352297592998*1.755 = 2.374050328227571149; 100-2.374 = 97.626 %, + 200 years, 1367 BC
XXII 1078 BC: 100-98.905 % = 1.095 %; 1.3527352297592998*1.095 = 1.481245076586433281; 100-1.481 = 98.519 %, + 120 years, 1198 BC
XXIII 988 BC: 100-99.125 % = 0.875 %; 1.3527352297592998*0.875 = 1.183643326039387325; 100-1.184 = 98.816 %, + 100 years, 1088 BC
XXIV 898 BC: 100-99.52 % = 0.48 %; 1.3527352297592998*0.48 = 0.649312910284463904; 100-0.649 = 99.351 %, + 50 years, 948 BC
XXV 809 BC: 100-99.652 % = 0.348 %; 1.3527352297592998*0.348 = 0.4707518599562363304; 100-0.471 = 99.529 %, + 40 years, 849 BC
XXVI 720 BC: 100-99.872 % = 0.128 %; 1.3527352297592998*0.128 = 0.1731501094091903744; 100-0.173 = 99.827 %, + 10 years, 730
XXVII 630 BC: 100-100.004 % = "-0.004 %"; 1.3527352297592998*-0.004 = -0.0054109409190371992; 100-(-0.005) = 100.005 %, 0 years ±. 630 BC

And cleaning up:

Mid pt. 1928 BC: 83.689 % + 1472 years, 3400 BC
XIII 1883 BC: 84.35 %, + 1400 years, 3283 BC
XIV 1794 BC: 86.82 %, + 1150 years, 2944 BC
XV 1704 BC: 87.636 %, + 1091 years, 2800 BC
XVI 1614 BC: 91.388 %, + 740 years, 2354 BC
XVII 1525 BC: 92.632 %, + 630 years, 2155 BC
XVIII 1436 BC: 94.953 %, + 430 years, 1866 BC
XIX 1346 BC: 95.724 %, + 360 years, 1706 BC
XX 1256 BC: 97.152 %, + 240 years, 1496 BC
XXI 1167 BC: 97.626 %, + 200 years, 1367 BC
XXII 1078 BC: 98.519 %, + 120 years, 1198 BC
XXIII 988 BC: 98.816 %, + 100 years, 1088 BC
XXIV 898 BC: 99.351 %, + 50 years, 948 BC
XXV 809 BC: 99.529 %, + 40 years, 849 BC
XXVI 720 BC: 99.827 %, + 10 years, 730
XXVII 630 BC: 100.005 %, 0 years ±. 630 BC

That would perhaps do for today.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
St Gabriel of Our Lady of Sorrows
27.II.2017

PS, forgot som credits due to myself and others.

For table :

Creation vs. Evolution : If Göbekli Tepe is Tower of Babel ...
http://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2017/02/if-gobekli-tepe-is-tower-of-babel.html
For idea about Legio Fulminatrix :

somewhere else : History vs Hume
http://notontimsblogroundhere.blogspot.com/2013/01/history-vs-hume.html
AND for calculations, both mathematical and carbonic:

http://web2.0calc.com/

https://www.math.upenn.edu/~deturck/m170/c14/carbdate.html
~~Short link : http://ppt.li/3m8~~

PPS, 19.XI.2018 I discovered that Habermehl had suggested Joseph as Imhotep one month before I wrote this. Belated credits. Also, the ppt.li shortlinks are down, new shortlink to carbon calculator is tiny.cc/usk8wy/HGL

PPPS - it's while editing this post that I discovered my oversight. With Habermehl 2017, II

samedi 25 février 2017

I have been Sometimes Suspected of Seeing the Universe as a Simulation

CMI today* was referring to a conference about this idea.

Interestingly, several panellists pointed out that the designer of such a simulation, being outside and above the simulation, parallels the idea of God. As secularists, though, most panellists preferred to think of some ‘teenage hacker’ having fun on his ‘computer’.

OK, they picture God as an otaku, creating us because He needs company.

How about three guys discussing what they could create, deciding that though they can all recognise each other as different persons while sharing one being without any kind of body, bodies would nevertheless be a good idea for any** guys (and gals) they chose to "simulate"?

The "having fun" part is not necessarily wrong.

The "computer part" is.

A bit more seriously, a Platonist, and Christians like St Jerome and John Ronald Reuel Tolkien in Aiunulindale, could say that the primary world with any created persons in it was a spiritual one, and the material one was a simulation of the spiritual one, of realities in it.

And God gave that simulation reality.

However, the reasons for which some people consider me as "seeing the universe as a simulation" are a bit different.

I believe angels are moving stars and planets and other celestial bodies (more down to earth : angels and demons are moving winds and waves). This has ticked off some people, more familiar with Newtono-Einsteinian theories of astrophysics as constituting an accusation against God and angels of simulating what they see when it doesn't exist.

I don't think the star light is simulated. I don't think 13.5 billion light years is what they actually see, it is what they conclude. I think their powers of conclusion have been stuck in a rut by the routine of always explaining everything as vectors and as mathematics.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
Holy Egyptian Martyrs
Victorine, Victor, Nicephore
and Companions***
25.II.2017

Update : Shaun Doyle claims that cognitive diseases like - he listed Alzheimer and schizophrenia - involve sense and memory being fooled. In fact, most cases diagnosed as schizophrenia do not have this cognitive disorder in any marked way, and the symptom most readily pretending to such is "auditive hallucinations" which are readily reported just because lonely people speak out to absent people. And you wouldn't believe how easy it is to get stamped as having a linguistic distortion, which is also among the symptoms./HGL

* CMI : Is the universe a simulation?
by Shaun Doyle on a feedback
http://creation.com/is-the-universe-a-simulator

** Supposing angels have some kind of bodies, like aethereal ones. Some Church Fathers taught this. If they are really incorporeal, they have other ways of showing each other that the thoughts of one are not identic in substance, though in content, at times, to those of another.

*** In Aegypto natalis sanctorum Martyrum Victorini, Victoris, Nicephori, Claudiani, Dioscori, Serapionis et Papiae, sub Numeriano Imperatore. Horum duo primi, pro confessione fidei, exquisita suppliciorum genera constanter passi, capite plectuntur; Nicephorus, post craticulas candentes ignesque superatos, minutatim concisus est; Claudianus et Dioscorus flammis incensi; Serapion vero et Papias gladio caesi sunt.

vendredi 24 février 2017

Can a Medical Doctor or a Catholic Religious or Cleric Reconcile Creationism with "Science"?

Q: Many Catholic priests and religious are also medical doctors or scientists. How would they reconcile creationism with evolution?
https://www.quora.com/Many-Catholic-priests-and-religious-are-also-medical-doctors-or-scientists-How-would-they-reconcile-creationism-with-evolution/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl
My own answer: YEC demands that heaven and earth were created in either six calendar days or one moment (most Church Fathers say six calendar days, St Augustine prefers considering it one single moment).

YEC also demands that this happened sth like 5508 or 5199 or 4004 years (normal solar years being the medium length of Hebrew years) before Christ was born.

YEC also demands that between Creation and Christ there came a Flood. 3266, 2957 or 2468 years before the Birth of Christ.

YEC does NOT demand that salmonella and escherichia coli were created as separate species or kinds, or that salmonella cannot have developed from a virulent strand of escherichia, which seems to have at least some kind of normal function in intestines too (though I think lactobacillus is preferable).

In the experiment with escherichia, it took only a few decades for some of the strands to develop a trait characteristic also of salmonella, namely digesting citric acid.

I don’t see why a medical doctor would have a problem with YEC.
Other answers https://www.quora.com/Many-Catholic-priests-and-religious-are-also-medical-doctors-or-scientists-How-would-they-reconcile-creationism-with-evolution
Greg Moore,: Was a practicing Catholic, but the Church wasn't.
Written Wed: Since the official Catholic Church doctrine is evolution (though with some involvement from God) and definitely NOT creationism, they don’t have anything to reconcile.

Basically the Catholic view is God’s universe is large enough to include evolution.
Hans-Georg Lundahl: You are contradicting the Council of Trent and the Church Fathers.
Christopher Delich: Catholic with interest in other religions & double major in philosophy
Updated Thu
Upvoted by Jo Vesegas: Catholics are not creationists in the sense of Biblical fundamentalists. The official doctrine, as it was taught to me, in interpretation of the Bible is called the Historical Critical Method. This, among other things, means that the Bible should be interpreted as God’s revelation. The words written in the Bible have to be meaningful to both an audience from thousands of years ago and a modern audience. So, not everything written there is meant to convey a scientific fact, in fact most things are not. Truth and facts are not precisely the same thing, and an audience from thousands of years ago would not have understood scientific facts the way that a modern audience would. Therefore Genesis is not necessarily meant to convey that the Earth was created in 7 days as humans understand days. The text is trying to convey a deeper truth without conveying scientific fact, because scientific fact is not its purpose. Once again the purpose is conveying God’s message or revelation.

So yes, we believe God created the Earth and human beings, but we do not believe the Earth is 6,000 years old, like many fundamentalists. So God absolutely could have created the world through the mechanism of nature. This does not eliminate the Big Bang or Natural Selection.

Therefore Catholic universities teach science to include the Big Bang and Natural Selection. In fact Catholic universities create scientists and physicians as well as philosophers and theologians. Point of fact I have degrees from a Catholic university run by an order of priests known as the Society of Jesus in both science and philosophy.

To put a finer point on it, we believe the Bible is revelation (God’s message to humanity), but it is not a science textbook or a comprehensive historical document. The Gospels even tell us this. In the Gospels it tells us that they are not biographies of Jesus Christ, they are written so that people who were not there when Christ was on the Earth can come to believe. Lots of things happened to Jesus that are not recorded in the Gospels.

Likewise, there are many things that happened in the creation of the universe that are not recorded in Genesis. The purpose of the book is to provide God’s message as can be understood by generations of people, not to explain the physics involved to humanity in a way that could be understood by everyone over a span of thousands of years. One has to assume that God could have explained the mechanisms of nature, since it is his creation, but in lieu of doing that he gave us an intellect so we could explore creation on our own. This includes everything from crop rotation to the Big Bang.
Hans-Georg Lundahl: “Catholics are not creationists in the sense of Biblical fundamentalists.”

If by Fundamentalist you mean Biblical Inerrantist, that is false. And since you qualified it by “Biblical fundamentalist”, you probably meant exactly that.

“The official doctrine, as it was taught to me, in interpretation of the Bible is called the Historical Critical Method.”

The official doctrine as taught by the Council of Trent is to agree with all Church Fathers when they agree between them.

You are free to choose between six calendar days (most Church Fathers) or one single moment of creation (St Augustine and non-Father Origen).

You are NOT free to insert either a gap or a day-age system which would make prehuman history longer than or comparatively as long as human history since Adam.

Specifically St Augustine and Origen, the two most noted exceptions to Six Calendar Day Creationism (which is anyway a safe doctrine, and actually mentioned as being so by St Augustine), both also went out of their way to say that Young Earth Creationism is absolute truth. Both lampooned such Pagan systems (notably Egyptian and Babylonian) which gave dates ranging in the ten thousands or hundred thousands.

The Historic Critical Method may or may not be approved as licit, but it is certainly not approved as THE main key to Biblical Exegesis. An Encyclical by Pius XII, even supposing there were no doubts about his papacy, cannot overturn a canon by Trent.

All what Biblical Exegesis has as a fixed framework from Fathers remains as barriers beyond which no Historical Critic should dare venture, on pain of sinning against and indeed losing the saving faith and sanctifying grace with it.

“This, among other things, means that the Bible should be interpreted as God’s revelation.”

This is not an exact rendering of what Historical Critical Method actually means.

It is also not at variance with what the Catholic Church infallibly teaches. Unless, of course, you mean:

This, among other things, means that the Bible should be interpreted as God’s revelation. = interpreted in order for it to be God’s revelation, not God’s revelation by a straight reading.

Most texts are God’s revelation by a straight and SIMPLE reading.

While that is also, technically speaking, an “interpretation”, it is one which does not specify any acts of interpreting beyond interpreting letters as meaning such and such words and words as meaning such and such propositions, in their usual meaning. In ordinary speech that is not referred to as interpretation.

While it is de fide that not all texts are “self interpreting”, some are, and this is especially clear for the historic texts, most sentences.

“The words written in the Bible have to be meaningful to both an audience from thousands of years ago and a modern audience.”

As far as the literal meaning of your words goes, this is strictly speaking true.

The words written in Genesis 1–11 are both meaningful to YEC in Modern (that is contemporary) audiences and in audiences listening to High Priest Aaron reciting this once every seven years, after his brother Moses had written it down.

They are also meaningful to unbelievers back then, like Canaaneans, and to unbelievers now, like Dawkins.

The one people to whom they are NOT meaningful as back then is the modern reinterpreter, who is changing the meaning both of single words and of narrative structure to shoehorn Genesis 1–11 into what he believes is Modern and Correct Science.

“So, not everything written there is meant to convey a scientific fact, in fact most things are not.”

Most facts are not scientific, but historic. That Caesar crossed Rubicon is a historic fact, not a scientific one.

Scientific facts explain how the world is going on, from Creation to Doomsday.

Historic facts explain how non-eternal facts came into being.

Creation is a historic fact, not a scientific one.

Flood of Noah is a historic fact, not a scientific one.

None of these contradict scientific facts, like “water boils at 100° C in the airpressure of 1 at, but at 90° C very high in the Andees”.

“Truth and facts are not precisely the same thing, and an audience from thousands of years ago would not have understood scientific facts the way that a modern audience would.”

I think they would have understood the difference between science and history better than you do, Sir.

“Therefore Genesis is not necessarily meant to convey that the Earth was created in 7 days as humans understand days.”

Since most of these are before man was created, we have no human witness to six calendar days as opposed to one moment.

Christ, of course, is Human as well as Divine, but the comment in Mark 10:6 does not preclude a one moment creation, as envisaged by St Augustine. It definitely precludes a day-age scenario, as you seem to be thinking of.

“The text is trying to convey a deeper truth without conveying scientific fact, because scientific fact is not its purpose. Once again the purpose is conveying God’s message or revelation.”

God’s revelation to either Adam or Moses or both about what He did before creating Adam is about historic facts.

“So yes, we believe God created the Earth and human beings, but we do not believe the Earth is 6,000 years old, like many fundamentalists.”

In a very literal sense, your words are right again.

7216 years, or perhaps 7525 years is more like it than 6000. On the other hand, Vulgate gets a date so similar to 6000 that Douay Rheims commenting Haydock comment actually uses Ussher’s timeline.

“So God absolutely could have created the world through the mechanism of nature. This does not eliminate the Big Bang or Natural Selection.”

That is supposing Big Bang or Natural Selection were remotely anything like creative acts, or Big Bang remotely anything like a verified one. It contradicts the historic facts of Genesis 1, as to what happened before creation of Adam.

Also, you are actually speaking gibberish.

God could have created the world by the mechanism of the world before it was created? God could have created nature by the mechanism of nature before it was created? God could have created Adam by two parents before there were any human parents?

Please, do learn some logic before next time you speak!

Why don’t they teach logic in these schools? What do they teach them in these schools?

“Therefore Catholic universities teach science to include the Big Bang and Natural Selection. In fact Catholic universities create scientists and physicians as well as philosophers and theologians. Point of fact I have degrees from a Catholic university run by an order of priests known as the Society of Jesus in both science and philosophy.”

To put a very fine point on it, that Catholic University has made its credentials as Catholic University void, and any Bishop or Pope or Cardinal offering it to keep these credentials up has made his credentials as a Catholic and as one holding office in the Catholic Church void.

You cannot be head of anything you are not member of. My head (fortunately) cannot be head of your body. A non-Catholic cannot be bishop of the canonic see of Seattle, because he cannot be member of a canonic see of Seattle. A non-Catholic cannot be bishop of the canonic see of Rome, because he cannot even be a member of the canonic see of Rome.

So you, your university teachers, the bishop which upholds their credentials as Catholic University, the “Popes” who has or have upheld his credentials as a bishop, that is so many non-Catholics.

Natural selection can eliminate variants, not create them.
Update,
my answer expanded in new comment: To your last point, of two paragraphs.

That the Gospels were written so we could believe is perfectly true.

This does NOT mean they are not biographies of Christ in the then traditional sense, unless you mean they are very expanded compared to biographies such as given in Plutarch.

Nowhere in the Gospels is it stated in so many words they are not biographies.

Nowhere in any dictionary or lexicon is biography defined as meaning to record every event in someone’s life.

No biography of a man who picks his nose (which is the case with me, unfortunately) will include every instance he picked his nose, except perhaps the biographies which will be known on Doomsday, if even that. Not every act of nosepicking is either relevant for my merits or demerits or for those of any human person watching me.

But even more relevant things, which will with much greater probability be known on Doomsday, like, did or did not JRRT read any manual of Bantu phonology and diachronic language history before inventing Quenya, which will probably be known when God judges on a quarrel between me and some others, is recorded in a normal biography. If the clear yes or no to this question had been recorded in Humphrey Carpenter’s biography, there would have been no quarrel. (Note : both sides agreed Tolkien had acquired no functional fluency in any Bantu language, that was not the issue for me, even if it might have been a red herring or strawman on the other side).

This means, the words in John 20:31 are most certainly NOT denying the Gospels the status of biography or history.

And while Genesis 1–11 were also written so that we may believe, this does most certainly NOT deny these chapters the status of history and in some sense very brief biographies too.

That also goes for Genesis 1.

“Likewise, there are many things that happened in the creation of the universe that are not recorded in Genesis.”

God created Aldebaran on day IV (or in the one moment), God created Sirius on day IV, God created Pluto on day IV … not separately recorded.

God confided Aldebaran, Sirius, Pluto to angels … not clearly recorded at all.

But nevertheless, we think it happened on day IV that he did so.

It seems implied by some other text passages. Mere lumps of burning gas or rock outside earth are not very apt to from their orbits fight Sisera and his men. One mere lump of burning gas is not very apt to be compared to a hero.

Hence, yes, angelic movers for celestial objects can be inferred even if not recorded in Genesis 1.

One hint as to why not so recorded could be found on why (supposing planets came in celestial spheres of crystal) the spheres of crystal were not recorded. The spheres of crystal are not visible from Earth, supposing they exist. Angels are also, even if on earth, not visible to human eyes. Hence the confiding of each celestial body to an angel - but not thereby exhausting the number of angels, see the 77th condemned proposition in the syllabus of Tempier - is not recorded in Genesis 1, since not visible.

Here is my own transscript of the relevant condemnations, note that it is also 12 proposition in chapter VII of a later reorganised version of the syllabus of Tempier:

[stephani tempier condempnationes] Capitulum VII
Errores de intelligentia uel angelo
http://enfrancaissurantimodernism.blogspot.com/2012/01/capitulum-vii.html

lundi 13 février 2017

If Göbekli Tepe is Tower of Babel ...

1) Φιλολoγικά/Philologica : Osgood and the Dating of Abraham? And I am Wrong on Fibonacci Table · 2) Creation vs. Evolution : Recalibrating the Fibonacci Table, acc. to Abraham in Chalcolithic En Gedi · 3) If Göbekli Tepe is Tower of Babel ...

Since first of all, GT is dated between 11,328 BC and 8138 BC, we'll make a new midpoint between the corresponding real years.

I, Flood, 2957 BC: 3.461 % = + 27,800 years, 30,757 BC
II 2868 BC: 25.175 % = + 11,400 years, 14,268 BC
III 2778 BC: 35.648 % = + 8550 years, 11,328 BC
Mid pt.2733 BC: 43.7465 % + 6850 years, 9583 BC
IV 2688 BC: 51.849 % = + 5450 years, 8138 BC
V 2599 BC: 55.595 % = + 4850 years, 7449 BC
VI 2510 BC: 64.896 % = + 3550 years, 6060 BC
VII 2420 BC: 67.924 % = + 3200 years, 5620 BC
VIII 2330 BC: 74.14 % = + 2450 years, 4780 BC
IX 2241 BC: 76.429 % = + 2200 years, 4441 BC
X 2152 BC: 80.224 % = + 1800 years, 3952 BC
XI 2062 BC: 81.138 % = + 1750 years, 3812 BC
XII 1972 BC: 83.33 % = + 1500 years, 3472 BC
Mid pt. 1928 BC: 83.689 % + 1472 years, 3400 BC
XIII 1883 BC: 84.882 %, + 1350 years, 3233 BC
XIV 1794 BC: 89.378 %, + 930 years, 2724 BC
XV 1704 BC: 90.86 %, + 790 years, 2494 BC
XVI 1614 BC: 93.634 %, + 540 years, 2154 BC
XVII 1525 BC: 94.553 %, + 460 years, 1985 BC
XVIII 1436 BC: 96.269 %, + 310 years, 1746 BC
XIX 1346 BC: 96.839 %, + 270 years, 1616 BC
XX 1256 BC: 97.895 %, + 180 years, 1436 BC
XXI 1167 BC: 98.245 %, + 150 years, 1317 BC
XXII 1078 BC: 98.905 %, + 90 years, 1168 BC
XXIII 988 BC: 99.125 %, + 70 years, 1058 BC
XXIV 898 BC: 99.52 %, + 40 years, 938 BC
XXV 809 BC: 99.652 %, + 30 years, 839 BC
XXVI 720 BC: 99.872 %, + 10 years, 730 BC
XXVII 630 BC: 100.004 %, 0 ans ±. 630 BC

Calculating above new midpoint:

2778 35.648
2688 51.849
5466 87.497
2733 43.7465 % + 6850 years, 6850+2733=9583 BC
2733+2017=4750 years, after which we have 56.293 % left.
56.293 % * 43.7465 % = 24.626217245 %, dated to 11600 years ago, or 9583 BC.

Is 2733 BC a good Biblical date for Tower of Babel?

Jews have this:
http://www.thenagain.info/WebChron/Judaism/Judaism.html

2161 BC Flood, 1765 BC Dispersion after Babel.

2161
1765
0396 Babel 396 after Flood.

Old Earth has this:
http://www.oldearth.org/biblicaldating.htm

Eber is 34 when Pelag is born, 101
Pelag is 30 when Reu is born, 131
Pelag lived to be 209, 310

"Using this chart, the Flood must have happened a minimum of 101 years prior to the Tower of Babel. If the split at the Tower was caused by God near the time of Pelag’s birth, this would lend support to his father, Eber, naming him after this event. However, we can’t be certain of this. The only thing we know with any degree of certainty is that it happened during Peleg’s lifetime. Therefore, it could have happened as much as 310 years after the flood. Thus we have a range for the Flood of 101 to 310 years prior to the Tower of Babel. It is interesting to note that since Noah lived 350 years after the flood, he was alive when the Tower of Babel occurred."

Their next sentence is of course totally off:

"Adding this to our minimum age of 30,000 to 45,000 years, and we come up with a range of 30,101 to 45,310 years ago for Noah's Flood."

There is no such minimum age after the Babel event, the "mutation clock" or "DNA clock" is off.

But they say Dispersion occurred while Peleg was alive. On Masoretic and KJV (also I think Vulgate and Douay Rheims) that is 101-310 after Flood.

A LXX version, but not the text of St Jerome, has:
http://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2015/11/longevity-charts-as-per-lxx.html

Peleg 529 - 868
2957
2733
0224

2957 2957 2957 2957 2957
0101 0310 0396 0529 0868
2856 2667 2561 2428 2089

Medium 2520 BC.

Here a page gives 2197 BC for ToB, but:
http://timeline.biblehistory.com/event/tower-of-babel-division-of-earth

same site
http://timeline.biblehistory.com/period/noah-and-the-flood

says Noah was born 2898 BC. This places Flood in 2298 BC, and 2197 BC as 101 after Flood - already covered, the theory Peleg was born 101 after Flood (anti-LXX), and named after an occurring event about Babel, rather than for instance about Noah's righteous and human division of men.

It is also possible that Peleg's division of the Earth was earlier than Tower of Babel:
https://biblescienceguy.wordpress.com/2013/04/03/4-tower-of-babel-when/

"Archbisop Ussher (1581–1656) proposed that Peleg’s Division was Noah’s division of the earth among his grandchildren in an effort to disperse them as God had commanded. However, they all subsequently moved to Shinar, where they resisted dispersion by building the city and tower of Babel. This is a plausible understanding of Peleg’s Division, but less likely in my opinion. Noah’s presumed attempt to divide the land among his descendants does not seem a significant enough event to warrant naming a child to commemorate it. Why would Eber want to name a son to commemorate a dispersal command that he resisted?"

Well, for one, Eber probably was not resisting it, Hebrews were avoiding to paticipate in Tower of Babel, that is why they kept their language. He can have named his son as a reminder to the rest they were doing wrong.

So, Peleg may even be before Tower of Babel.

This is especially encouraging for those who would not identify Tower of Babel with Göbekli Tepe.

All of this should be discouraging to those who on the one hand think most dated dinosaur fossils, and carbon and diamonds, are from Flood, but on the other hand think that Tower of Babel was in Peleg's day and also think it's sth as recent as the Ziggurat of Ur, as per Woolley's identification.

While Ussher says Peleg was named for other thing than the division at Babel, however that is placed not far after the birth of Peleg :

Here:
http://nwcreation.net/towerofbabel.html

The approximate date of its building Tammuz 1762 AM) is given by James Ussher, who in The Annals of the World cites Manetho's Book of Sothis, as translated by Georgius Syncellus, as stating that the Babel incident took place five years following the birth year of Peleg.
I found Syncellus.
https://ia801406.us.archive.org/1/items/chronographia01syncgoog/chronographia01syncgoog.pdf
[ for other formats : https://archive.org/details/chronographia01syncgoog ]

In his brevior computus (a German translated his Greek into Latin, good for me, in 1829, Bonn, I think) has Tower of Babel (Opificium Turris Babylon) at Anno Mundi 2736, after Arphaxad died in Anno Mundi 2733. But the confusion 40 years later. 2776.

2423 BC if we take 5199-2776. But 5508-2776=2732.

So, since Syncellus is giving the 5508 date of Birth of Christ, I think, this leaves us asking whether the discrepancy is before or after ToB. If after, Dispersion of Tongues was 2423 BC. If however before, between Flood and ToB, the BC dates are the same whether we use the 5508 or the 5199 chronology.

And so, ToB would either chronology be 2732 = my mid point 2733, which is in part of building of Göbekli Tepe.

The problem is, GT would be abandoned quickly after the Dispersion. So, 2733 BC should be the 8600 BC date. Not 9600 BC.

I, Flood, 2957 BC: 3.461 % = + 27,800 years, 30,757 BC
II 2868 BC: 25.175 % = + 11,400 years, 14,268 BC
III 2778 BC: 35.648 % = + 8550 years, 11,328 BC
Mid pt.2733 BC: 43.7465 % + 6850 years, 9583 BC
Corrected 2733 BC: 49.279 % + 5850 years, 8583 BC

Which gives us:
49.279 % / 43.7465 % = 1.1264672602379619

I, Flood, 2957 BC: 3.461 % => 1.1264672602379619*3.461 % = 3.8987 %; 3.8987 %, + 26 800 years, 29 757 BC
II 2868 BC: 25.175 % => 1.1264672602379619*25.175 % = 28.3588 %; 28.3588 %, + 10 400 years, 13 268 BC
III 2778 BC: 35.648 % => 1.1264672602379619*35.648 % = 40.1563 %; 40.1563 %, + 7550 years, 10 328 BC
Mid pt.2733 BC: 49.279 % + 5850 years, 8583 BC
Now, here is another recalculation: 100-49.279 = 50.721 %; 100-43.7465 = 56.2535 %

50.721 % / 56.2535 % = 0.9016505639649089

BUT this cannot be applied all the way to Mid pt. 1928 BC.
There, the ratio must be 1:: 100-83.689= 16.311 %; 100-83.689= 16.311 %; 16.311/16.311=1

This is 18 steps (subdividing now) ahead of Mid pt.2733 BC.

1-0.9016505639649089=0.0983494360350911
0.0983494360350911/18=0.0054638575575050611

This ranges the diverse portions from 1) 1-0.0928855784775860387 to 17) 1-0.0054638575575050611.

1 0.9071144215224139613
2 0.9125782790799190224
3 0.9180421366374240835
4 0.9235059941949291446
5 0.9289698517524342057
6 0.9344337093099392668
7 0.9398975668674443279
8 0.945361424424949389
9 0.9508252819824544501
10 0.9562891395399595112
11 0.9617529970974645723
12 0.9672168546549696334
13 0.9726807122124746945
14 0.9781445697699797556
15 0.9836084273274848167
16 0.9890722848849898778
17 0.9945361424424949389

Mid pt.2733 BC: 49.279 % + 5850 years, 8583 BC
1) IV 2688 BC: 100-51.849 % => 43.6785 %; 100-43.6785 % = 56.3215 %, + 4750 years, 7438 BC
2) IV-V 2644 BC: 100-53.722 % => 42.2323 %; 100-42.2323 % = 57.7677 %, + 4550 years, 7194 BC
3) V 2599 BC: 100-55.595 % => 40.7657 %; 100-40.7657 % = 59.2343 %, + 4350 years, 6949 BC
4) V-VI 2554 BC: 100-60.2455 % => 36.7135 %; 100-36.7135 % = 63.2865 %, + 3800 years, 6354 BC
5) VI 2510 BC: 100-64.896 % => 32.6106 %; 100-32.61056 % = 67.3894 %, + 3250 years, 5760 BC
6) VI-VII 2465 BC: 100-66.41 % => 31.3876 %; 100-31.3876 % = 68.6124 %, + 3100 years, 5565 BC
7) VII 2420 BC: 100-67.924 % => 30.1482 %; 100-30.1482 % = 69.8518 %, + 2950 years, 5370 BC
8) VII-VIII 2375 BC: 100-71.032 % => 27.3852 %; 100-27.3852 % = 72.6148 %, + 2650 years, 5025 BC
9) VIII 2330 BC: 100-74.14 % => 24.5883 %; 100-24.5883 % = 75.4116 %, + 2350 years, 4680 BC
10) VIII-IX 2286 BC: 100-75.2845 % => 23.6352 %; 100-23.6352 % = 76.3648 %, + 2250 years, 4536 BC
11) IX 2241 BC: 100-76.429 % => 22.6695 %; 100-22.6695 % = 77.3305 %, + 2150 years, 4391 BC
12) IX-X 2196 BC: 100-78.3265 % => 20.963 %; 100-20.963 % = 79.037 %, + 1950 years, 4146 BC
13) X 2152 BC: 100-80.224 % => 19.2357 %; 100-19.2357 % = 80.7643 %, + 1750 years, 3902 BC
14) X-XI 2107 BC: 100-80.681 % => 18.8968 %; 100-18.8968 % = 81.1032 %, + 1750 years, 3857 BC
15) XI 2062 BC: 100-81.138 % => 18.5528 %; 100-18.5528 % = 81.4472 %, + 1700 years, 3762 BC
16) XI-XII 2017 BC: 100-82.234 % => 17.5719 %; 100-17.5719 % = 82.4281 %, + 1600 years, 3617 BC
17) XII 1972 BC: 100-83.33 % => 16.5789 %; 100-16.5789 % = 83.4211 %, + 1500 years, 3472 BC
18) Mid pt. 1928 BC: 83.689 % + 1472 years, 3400 BC

Let's clean up a bit, we will also combine the parts we changed and the one we didn't change:

I, Flood, 2957 BC: 3.8987 %, + 26 800 years, 29 757 BC
II 2868 BC: 28.3588 %, + 10 400 years, 13 268 BC
III 2778 BC: 40.1563 %, + 7550 years, 10 328 BC
Mid pt.2733 BC: 49.279 % + 5850 years, 8583 BC
IV 2688 BC: 56.3215 %, + 4750 years, 7438 BC
IV b 2644 BC: 57.7677 %, + 4550 years, 7194 BC
V 2599 BC: 100-40.7657 % = 59.2343 %, + 4350 years, 6949 BC
V b 2554 BC: 63.2865 %, + 3800 years, 6354 BC
VI 2510 BC: 100-64.896 % => 32.6106 %; 100-32.61056 % = 67.3894 %, + 3250 years, 5760 BC
VI b 2465 BC: 68.6124 %, + 3100 years, 5565 BC
VII 2420 BC: 69.8518 %, + 2950 years, 5370 BC
VII b 2375 BC: 72.6148 %, + 2650 years, 5025 BC
VIII 2330 BC: 75.4116 %, + 2350 years, 4680 BC
VIII b 2286 BC: 76.3648 %, + 2250 years, 4536 BC
IX 2241 BC: 77.3305 %, + 2150 years, 4391 BC
IX b 2196 BC: 79.037 %, + 1950 years, 4146 BC
X 2152 BC: 80.7643 %, + 1750 years, 3902 BC
X b 2107 BC: 81.1032 %, + 1750 years, 3857 BC
XI 2062 BC: 81.4472 %, + 1700 years, 3762 BC
XI b 2017 BC: 82.4281 %, + 1600 years, 3617 BC
XII 1972 BC: 83.4211 %, + 1500 years, 3472 BC
Mid pt. 1928 BC: 83.689 % + 1472 years, 3400 BC
XIII 1883 BC: 84.882 %, + 1350 years, 3233 BC
XIV 1794 BC: 89.378 %, + 930 years, 2724 BC
XV 1704 BC: 90.86 %, + 790 years, 2494 BC
XVI 1614 BC: 93.634 %, + 540 years, 2154 BC
XVII 1525 BC: 94.553 %, + 460 years, 1985 BC
XVIII 1436 BC: 96.269 %, + 310 years, 1746 BC
XIX 1346 BC: 96.839 %, + 270 years, 1616 BC
XX 1256 BC: 97.895 %, + 180 years, 1436 BC
XXI 1167 BC: 98.245 %, + 150 years, 1317 BC
XXII 1078 BC: 98.905 %, + 90 years, 1168 BC
XXIII 988 BC: 99.125 %, + 70 years, 1058 BC
XXIV 898 BC: 99.52 %, + 40 years, 938 BC
XXV 809 BC: 99.652 %, + 30 years, 839 BC
XXVI 720 BC: 99.872 %, + 10 years, 730 BC
XXVII 630 BC: 100.004 %, 0 ans ±. 630 BC

That should do for today, and if you have any other identification in archaeological time for Tower of Babel, or prefer the other date, 2423 BC, or one of the other ones, you have seen how I do it. These are my own preferences. If you'll do a table according to yours and publish it on freely accessible sites on the internet, I'll link to it.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
Day of St Agabus
13.II.2017

Credits, as usual, though I missed it last time, to :
http://web2.0calc.com/
and https://www.math.upenn.edu/~deturck/m170/c14/carbdate.html
which latter has short link http://ppt.li/3m8

samedi 11 février 2017

Neanderthal Pre-or Post-Flood?

Neanderthal : Neanderthal Pre-or Post-Flood? · If Neanderthals were Carnivores, were they Post-Flood? · "what biblical, young earth creationists have always maintained" · Is there an Urban Legend that Grendel and His Mother were Dinosaurs Among Creationists? · · http://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2017/12/neanderthals-related-to-michael-oards.html · Hugh Ross and Genetics, Featuring a Gruesome Habit (Don't Read This When You Eat!)

I hypothesise that Neanderthals are pre-Flood people and that Mrs Japheth was half Neanderthal - if she had a Neanderthal father but a Sethite or Cainite mother of Cro-Magnon type, she would lack the Neanderthal typical mitochondrial DNA. Since her husband was no Neanderthal, her male children would also not have Neanderthal typical chromosome Y DNA.

So, what does this mean for the Neanderthals of Gibraltar?

Uniformitarian dates give ...

However, studies have suggested that Neanderthals survived in southern Spain and Gibraltar to less than 30,000 years before the present. Radiocarbon dating performed on charcoal in Gorham's Cave in Gibraltar in 2006 suggests that Neanderthals lived there 24,000 to 28,000 years ago, well after the arrival of Homo sapiens in Europe 40,000 years ago. Vanguard Cave and Gorham's Cave are still the sites of active archaeological excavation in 2012. These caves may have represented the refugium of Gibraltar's Neanderthals.

But that was the charcoal.

So, what about the skull of Gibraltar woman?

Common name: Gibraltar Woman
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gibraltar_1
Species: Homo(sapien) neanderthalensis
Age: 30,000 to 40,000 years
Place discovered: Forbes' Quarry, Gibraltar
Date discovered: 1848
Discovered by: Edmund Flint

The woman, if carbon dated, is not from same year as the charcoal. I don't believe the cave was inhabited 30,000 BP to 28,000 BP with same cave used for two thousand years, and woman from one end, and charcoal from other end, same population.

Or, if she's from 40,000 BP, that would make it 12,000 years of continuous occupation (longer than the world has existed according to Biblical timescale).

The woman can have been a pre-Flood casualty, and the cave a post-Flood burial place. Or, the charcoal dated 28,000 - 24,000 BP also be pre-Flood.

But supposing she did live about same area in pre-Flood times, what was she looking at when looking south to what is now Morocco?

Arganaceras vacanti: This medium size pareiasaur from the Late Permian of Morocco had a horn-like structure on its snout. It was closely related to the European genus Elginia.
Size :: 2 m
Berberosaurus liassicus: Berberosaurus liassicus was a theropod dinosaur known from post cranial remains discovered in the Hight Atlas Mountains of Morocco, Africa. Berberosaurus reached lengths of around 5 - 6 m, it was originally described as the most basal abelisauroid, however later studies suggest it is a basal ceratosaur.
Atlasaurus imelakei: This large Brachiosaurus-like sauropod, originally described as a cetiosaur from the Middle Jurassic of Morocco is known from a nearly complete skeleton.
Size:: Not mentioned, despite skeleton being complete. Wiki says : Atlasaurus differs from Brachiosaurus relative to the estimated length of the dorsal vertebral column (assuming 12 vertebrae, 3.04 m), in having a proportionately larger skull, a shorter neck (with at least 13 cervical vertebrae, shorter and more uniform in length than Brachiosaurus), a longer tail and more elongated limbs (humerus to femur ratio: 0.99; ulna to tibia ratio: 1.15). The teeth are spoon-shaped and have denticles. The lower jaw of Atlasaurus is about 69 centimetres (27 in) long, the neck was about 3.86 metres (12.7 ft) long, the humerus 1.95 metres (6 ft 5 in) long, and the femur about 2 metres (6 ft 7 in) long. It has been estimated at 15 metres (49 ft) in length, and 22.5 tonnes (22.1 long tons; 24.8 short tons) in weight.
Rebbachisaurus garasbae: Rebbachisaurus was a large sauropod dinosaur that grew to lengths of around 20 metres. This animal had a very long neck, small head and whip like tail, which are all common features of sauropods. Rebbachisaurus lived alongside many carnivorous (meat eating) dinosaurs, like Carcharodontosaurus, Rebbachisaurus size was its main defense. One species is presently recognized, R. garasbae, the type species from Morocco. "R. tamesnensis" from Niger is considered a subjective synonym of Nigersaurus taqueti. "R. tessonei" from Argentina has been transferred to the genus Limaysaurus.
Carcharodontosaurus saharicus: Carcharodontosaurus was a large meat-eating theropod from the Early Cretaceous of Africa. Its huge skull with powerful jaw equipped with long serrated teeth make it a formidable predator. Carcharodontosaurus was originally described by French paleontologists Deperet and Savornin in 1925 as a species of Megalosaurus from fragmentary remains found in the desert of Algeria. The name Carcharodontosaurus was coined by Stromer in 1931. The original material was destroyed during WWII but additional fossils were found later. In 2007, Brusatte and Sereno described a new species from Niger, C. iguidensis.
Length:: 13.5 m
Deltadromeus agilis: Deltadromeus agilis is a ceratosaur theropod from the Late Cretaceous of North Africa. This animal is much less known than what is inferred from the skeletal reconstruction seen at the museum. The skull, neck and hands are for instance totally unknown and any reconstruction of these elements (such as the highly popularized crests above the eyes) are highly hypothetical. From the available material, Deltadromeus was hinted to be a large (~8 m long) and slender theropod with uncertain affinities.
Spinosaurus aegyptiacus: The original skeleton of Spinosaurus aegyptiacus was discovered in Egypt in 1911 and described by Stromer in 1915. It was destroyed during WWII when the Alte Akademie Museum in Munich was bombed. Since then a few fragmentary materials have been found in Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia and elsewhere. The most striking feature of Spinosaurus is its 2 meter tall sail which was probably used for temperature regulation. The second species, S. marocannus from Morocco is probably a junior synonym of the type species S. aegyptiacus.
Length:: 16-18 m

On the video I was listening to*, it seems Neanderthal 1 had thick bones - like those of body builders. Also, from recent "dental calculus" it seems they ate oatmeal. Even if there were some 100 km between Gibraltar and these monsters in Morocco, I think they may have needed it.

And considering that the post-Flood world would be more like monster reservations than like habitable havens, Noah had a motive for taking one of these people on the Ark - obviously, as a daughter in law.

But suppose instead they had been post-Flood, all of them. Take Sidrón:

The human remains were found accidentally in 1994, all within a single layer (Stratum III). The age of these remains of three men, three adolescent boys, three women, and three infants has been estimated to about 49,000 years. The fact that the bones are excellently preserved with very limited erosion and no large carnivore tooth marks and the unusual deposition of the bones, mixed into a jumble of gravel and mud, suggests that these Neanderthals did not die in this spot but an exterior location. [3] A number of scenarios of how these "members of an extended family" might have ended up in a 6 m2 (65 sq ft) room-sized space, dubbed the Tunnel of Bones included flooding, cave collapse and the disposal by cannibals. Dropped into the cave in a single event via a collapse of nearby fissures above the site or by influx of storm water.

On the video*, it was mentioned there were three men sharing same mitochondrial DNA, three women having different ones. Could this be Shem, Ham and Japheth, with wives and last children who did not become any tribes, because massacred?

Could Nimrodians have massacred them, and used ritual cannibalism?

If so, probably because of their refusal to contribute to Tower of Babel project. That would make Nimrod a murderer of his grandpa. That would also make the carbon date of 49,000 BP correspond to 500 years after the Flood, death of Shem. A far cry from 2420 BC being carbon dated to 5620 BC, as I mentioned in my table. Or would it? "The age of these remains of three men, three adolescent boys, three women, and three infants has been estimated to about 49,000 years." Perhaps the estimate did not use carbon dates?

This would also mean that the first post-Flood people were Neanderthals, all three couples. This I think unlikely on genetical grounds.

Let's look at the article again:

Morphologically, the El Sidrón humans show a large number of Neanderthal lineage-derived features even though certain traits place the sample at the limits of Neanderthal variation. Integrating the El Sidrón human mandibles into the larger Neanderthal sample reveals a north–south geographic patterning, with southern Neanderthals showing broader faces with increased lower facial heights.[8]

Neanderthal ancient mtDNA was partially sequenced in HVR region for three distinct Neanderthals from El Sidrón cave (441, 1253, and 1351c).[9][10] 1253 and 1351c have the same mutations at position A-911, G-977 in exon 7 of FOXP2 gene, known as the "language gene", as present-day people.[11]

The first sequencing of the Neanderthal Y chromosome was successfully completed from a specimen from Sidrón Cave.[12] Based on this sample, researchers estimate that Neanderthals diverged from the common human ancestor around 590,000 years ago.[12] The Sidrón Cave Y chromosome has never been identified before and is not found in modern humans.[12] The Sidrón Cave Y chromosome coded for several minor histocompatibility antigen genes that differed from humans.[12]

If this were the ancestors of all of us, plus six last children who didn't make it to be our ancestors, we have changed a lot, haven't we?

Footnote 12 links to: The Divergence of Neandertal and Modern Human Y Chromosomes
Fernando L. Mendez, G. David Poznik, Sergi Castellano, Carlos D. Bustamante
http://www.cell.com/ajhg/fulltext/S0002-9297%2816%2930033-7

I think indeed that the Y chromosome diverged from that of the Noachic line, possibly even through Nephelim ancestry. Obviously, I differ from their conclusion:

We estimate that the time to the most recent common ancestor (TMRCA) of Neandertal and modern human Y chromosomes is ∼588 thousand years ago (kya) (95% confidence interval [CI]: 447–806 kya).

And, this brings us back to Neanderthals probably being pre-Flood and us probably having neither their Y chromosome nor their mitochondrial chromosomes among us.

Btw, supposing El Sidrón 12 massacre victims to have been martyrs would imply their relics could work miracles. Perhaps the Church should become involved about this.

Also, there is no tradition known to me about any martyrdom of Shem, Ham and Japheth ... the scenario I just gave is very likely to be overinterpretation of purely archaeological evidence.

So, until I hear of blind seeing or cripples walking or dead rising after touch from El Sidrón remains, I will not conclude hastily they are relics of martyrs. But it is intriguing they were 12, isn't it?

Now, if they were Nephelim, pure and simple, we might on the other hand conclude they were impious.

Baruch 3:[26] There were the giants, those renowned men that were from the beginning, of great stature, expert in war. [27] The Lord chose not them, neither did they find the way of knowledge: therefore did they perish. [28] And because they had not wisdom, they perished through their folly.

So, despite Tabun cave being close to Mount Hermon, if we have Neanderthal genes, we ought not to consider them as being identical to the Nephelim. Even if related, possibly. A "neph" (as Trey Smith would say) would be more unlike us than a Neanderthal.

Nevertheless, they might have been half breed or quarter breed or one eighth nephelim (and since predominantly normal men, not giants themselves), and for that matter, the father of Mrs Japheth could have himself been less than purely Neanderthal. On the video, it was presented as if the average man alive had like 1 ancestor in those 5 generations back, 1 in 32, as a Neanderthal.

Suppose three sons and daughters in law are roughly equivalent to 4 couples, that means 1/32 could be "divided by 4", for one couple we have 1/8, for one daughter in law 1/4 - Mrs. Japhet could also have had a Neanderthal grandfather. Or grandmother.

And to return to the 12 in Sidrón, they could be people like the three sons and daughters in law and first children of these, but, unlike them, people who never made it onto the Ark. I don't know.

A number of scenarios of how these "members of an extended family" might have ended up in a 6 m2 (65 sq ft) room-sized space, dubbed the Tunnel of Bones included flooding, cave collapse and the disposal by cannibals. Dropped into the cave in a single event via a collapse of nearby fissures above the site or by influx of storm water.

Storm water or Flood Water?

Hans Georg Lundahl
Bibliothèque Mouffetard, Paris
Our Lady of Lourdes **
11.II.2017

* Are We the Last Neanderthals?
Chicago Humanities Festival
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0uRCVyJ7-0c

** Lourdes also has "pre-historic" remnants, but the horse of Lourdes, carbon dated 13,000 BP, is clearly post-Flood, that makes c. 2778 BC according to table of previous message./HGL

vendredi 10 février 2017

Recalibrating the Fibonacci Table, acc. to Abraham in Chalcolithic En Gedi

1) Φιλολoγικά/Philologica : Osgood and the Dating of Abraham? And I am Wrong on Fibonacci Table · 2) Creation vs. Evolution : Recalibrating the Fibonacci Table, acc. to Abraham in Chalcolithic En Gedi · 3) If Göbekli Tepe is Tower of Babel ...

I had looked at En Gedi's Chalcolithic due to Osgood, over here:

Φιλολoγικά/Philologica : Osgood and the Dating of Abraham? And I am Wrong on Fibonacci Table
HGL, Tuesday, January 31, 2017
http://filolohika.blogspot.com/2017/01/osgood-and-dating-of-abraham-and-i-am.html

(Includes a link to Osgood's article.)

I had concluded that the Fibonacci table from over here needed reshaping, since being in error:

New blog on the kid : Avec un peu d'aide de Fibonacci ... j'ai une table, presque correcte
HGL, Saturday, 31 October 2015
http://nov9blogg9.blogspot.com/2015/10/avec-un-peu-daide-de-fibonacci-jai-une.html

But actually, 1972 was not exactly the year I was looking for either. So, I want to know how old Abraham was in En Gedi.

While for my own part I use the chronology of Roman Martyrology for Christmas Day, Haydock gives extensive dates according to Ussher's table of chronology.

Genesis 12. Abraham 75:: Year of the World 2084, Year before Christ 1920. (Ussher, as per Haydock comment)
Genesis 14. Abraham in En Gedi :: Year of the World 2092, Year before Christ 1912. (Ussher, as per Haydock comment)

Abraham 83 (and as fine a young warrior as Aragorn at the age!)* and according to calculation below, that gives the year BC:

Martyrology Chronology

2015
0075
1940 Genesis 12
0008
1932 Genesis 14

Calculating another mid point from below table:

1972 094.05509 %
1883 094.86521 %
3855 188.9201 % : 1.9867796634825349**
1928 95.0886016564366408599 %! (Let's stick with :2!)
1928 94.46005 % + 470 = 2398

It is inserted* where underlined.

2957 BC: 3.90625 % + 26 800 years, 29 757 BC
2868 BC: 28.41464 % + 10 400 years, 13 268 BC
2778 BC: 40.23593 % + 7550 years, 10 328 BC
2688 BC: 58.52169 % + 4450 years, 7138 BC
2599 BC: 62.75068 % + 3850 years, 6449 BC
2510 BC: 73.24848 % + 2550 years, 5060 BC
2420 BC: 76.66562 % + 2200 years, 4620 BC
2330 BC: 83.68212 % (?) + 1450 ans (?). 3780 BC
2241 BC: 86.26541 % + 1200 years, 3441 BC
2152 BC: 90.54925 % + 820 years, 2972 BC
2062 BC: 91.58056 % + 730 years, 2792 BC
1972 BC: 94.05509 % + 510 years, 2482 BC
1928: 94.46005 % + 470 years, 2398 BC
1883 BC: 94.86521 % + 440 years, 2323 BC
1794 BC: 96.39213 % + 300 years, 2094 BC
1704 BC: 96.89571 % + 260 years, 1964 BC
1614 BC: 97.83779 % + 180 years, 1794 BC
1525 BC: 98.14985 % + 150 years, 1675 BC
1436 BC: 98.73274 % + 110 years, 1546 BC
1346 BC: 98.92632 % + 90 years, 1436 BC
1256 BC: 99.28488 % + 60 years, 1316 BC
1167 BC: 99.40408 % + 50 years, 1217 BC
1078 BC: 99.62811 % + 30 years, 1108 BC
988 BC: 99.70269 % + 30 years, 1018 BC
898 BC: 99.8371 % + 10 years, 908 BC
809 BC: 99.88185 % + 10 years, 819 BC
720 BC: 99.95645 % 0 years ±. 720 BC
630 BC: 100.00129 % 0 years ±. 630 BC

What exactly do we need now, to get 1928 in line with En Gedi Chalcolithic?

I: We need to determine what the C14 % in relation to todays would have been to get so many extra years we land in 3400 BC.
Doing: 3400-1928=1472 extra years. 1472 extra years is
Done: 83.689 %.
II: We need to see the difference between 83.689 % and 94.46005 % so we can apply the percentage to rest of % values.
But: We also need to land on 100 %, and this should remain 100 %.
So: we should rather ...
III: ... need to see the difference between 100 % - 83.689 % and 100 % - 94.46005 %.
Doing: 100 % - 83.689 % = 16.311 %
100 % - 94.46005 % = 5.53995 %
16.311 % / 5.53995 % = ...
Done: ... = 2.9442503993718355
But: now we see a problem going back in time. 100 % - 3.90625 % = 96.09375 %, and we cannot do 100 % - 2.9442503993718355*96.09375 % since that lands on a nonsensical minus number.
So: we should rather ...
IV: also see the proportion in percentages as positive things.
Doing: 83.689 % / 94.46005 % = ...
Done: ... = 0.8859724296144243. And we start trying to apply it around 1928 BC, Abraham in chalcolithic En Gedi. From then on, percentages up to 100 % compared. From then back, percentages compared.

See where this gets us:

I, Flood, 2957 BC: 0.8859724296144243*3.90625 % = 3.461 %; 3.461 % = + 27,800 years, 30,757 BC
II 2868 BC: 0.8859724296144243*28.41464 % = 25.175 %; 25.175 % = + 11,400 years, 14,268 BC
III 2778 BC: 0.8859724296144243*40.23593 % = 35.648 %; 35.648 % = + 8550 years, 11,328 BC
IV 2688 BC: 0.8859724296144243*58.52169 % = 51.849 %; 51.849 % = + 5450 years, 8138 BC
V 2599 BC: 0.8859724296144243*62.75068 % = 55.595 %; 55.595 % = + 4850 years, 7449 BC
VI 2510 BC: 0.8859724296144243*73.24848 % = 64.896 %; 64.896 % = + 3550 years, 6060 BC
VII 2420 BC: 0.8859724296144243*76.66562 % = 67.924 %; 67.924 % = + 3200 years, 5620 BC
VIII 2330 BC: 0.8859724296144243*83.68212 % = 74.14 %; 74.14 % = + 2450 years, 4780 BC
IX 2241 BC: 0.8859724296144243*86.26541 % = 76.429 %; 76.429 % = + 2200 years, 4441 BC
X 2152 BC: 0.8859724296144243*90.54925 % = 80.224 %; 80.224 % = + 1800 years, 3952 BC
XI 2062 BC: 0.8859724296144243*91.58056 % = 81.138 %; 81.138 % = + 1750 years, 3812 BC
XII 1972 BC: 0.8859724296144243*94.05509 % = 83.33 %; 83.33 % = + 1500 years, 3472 BC
Mid pt. 1928: 83.689 % + 1472 years, 3400 BC
XIII 1883 BC: 100 % - 94.86521 % = 5.13479 %, 2.9442503993718355*5.13479 % = 15.118 %; 100 % - 15.118 % = 84.882 %, + 1350 years, 3233 BC
XIV 1794 BC: 100 % - 96.39213 % = 3.60787 %, 2.9442503993718355*3.60787 % = 10.622 %; 100 % - 10.622 % = 89.378 %, + 930 years, 2724 BC
XV 1704 BC: 100 % - 96.89571 % = 3.10429 %, 2.9442503993718355*3.10429 % = 9.14 %; 100 % - 9.14 % = 90.86 %, + 790 years, 2494 BC
XVI 1614 BC: 100 % - 97.83779 % = 2.16221 %, 2.9442503993718355*2.16221 % = 6.366 %; 100 % - 6.366 % = 93.634 %, + 540 years, 2154 BC
XVII 1525 BC: 100 % - 98.14985 % = 1.85015 %, 2.9442503993718355*1.85015 % = 5.447 %; 100 % - 5.447 % = 94.553 %, + 460 years, 1985 BC
XVIII 1436 BC: 100 % - 98.73274 % = 1.26726 %, 2.9442503993718355*1.26726 % = 3.731 %; 100 % - 3.731 % = 96.269 %, + 310 years, 1746 BC
XIX 1346 BC BC: 100 % - 98.92632 % = 1.07368 %, 2.9442503993718355*1.07368 % = 3.161 %; 100 % - 3.161 % = 96.839 %, + 270 years, 1616 BC
XX 1256 BC: 100 % - 99.28488 % = 0.71512 %, 2.9442503993718355*0.71512 % = 2.105 %; 100 % - 2.105 % = 97.895 %, + 180 years, 1436 BC
XXI 1167 BC: 100 % - 99.40408 % = 0.59592 %, 2.9442503993718355*0.59592 % = 1.755 %; 100 % - 1.755 % = 98.245 %, + 150 years, 1317 BC
XXII 1078 BC: 100 % - 99.62811 % = 0.37189 %, 2.9442503993718355*0.37189 % = 1.095 %; 100 % - 1.095 % = 98.905 %, + 90 years, 1168 BC
XXIII 988 BC: 100 % - 99.70269 % = 0.29731 %, 2.9442503993718355*0.29731 % = 0.875 %; 100 % - 0.875 % = 99.125 %, + 70 years, 1058 BC
XXIV 898 BC: 100 % - 99.8371 % = 0.1629 %, 2.9442503993718355*0.1629 % = 0.48 %; 100 % - 0.48 % = 99.52 %, + 40 years, 938 BC
XXV 809 BC: 100 % - 99.88185 % = 0.11815 %, 2.9442503993718355*0.11815 % = 0.348 %; 100 % - 0.348 % = 99.652 %, + 30 years, 839 BC
XXVI 720 BC: 100 % - 99.95645 % = 0.04355 %, 2.9442503993718355*0.04355 % = 0.128 %; 100 % - 0.128 % = 99.872 %, + 10 years, 730 BC
XXVII 630 BC: "100 % - 100.00129 %" = "-0.00129 %", "2.9442503993718355*-0.00129 %" = "-0.004 %'; "100 % -(-0.004 %)" = 100.004 %, 0 ans ±. 630 BC

If we clean the table up ...

I, Flood, 2957 BC: 3.461 % = + 27,800 years, 30,757 BC
II 2868 BC: 25.175 % = + 11,400 years, 14,268 BC
III 2778 BC: 35.648 % = + 8550 years, 11,328 BC
IV 2688 BC: 51.849 % = + 5450 years, 8138 BC
V 2599 BC: 55.595 % = + 4850 years, 7449 BC
VI 2510 BC: 64.896 % = + 3550 years, 6060 BC
VII 2420 BC: 67.924 % = + 3200 years, 5620 BC
VIII 2330 BC: 74.14 % = + 2450 years, 4780 BC
IX 2241 BC: 76.429 % = + 2200 years, 4441 BC
X 2152 BC: 80.224 % = + 1800 years, 3952 BC
XI 2062 BC: 81.138 % = + 1750 years, 3812 BC
XII 1972 BC: 83.33 % = + 1500 years, 3472 BC
Mid pt. 1928: 83.689 % + 1472 years, 3400 BC
XIII 1883 BC: 84.882 %, + 1350 years, 3233 BC
XIV 1794 BC: 89.378 %, + 930 years, 2724 BC
XV 1704 BC: 90.86 %, + 790 years, 2494 BC
XVI 1614 BC: 93.634 %, + 540 years, 2154 BC
XVII 1525 BC: 94.553 %, + 460 years, 1985 BC
XVIII 1436 BC: 96.269 %, + 310 years, 1746 BC
XIX 1346 BC: 96.839 %, + 270 years, 1616 BC
XX 1256 BC: 97.895 %, + 180 years, 1436 BC
XXI 1167 BC: 98.245 %, + 150 years, 1317 BC
XXII 1078 BC: 98.905 %, + 90 years, 1168 BC
XXIII 988 BC: 99.125 %, + 70 years, 1058 BC
XXIV 898 BC: 99.52 %, + 40 years, 938 BC
XXV 809 BC: 99.652 %, + 30 years, 839 BC
XXVI 720 BC: 99.872 %, + 10 years, 730 BC
XXVII 630 BC: 100.004 %, 0 ans ±. 630 BC

... the table we get is in a way more useful than the Fibonacci based ones. But it is also less coherent in principle, which is why, perhaps, it should be replaced by a new table made from scratch.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
St. Scholastica
10.II.2017

Update : the "BC" was lacking after some years in the tables, has - hopefully completely - been supplied today. It were the years between those given in original Fibonacci table, as I was not writing them out separately after each new calculation, but they were there after editing all "av. J. Chr." to "BC" on the original years.HGL, 13.II.2017

* Reference to Lord of the Rings. Abraham in Genesis 14 and Aragorn or Strider in Lord of the Rings comparably both are 80 (or supposed to be in LotR), while fighting like we expect of well trained men of 40.

** Not in the original Fibonacci table, but in a refinement of it:

New blog on the kid : Raffiner et finir ma table de Fibonacci?
HGL, Tuesday, 7 February 2017
http://nov9blogg9.blogspot.com/2017/02/raffiner-et-finir-ma-table-de-fibonacci.html

mercredi 8 février 2017

More on Rich Deem's Local Flood Theory : Apart from "kol eretz"

We continue our study of Rich Deem:

Does the Genesis text indicate that the flood was local? If you read it carefully, you can determine that the perspective is local. Most English translations are actually interpretations that are intentionally skewed to favor a global flood interpretation. For example, Genesis 7:20 is usually translated as:

The water prevailed fifteen cubits higher, and the mountains were covered. (Genesis 7:20)

In reality, the Hebrew word ma‛al, translated "higher" really means "upward." So, in essence, the text is saying that the flood was 15 cubits (20 feet) deep, in total, not 15 cubits above the mountains. In addition, the Hebrew word har really refers most often to hills rather than mountains.

Douay Rheims : 7:[20] The water was fifteen cubits higher than the mountains which it covered.

Vulgate : 7:[20] Quindecim cubitis altior fuit aqua super montes, quos operuerat.

LXX : 7:20 πεντεκαίδεκα πήχεις ὑπεράνω ὑψώθη τὸ ὕδωρ καὶ ἐπεκάλυψε πάντα τὰ ὄρη τὰ ὑψηλά.

Fifteen cubits the water ὑπεράνω ὑψώθη and covered all the ὑψηλά mountains.

The first means sth like "rose up" and the latter means "risen, exalted, high".

Fifteen cubits the water rose (ὑψώθη) up (-άνω) above (ὑπερ-) and covered all the high/raised mountains.

Even LXX seems very much clearer if the 15 cubits are above the mountains.

Even though my Greek is worse than rusty, I'd say Deem's meaning would be clearer if we had instead had a LXX saying:

πεντεκαίδεκα πήχεις ~~ὑπερ~~άνω ὑψώθη τὸ ὕδωρ καὶ ἐπεκάλυψε πάντα τὰ ὄρη τὰ ὑψηλά.

LXX translators took ma'al* as "upward and above" (ὑπεράνω), not just as "upward" (άνω).

Adding for Latin : the word super, a preposition, does for Latin what the word part ὑπερ of adverb ὑπεράνω does for Greek.

For this first part of the close reading, Deems would have not just tradition but all translations against him and be supported by only the naked text of the Hebrew. He would have to argue it was mistranslated into LXX and every other version.

He would then obviously also be arguing against Rabbinic tradition, which, if not first class, is at least enough to someone who is rejecting all other - namely Christian, ecclesiastic - tradition.

The translators of most English Bibles use the word "earth," which to us means "planet earth." However, their mistranslation can clearly be seen in the following passage:

Gen 8:5 And the water decreased steadily until the tenth month; in the tenth month, on the first day of the month, the tops of the mountains became visible.
Gen 8:6 Then it came about at the end of forty days, that Noah opened the window of the ark which he had made;
Gen 8:7 and he sent out a raven, and it flew here and there until the water was dried up from the earth.
Gen 8:8 Then he sent out a dove from him, to see if the water was abated from the face of the land;
Gen 8:9 but the dove found no resting place for the sole of her foot, so she returned to him into the ark; for the water was on the surface of all the earth. Then he put out his hand and took her, and brought her into the ark to himself.

We see that in the tenth month, the mountains became visible to Noah (Genesis 8:5). Some 40+ days later (Genesis 8:6), Noah sent a dove out of the ark (Genesis 8:8). However, the dove was unable to land because of all the water (Genesis 8:9). Then, the text tells us that water was "on the surface of all the earth." This is obviously a bad translation of kol erets, since we know that the water had not covered the mountains for at least 40 days. The context makes it clear that kol erets must refer to local geography and should be translated as the "all the land" or "all the ground." In fact, all our major English translations (NASB, NIV, KJV, etc.) make this same error. It is no wonder that people who read the English translation of the Bible "literally" come to the conclusion that the flood must have been global. However, it is apparent that our English "translations" of the Genesis flood text are more than just "translations," but actually interpretations (and probably incorrect ones at that).

You are sure you don't want to try to argue that "visible" in verse 5 is mistranslation for "uncovered" or "dry"?

Because, just because a mountain top is five feet under clear calm water doesn't make it invisible.

But as long as it is under water at all, a dove can't take a stand on the ground.

So, there is no indication for a local flood here either.

There is another indication in the text that the flood did not cover the highest mountains. Again, from Genesis 8:

So he waited yet another seven days; and again he sent out the dove from the ark. And the dove came to him toward evening; and behold, in her beak was a freshly picked olive leaf. So Noah knew that the water was abated from the earth. (Genesis 8:10-11)

If the ark had come to rest on the top of Mount Ararat, this would be at 17,000 foot elevation. Olive trees (and every other tree) do not grow at 17,000 feet. In fact, you will not find olive trees growing much above 5,000 feet. Therefore, we know from the Bible that the ark did not come to rest on or near the top of Mount Ararat, but probably somewhere on the foothills of the mountain.

While Ararat can have risen by folding of ground under it, it certainly can have risen during the Flood as a volcano.

This means that the olive twig need not be grown on the elevation it had then.

Also, it is due to relative elevation over sea level that the olive trees can't grow there now. Right in these verses, the sea level was far higher and so the elevation probably not fatal to an olive tree - any more than to the Mediterranean coast olive trees are endangered from survival by being 36 201 feet above the Mariana trench. Although that is of course even higher an elevation, relatively, than the 17 000 feet of Mount Ararat compared to today's sea level. Why? Because olive trees along Mediterranean are having the growth influenced by being close to sea level, not by being far above a very theoretical potential, but so far not actual sea level.

And the olive branch would have lived very well on top of Mount Ararat while that top was only - say 15 cubits? - above the surrounding sea.

The method by which the flood ended also tells us that the flood was local. According to Genesis, the water receded and was dried by the wind.14 If the flood were global, there would be no place for the waters to recede to. Likewise, a wind would not significantly affect a global flood, further suggesting that the Genesis flood was local in extent.

Here we will have to do a little interpretation, not just of Bible but also of natural phenomena in general.

Point one : "there would be no place for the waters to recede to"

This has been answered time after time by pointing out God could excellently well have made places by folding and deepening of seas. The Mariana trench along with the rest were being formed. Precisely so as to give water some place to recede to.

And land was folding inward and rising - with the result that as tops emerged, water would recede.

Point two : "Likewise, a wind would not significantly affect a global flood"

That is supposing the wind had to dry up all of the earth at once.

8:[1] And God remembered Noe, and all the living creatures, and all the cattle which were with him in the ark, and brought a wind upon the earth, and the waters were abated.

For some natural or supernatural reason, air pressure increases at least around the Ark (as local emergence from Flood, rather than Flood itself being just local), and probably it contributes to drying the land, but we do not see that (or I didn't when skimming through).

But when it comes to land being drier, we don't find any more reference to "kol eretz".

8:[13] Therefore in the six hundredth and first year, the first month, the first day of the month, the waters were lessened upon the earth, and Noe opening the covering of the ark, looked, and saw that the face of the earth was dried. [14] In the second month, the seven and twentieth day of the month, the earth was dried.

Note well that this drying could very well be local. No kol with the eretz.

Note also, there is a distinction between "the face of the earth was dried" and - next verse - "the earth was dried".

There is a time difference too.

Two Hebrew months, minus a few days. Two lunar months, nearly to the full.

So, drying air first exposes a dry surface, but, perhaps, it may still be brittle with mud under. Only after more than fifty days is the same ground firmly dried below surface too.

Was that a local Flood?

I rather think the wind making the waters abate was local. I rather think the full abating of Flood waters was so slow that if God hadn't made a miraculous wind, like during the Exodus, the people and animals aboard the ark would have starved to death.

And the drying under the wind happened locality after locality, often only after some longer drainage by mountain folding.

I have made cheese in my life. Solid or half solid cheeses are made from fairly wet ones, which when served immediately are called cottage cheese.

Now, put cottage cheese in a flat bowl, and it will not be drained of whey very fast. But use a cardboard milk tetra, properly cut up and with holes, so that the cheese can stand and the whey drain down from it, and after a week, the cheese will be fairly solid.

By adding a vertical factor, God speeded up the "draining of the cheese" stage of dry land reappearing after the Flood.

Very possibly, the cold during the ice age, by binding water, can also have contributed to giving us back the land a bit faster. And as for drying winds, except supernatural ones, they would even so have taken some time between a dry surface and a solid dry ground.

Another problem for the global flood interpretation is what happened to the "earth" after the flood. Read the following verses and see if you can see why the word "earth" does not refer to the entire planet: ... If one were to interpret these verses from a global perspective, one would have to conclude that the entire earth became a desert after the flood. Obviously this interpretation is false, so the translations must be bad. In these verses, the dryness of the earth is obviously referring to the local land area of the flood and not the entire planet earth.

Already answered. There is no word "kol" in these verses. These verses are dealing with a local, perhaps precocious, reappearance of solid dry ground.

Now, however, Deems is changing theme, and I will change message, finishing this one.

Hans Georg Lundahl
ut supra

* Trusting Deem on the Hebrew.

Whole "Eretz" without Specified Locality?

Eretz has the double meaning of Earth and Land, like Latin Terra (though land could also be the plurale tantum in this sense fines ... using "terra" for land could be a Christianism and a Hebraism, ultimately).

So "kol eretz" means either whole Earth or, at least with a local specification, whole Land of ....

I am just now reading:

The Genesis Flood
Why the Bible Says It Must be Local
by Rich Deem
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/localflood.html

I won't quote the intro where he says "kol eretz ha-Havilah" and "kol eretz ha-Kush" mean - obviously - "whole land of Havilah" and "whole land of Kush".

That is banal, and LXX certainly can't have translated that as he/(ten) pasa(n) ge(n). The translation I expect to find is ho pan choros or ton panta choron.

Here is were Deem can be deemed controversial and even wrong:

However, there are many more examples of where kol erets is used without reference to any specific land, although the context clearly indicates a local area.

Many? Say one ...

For example, in Genesis 11 (the Tower of Babel) the text says, "the whole [kol] earth [erets] used the same language."6 We know that this reference is not really to the earth at all (and certainly not to the "whole earth"), but to the people of the earth, who all lived in one geographic location.

Did they? It seems even if they all lived together (which is doubtful), they were at least wandering up to settling in Shinar.

I say it is doubtful all lived together, as I think faithful patriarchs were not wandering all the way with a more and more sinful humanity which settled in Shinar with Nimrod, but certainly they had been to other places before reaching Shinar. So, even if they were really all just in a localised area at a time, they were successively in many different ones before reaching Shinar, and right before reaching it, they were coming from the East. Not from Ararat, but from the East. So, "whole Earth" while meaning all of humanity also means whole Earth geographically.

It wasn't until later that God scattered the people over the face of the earth.

Does "scattering" refer to geographic spread or to no longer travelling back and forth to each other and to no longer sharing political and linguistic unity?

This latter idea is what I think is correct, since for one it allows Göbekli Tepe to be, not the Tower, but the city of the Tower (those reading this blog and Philologica know I consider the tower to have been meant as a rocket and space craft, a "three" stage rocket of which only the top reaches into Heaven, a project continued after the city itself was abandoned, and one which was fruitful when men walked on the Moon, after some millennia of delay), and therefore a Cro Magnon find from "20 000 BC" (uncalibrated carbon date) from between Flood and Tower of Babel, rather than being post-Babel and the city not yet found.

The former idea - that all lived in the same small space is both used as a "Biblical" argument against my scenario and - here - as a "Biblical" argument against "kol eretz" meaning "all earth" in a geographic sense.

Let's deal with it.

11:[9]* And therefore the name thereof was called Babel, because there the language of the whole earth was confounded: and from thence the Lord scattered them abroad upon the face of all countries.

Does "scattering" mean geographic spread started then, or does scattering mean that geographic spread was no coupled with separation of one population from another, due to language and political barriers adding to the difficulties of distance?

I think, even if only most people were at the "tower" (whether skyscraper or rocket project) and some on outskirts holding an eye on things, looking for resources (like 19th C. explorers of Wild West - which was of course the Wild North to Spanish explorers a bit earlier), there would have been a noticeable increase in geographic spread if all who had been in the middle were forced to go to relatives on the outskirts.

But the main point even so could have been, not geographic spread, but disunity, clipping away the direct and everyday contacts.

Before Babel, a Gomerite could have walked from Dordogne to Göbekli Tepe in c. 200 days, and then back : everywhere, any stone age tribe he met would be part of the project (except those pesky Hebrews who refused and stayed off), speak the same language, give them the right directions. After Babel, the Gomerites would try to get to Dordogne and around, or some might have stayed in Kappadocia. But anywhere between Kappadocia and Dordogne, anywhere East of Göbekli Tepe, all of a sudden they would see people for whom they would be obliged to point at objects in order to communicate. Their one chance of efficient communication was keeping together and away from the others.

But wasn't the people itself saying they had no spread?

11:[4] And they said: Come, let us make a city and a tower, the top whereof may reach to heaven: and let us make our name famous before we be scattered abroad into all lands.

Yes, and there is a similar Biblical character who said in his heart "there is no God". That doesn't mean the Bible teaches the fool or insipiens of Psalm 13:1 is right and there is no God. It also does not mean the Bible teaches these were right and there was no scattering at all, geographically.

They may have been thinking only of a geographical scattering. They may have walked nomadically with just enough spread to avoid using up all resources (by 100 after Flood, they might already have been 3000 people or so, or more).

And once most of them were assembled around, I will not say in Göbekli Tepe, but around it as around a hub, they may easily have overlooked the geographic spread that was already there.

Or they might have been well learned in pre-Flood history, and be thinking of the political disunities, such as, most probably, between Kauravas and Pandavas.

In that case, Deem is wrong. The whole earth - from Dordogne to Göbekli Tepe, from Göbekli Tepe to India, from Ural to Göbekli Tepe, from Göbekli Tepe to Africa, and including some scouts - on my view trying to get to Uranium mines in Canada, this time not for a war, but for peaceful use in Göbekli "Cape Canaveral" Tepe - beyond what would in Peleg's day have widened to the Atlantic, all of the earth whereever it was inhabited was speaking the same tongue, and was of same people as much as a Spaniard in Philippines was of same people as a Spaniard in Perú, as much as a Portuguese in Brazil was of same people as a Portuguese in Angola or Goa. Or as much as an Englishman was of same people in England, New South Wales, Dunedin, Canada, New Delhi.

And all of a sudden they were no longer of the same people, but of different peoples like the English in New Delhi and the Portuguese in Bom Bahía or Goa. Like the English in Virginia and the Spaniards in Florida. And like either of these with the pre-colonial peoples. The geographical spread had become a political and linguistic scattering.

There are many other examples of where kol erets actually refers to people rather than the geography of the "whole earth":

Only if you leave people out of the geography. In the passages here, we are dealing with kol eretz meaning all of earth geographically because of all the people. Among other things.

Shall not the Judge of all [kol] the earth [erets] deal justly?" (Genesis 18:25) (God judges the people of the earth, not the earth itself)

God judges both people and angelic beings, and God judges justly all over the earth. One cannot say He judges a Hebrew in Israel justly but a Goy in France unjustly.

Now behold, today I am going the way of all [kol] the earth [erets], and you know in all your hearts and in all your souls that not one word of all the good words which the LORD your God spoke concerning you has failed; all have been fulfilled for you, not one of them has failed. (Joshua 23:14) (Joshua was going the way of all people in the earth, whose ultimate destiny is death.)

"I am going the way of all [kol] the earth [erets]. Be strong, therefore, and show yourself a man. (1 Kings 2:2) (David was going the way of all people in the earth, whose ultimate destiny is death.)

Yes, "Aman"** is "outside the walls of the world" ... there is no land of eternal youth anywhere in the earthly realms.

And all [kol] the people of the land [erets] entered the forest, and there was honey on the ground. (1 Samuel 14:25) (The words "the people of" are added to the English, since they are not found in the Hebrew. The actual translation would be "all the land entered the forest," obviously referring to the people and not to the land itself moving into the forest.)

In this case, a specific land had already been specified in verse 24.

Note also that we here have a person outside a group which is referred to as kol eretz - Jonathan:

1 Kings 14:[23] And the Lord saved Israel that day. And the fight went on as far as Bethaven. [24] And the men of Israel were joined together that day; and Saul adjured the people, saying: Cursed be the man that shall eat food till evening, till I be revenged of my enemies. So none of the people tasted any food: [25] And all the common people came into a forest, in which there was honey upon the ground. [26] And when the people came into the forest, behold the honey dropped, but no man put his hand to his mouth. For the people feared the oath. [27] But Jonathan had not heard when his father adjured the people: and he put forth the end of the rod, which he had in his hand, and dipt it in a honeycomb: and he carried his hand to his mouth, and his eyes were enlightened. [28] And one of the people answering, said: Thy father hath bound the people with an oath, saying: Cursed be the man that shall eat any food this day. (And the people were faint.) [29] And Jonathan said: My father hath troubled the land: you have seen yourselves that my eyes are enlightened, because I tasted a little of this honey: [30] How much more if the people had eaten of the prey of their enemies, which they found? had there not been made a greater slaughter among the Philistines?

This supports, directly by parallel with Jonathan, that Hebrews could have opted out of "all the earth" assembling at Shinar at an early stage, and indirectly, seeing that Jonathan might not have been the only straggler, that there may have been stray people around the globe while "all earth was of one tongue" (literally true) and "all earth came together" (except those few who didn't).

While all [kol] the country [erets] was weeping with a loud voice, all the people passed over.(2 Samuel 15:23) (Obviously, the earth cannot weep with a loud voice.)

Whether earth or country, it is the people in it who most often weep with a loud voice. Let's look at context:

2 Kings 15:[22] And David said to Ethai: Come, and pass over. And Ethai the Gethite passed, and all the men that were with him, and the rest of the people. [23] And they all wept with a loud voice, and all the people passed over: the king also himself went over the brook Cedron, and all the people marched towards the way that looketh to the desert.

Note that Douay Rheims is not giving a literal rendering of "kol eretz". Nor does the Vulgate. The LXX actually does : καὶ πᾶς ὁ ὄχλος ὁ μετ' αὐτοῦ. 23 καὶ πᾶσα ἡ γῆ ἔκλαιε φωνῇ μεγάλῃ. καὶ πᾶς ὁ λαὸς - but here πᾶσα ἡ γῆ comes between πᾶς ὁ ὄχλος and καὶ πᾶς ὁ λαὸς.

In other words, context makes it very clear we are not dealing with the globe which gets midday same place successively at 24 hours intervals and different places between them. Saying this can parallel the whole earth in the Flood is like saying very clearly announced parables can parallel the creation account.

He is the LORD our God; His judgments are in all [kol] the earth [erets]. (1 Chronicles 16:14) (Judgments are done against people, not the planet)

But sometimes against the globe too, as in the Flood. And the remnants of the Flood are in all parts of the globe.

Sing to the LORD, all [kol] the earth [erets]; Proclaim good tidings of His salvation from day to day. (1 Chronicles 16:23) (The people sing, not the planet)

Even so, the psalmist wants people to do so all over the globe, not just in restricted local areas of it.

Tremble before Him, all [kol] the earth [erets]; Indeed, the world is firmly established, it will not be moved. (1 Chronicles 16:30) (This does not refer to earthquakes!)

It is an injunction to people anywhere on the globe. Also, it may have involved an earthquake, as God may have let the ground tremble to teach people to do so.

Let all [kol] the earth [erets] fear the LORD; Let all the inhabitants of the world stand in awe of Him. (Psalm 33:8) (People, not planets, fear the Lord)

As you mentioned not just the globe (regularly misnamed planet), but planets in the plural - yes, they do, or their angelic movers do. But the verse here at hand was referring to people all over the globe, not just one small area.

For the choir director. A Song. A Psalm.) Shout joyfully to God, all the earth; (Psalm 66:1) (People shout, not the earth)

But the Psalmist wants people to do so an all parts of the globe.

Same observations are valid for (Psalm 66:4),(Psalm 96:1),(Psalm 96:9), (Psalm 98:4), (Psalm 100:1), (Psalm 105:7), (Isaiah 14:7).

In these two cases some supplementary observation is also to be considered:

Worship the LORD in holy attire; Tremble before Him, all [kol] the earth [erets].(Psalm 96:9) (People worship, not the earth)

While worship refers to angels and men, the trembling can refer also to the trembling of all Earth on the Good Friday.

"The whole [kol] earth [erets] is at rest and is quiet; They break forth into shouts of joy. (Isaiah 14:7) (People shout, not the earth)

While "they break forth into shouts" hasn't per se the whole earth as a subject, the quiet and rest refers to both people and their surroundings.

People can't be very quiet if their surroundings are too noisy.

Now to locality rather than people, in his examples:

"Is not the whole [kol] land [erets] before you? Please separate from me: if to the left, then I will go to the right; or if to the right, then I will go to the left." (Genesis 13:9) (The "whole land" was only the land of Canaan)

The context clarifies that it is the land they are looking at.

And the people of all [kol] the earth [erets] came to Egypt to buy grain from Joseph, because the famine was severe in all the earth. (Genesis 41:57) (The people from the Americas did not go to Egypt)

Whether people from America did or did not go to Egypt is like whether people from America did or did not receive any visit from first generation of Apostles. It is not known they did, but it is not known they did not either. On the other hand, if they did not, all earth could refer to the oikoumene.

I am not sure how you would make this relevant for the Flood, unless you claim it flooded all three continents of the Old World.

And all [kol] the earth [erets] was seeking the presence of Solomon, to hear his wisdom which God had put in his heart. (1 Kings 10:24) (It is unlikely that the Native Americans went to see Solomon.)

Then the fame of David went out into all [kol] the lands [erets]; and the LORD brought the fear of him on all the nations. (1 Chronicles 14:17) (It is unlikely that the Native Americans knew about David.)

Unlikely, but not impossible. See previous. If you take an oikoumene reading, will you say Eurasia with Africa was all flooded?

Then God said, "Behold, I am going to make a covenant. Before all your people I will perform miracles which have not been produced in all [kol] the earth [erets], nor among any of the nations; and all the people among whom you live will see the working of the LORD, for it is a fearful thing that I am going to perform with you. (Exodus 34:10) (There would be no need to add "nor among any of the nations" if "all the earth" referred to the entire planet.)

Oh yes, there would. You complain about Global Flood aspect of YEC being an inability to distinguish kol eretz as being a figure of speech : but there are figures of speech which do not mean words are not taken literally, namely "adding" part to an already given whole, at least when as here negating.

God is definitely saying such miracles have not been produced in Americas as well as not among Chanaanites, which God was about to do. God is so also saying that Joshua's Long Day, Gideon's Fleece and quite a few more were going to be greater miracles than the Flood had been.

'You shall then sound a ram's horn abroad on the tenth day of the seventh month; on the day of atonement you shall sound a horn all [kol] through your land [erets]. (Leviticus 25:9) (The Hebrews were not required to sound a horn throughout the entire earth)

But the Latin does not say simply "in universa terra," but "in universa terra vestra", which makes as much a difference as adding Cush or Havilah to the phrase.

'Thus for every [kol] piece [erets] of your property, you are to provide for the redemption of the land. (Leviticus 25:24) (The law does not apply only to those who own the entire earth)

I suddenly get reminded of a hillbilly liberal, who gets a pun in English and thinks the Bible has been wrongly understood. Like "they shall be stoned to death" understood as taking a VERY great dose of marijuana. Even or especially if it doesn't involve any more dying than the German phrase "Tod müde". Rather than to a death penalty during the period when Israel was a sovereign state during the Old Testament.

Just because a pun exists, does not mean the readers (including translators to other languages) cannot make out where it does not apply.

behold, I will put a fleece of wool on the threshing floor. If there is dew on the fleece only, and it is dry on all [kol] the ground [erets], then I will know that Thou wilt deliver Israel through me, as Thou hast spoken." (Judges 6:37, see also 6:39-40) (kol erets could not refer to the entire earth, since it would not be possible for Gideon to check the entire earth)

Indeed, but kol eretz does as mentioned in translation also mean "all the ground". That it has a pun on "all the earth" adds significance to the mystical meaning of the Fleece of Gideon, about the Blessed Virgin Mary.

As Gideon could check all the ground there as being dry and the fleece only as being moist, so God could check all the virgins on all the Earth as being barren, but Mary alone as bearing a virgin birth. As Gideon could check all the ground there as being moist, but only the fleece dry, so God could check all the people on all the Earth (prior to Incarnation) as having sinned, and only the Blessed Virgin as being sinless.

But, literally, yes, it means "the whole ground" here.

Precisely as an American in one context could speak of someone as "stoned to death" and mean high, while this does NOT mean he can't speak of stoned to death about St Stephen in the other sense of the phrase.***

And Jonathan smote the garrison of the Philistines that was in Geba, and the Philistines heard of it. Then Saul blew the trumpet throughout [kol] the land [erets], saying, "Let the Hebrews hear." (1 Samuel 13:3) (Obviously, Saul could not have blown a trumpet loud enough to be heard throughout the entire earth)

You are missing another figure of speech here. Caesar built a bridge over Lake Geneva ... he didn't do that himself, he ordered it. Saul by himself could not have blown the trumpet loud enough to be heard from South border of Judah to North border of Galilee either. He ordered people to blow the trumpet. If Saul had been king over all the Earth, he could have ordered it over all the Earth. But eretz when referring to orders of a ruler would by common sense involve just the territory he rules.

For God, that is the whole Earth. That is why He could and did order waters to cover all of it.

For the battle there was spread over the whole [kol] countryside [erets], and the forest devoured more people that day than the sword devoured. (2 Samuel 18:8) (No, the battle did not take place over the entire earth.)

So when they had gone about through the whole [kol] land [erets], they came to Jerusalem at the end of nine months and twenty days. (2 Samuel 24:8) (No they didn't go through the entire earth, just the lands of Palestine.)

So glad to see you are concerned with possible misunderstandings, and impossible ones too. Snark aside, in 2 Kings 18:8 some translator got it right for us who use Douay Rheims:

2 Kings 18:[8] And the battle there was scattered over the face of all the country, and there were many more of the people whom the forest consumed, than whom the sword devoured that day.

All the country ... two reflections here.

You think of battles as local events, right? But in this case, the battle was all over the country, there was geographic spread to it.

As with a battle, so with an arrival to Shinar, so with one people deciding to build a city. The spread can have been on a larger area than you imagine.

And, if the forest consumed more than the sword did, I wonder if God didn't wake the trees up or sth.° I am sure that Tolkien and C. S. Lewis discussed that, along with Athenian reports on fauns fighting Persians.

And David said, "My son Solomon is young and inexperienced, and the house that is to be built for the LORD shall be exceedingly magnificent, famous and glorious throughout all [kol] lands [erets]. (1 Chronicles 22:5) (The temple was famous to all the lands in the Middle East, but was destroyed before the advent of globalism.)

You might want to check out the temple which was torn down and built up again in three days - for the sake of which even its shadow, the temple of Solomon, is glorified over Americas and Australia.

And they were bringing horses for Solomon from Egypt and from all [kol] countries [erets]. (2 Chronicles 9:28) (It is unlikely that the Chinese brought horses to Solomon)

Not impossible, perhaps not even unlikely. Confucius lived after King Solomon. So did ... what's his name:

The burning of books and burying of scholars (simplified Chinese: 焚书坑儒; traditional Chinese: 焚書坑儒; pinyin: fénshū kēngrú) refers to the supposed burning of texts in 213 BC and live burial of 460 Confucian scholars in 210 BC by the First Emperor of the Qin dynasty of ancient China. The event caused the loss of many philosophical treatises of the Hundred Schools of Thought. The official philosophy of government ("legalism") survived.

And any Chinese historian reporting anything of relations with King Solomon was at the latest then ... lost.

The article cites "reasons for scepticism", which I don't even look at, for now, since - if I look on it, it is an other article, but - a similar thing happened to those writing contemporary history between AD 30 and AD 96 or sth, in Roman Empire. Vellejus Paterculus is preserved, his II Book of Roman History ends in Year 30 AD or Year 16 of Tiberius. Tacitus is preserved, and his Agricola states there were times when being an honest writer was a dangerous and thankless business. So, we have a similar blackout from Rome as from China. Only the Gospels and Acts survive as contemporary dociments from the time of that blackout.

Hence, if the Chinese sent King Solomon a horse or two, that would not be in their present historiography.

Now, I will take a pause on his Gish Gallop of examples on kol eretz, and I will deal with his arguments for Flood being local in next part.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
St John of Matha
8.II.2017

* Note that chapter:verse spell out 11 - 9. The date of 9 - 11 (or in some languages actually rather 11/9!) can have been chosen by plotters, if they were Illuminati trying to rebuild a one world order, by reversing what God destroyed in Genesis 11:9. ** I was just asked today how many times I had read Silmarillion. *** The fact that eretz has ground as a regular meaning, but English "stoned" has "affected by cannabis intake" only as a slang meaning does not mean there is not equally a situation of homophony, and of puns. ° Yes, I am more of a fan of Prince Caspian and of The Two Towers than of what Shakespear did in "all of Birnam forest walk to Dunsinane".

Creation vs. Evolution

Pages