mercredi 31 octobre 2018

Went to "My" Topic, Ignored My Work


Went to "My" Topic, Ignored My Work · Carbon Dating and Belfast Series

I can't say carbon dating and its reduction to Biblical, that is true, chronology is a topic I have monopoly on.

If I call someone "my father" I am not saying no one else can call him so, and same with "my topic".

It's several people's topic, but, inter alios, it's mine too.

How old? When archaeology conflicts with the Bible
by Gavin Cox
https://creation.com/how-old-archaeology-conflicts-bible


While it may or may not be premature to clinch my tables or the latest of them, in order to reject them, you would need to know of them.

CMI (or some staff, not necessarily Gavin Cox) do, their readers mostly don't.

Now, there is a few items mentioned, and I will make a little table, conferring with my table on carbon, in order to obtain reasonable Biblical chronology values. Note, Gavin is using Ussher's Masoretic based timeline, I am using a LXX based timeline. The one found traditionally since 1489 in the Roman Martyrology. To me, Creation is 5199 BC, Flood 2957 BC, birth of Peleg 401 years after that.

If one accepts a more standard text, LXX will give more like 5500 BC, 3256 BC and 529 years after that.

I will also state that I am - so far as no better alternative is available - using Göbekli Tepe as Babel. Two difficulties are often upcoming, is it in Mesopotamia (Shinar), and where is the tower.

For limits of Mesopotamia including GT, see here. For "tower" possibly being a rocket project (which would have failed if God hadn't stopped it), see here on linguistics of "tower" as name of rocket and here on theology in review of an atheist video. As well as here for question of compatibility with Patristic exegesis.

I am also placing 40 years of Babel City (GT) at 355 to 395 after Flood, between death of Noah and Birth of Peleg.

Now, to the work of comparison.

“Archaeology team finds 9,000-year-old artefacts in NewBo [Cedar Rapids, Iowa, USA] neighbourhood” declares an article from a recent edition of The Gazette. = 7000 BC
"Is it reasonable to accept that a wheel discovered in Slovenia is between 5,100 and 5,350 years old" - 3100 - 3350 BC
"or that agriculture flourished and building projects were undertaken 12,000 years ago?" - Refers to Djemdet Nasr etc for agriculture, and obviously to Göbekli Tepe, c 10 000 BC and later

I also insert material from articles linked to.

Flood
2957 BC
low estim.
c. 1 percent modern carbon (pmc), 38 000 BC (40 000 BP)

Arphaxad *
2955 BC

2913 BC
6.333 pmc 25 713 BC

"24,500 BC"
Mungo Lake charcoal (from a tree arguably at average older than the person)

"22,700 BC"
Mungo 1 collagen - carbon date

2868 BC
11.641 pmc, 20 668 BC

2824 BC
16.917 pmc 17 524 BC

"17,000 BC"
Mungo 1 apatite - carbon date

Shelah *
2820 BC

"16,300 BC"
Older "oldest pottery in China"

2780 BC
22.169 pmc, 15 230 BC

2735 BC
27.388 pmc 13435 BC
"13,430 BC"
Younger "oldest pottery in China"

Eber *
2690 - 91 BC
32.588 pmc 11941 BC

"11 - 10 000 BC"
beginning of agriculture

2646 BC
37.752 pmc 10 696 BC

"10,300 BC"
Late Wisconsinian, obtained from wood

Noah +
2607 BC

Babel begins 2602 BC
42.89 pmc, 9600 BC
"9600 BC"
beginning of Göbekli Tepe, beginning of Babel

"9300 BC"
Jordan Valley fig trees

"8600 BC"
end of Göbekli Tepe = end of Babel
Babel ends 2562 BC
48.171 pmc, 8600 BC

Peleg *
2556 BC

2523 BC
50.609 pmc 8173 BC

"8000 BC"
squash in Mexico

2484 BC
53.036 pmc, 7734 BC

Shem +
2455 BC

2444
55.451 pmc, 7344 BC

Reu *
2426 BC

2405 BC
57.849 pmc, 6955 BC
"7000 BC"
artefacts from Cedar Rapids and Cereals grown in Syria and maize-like plants derived from teosinte appear to have been cultivated

Arphaxad +
2390 BC

2366 BC
60.241 pmc, 6566 BC

Shelah +
2360 BC

2327 BC
62.622 pmc, 6177 BC

Serug *
2294 BC

2288 BC
64.991 pmc, 5838 BC

2249 BC
67.347 pmc, 5499 BC

Peleg +
2217 BC

2209 BC
69.694 pmc, 5209 BC

Eber +
2186 BC

2170 BC
72.031 pmc, 4870 BC

Nahor *
2164 BC

2131 BC
74.356 pmc, 4581 BC

2092 BC
76.665 pmc, 4292 BC

Reu +
2087 BC

Terah *
2085 BC

2053 BC
78.968 pmc, 4003 BC

Abraham *
2015 BC

2013 BC
81.261 pmc, 3713 BC

"3500 BC"
first directly dated corn cob

1974 BC
83.542 pmc, 3474 BC

"3350 BC"
early date for Slovenian wheel

Serug +
1964 BC

Nahor +
1956 BC

Genesis 14, 1935 BC
85.811 pmc, 3200 BC

"3100 BC"
late date for Slovenian wheel

"3000 BC"
cultivated sun flowers and potatoes


Assumptions used: carbon dates are distorted due to lower initial carbon, and carbon has risen continuously since Flood to present level (perhaps peaking a bit above so some things may be dated younger than real dates), dates from other methods are irrelevant for carbon date table (both faulty and not likely to totally systematically make same fault in same extent), Flood's carbon date coincides with last directly dated Neanderthal people (older than Mousterian tools in Gorham Cave Level IV), 40 000 BC, carron date for Genesis 14 is (thank you Osgood) that of chalcolithic (of En Geddi), Göbekli Tepe being Babel its carbon dates are carbon dates corresponding to Biblical dates of Babel, carbon buildup is at least partly a natural process and natura non facit saltus. And C14 decays at a half life of 5730 years (obtainable from very much more recent dates) which hasn't changed over time.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
Vigil of All Saints
31.X.2018

Corrected two spelling mistakes within a week./HGL

vendredi 26 octobre 2018

Pääbo and Habermehl


Both published papers on Neanderthals in 2010.

Anne Habermehl published hers ... January:

Answers Research Journal 3 (2010):1–21.
www.answersingenesis.org/arj/v3/enigmatic-neanderthals.pdf


Pääbo published his in ... May:

A Draft Sequence of the Neandertal Genome
(Of several authors, Richard E. Green is mentioned first and Svante Pääbo last)
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5100745/


Published in final edited form as:
Science. 2010 May 7; 328(5979): 710–722.

In other words, when Anne Habermehl wrote her paper on Neanderthals, she did not yet have access to Svante Pääbo's investigation about sequencing the genome.

Yet - in a correspondence we had - she has claimed that she understood Pääbo's work as bogus, he was projecting back to Neanderthals genetic differences as observed now, absolutely not in any way shape or form actually sequenced actual DNA, Cuozzo has the final word (from 1998) over Pääbo (2010) because he studied developmental morphology (as opposed to static morphology .... however you square that with no Neanderthal skull ever being observed in growth over the years of its life by X-rays, since all Neanderthal skulls are dead.

Now, here is a little contribution to why Homo Erectus is non-human:

Consideration of this question logically leads to the conclusions of Wise, who says that since there must have been more peoples than this leaving Babel, there must be whole groups of early people who have disappeared, whether in natural catastrophe, warfare, or whatever (Wise 2005). Indeed, Wise goes as far as saying that H. erectus may have been the only humans at Babel; in his proposed scenario, Neanderthals would have possibly developed later. This raises the question whether this accords with what the Bible says in Genesis 10, where it lists a lot of different peoples, but nothing about disasters or eradicating any of them.

Also, as Wood points out, if H. erectus were human, this would also indicate that there was a wider range of physical appearance, and therefore genetic diversity, immediately after the Flood than we have today (Wood 2008). But in the view of others, there should have been less human diversity immediately after the two genetic bottlenecks of the Flood and the Babel dispersion, with diversity increasing as time went on (Ashcraft 2004; Nelson 2004).

Those problems are all solved if, like Cuozzo (1998, p. 101), we put H. erectus into the category of apes. This suggests that all the people who left Babel were Neanderthals who spread out in many directions to form the nations of Genesis 10; moreover, all peoples now living on earth are descended from Neanderthals. This theme will be developed in the next section on Neanderthal lifespan.


So - what if Homo erectus (possibly), Flores Hobbits (possibly, I'd even say probably), Heidelbergians, Atapuerca Antecessors, Denisovans and Neanderthals were all pre-Flood?

AND one other pre-Flood race, ours, came on the Ark, with some minor half caste (mixed race) contribution from Neanderthals and Denisovans through daughters in law.

This means they came before the bottle-neck, not after it.

Which means, the Flood reduced human variability, precisely as expected.

Everyone agrees that modern humans showed up on the world scene at approximately the same time that the Neanderthals disappeared; whether or not this timing was a coincidence is debated. Some evolutionists allow thousands of years for the two groups to overlap—how many thousand is a matter of intense discussion—because they have a lot of time at their disposal, and a few thousand years here or there are a mere trifle (see, for example, Lewin 1999, pp. 157, 165–166). Creationists obviously have far less historical time available to account for the Neanderthal disappearance and subsequent appearance of modern man; therefore they have to explain how this mysterious event could have happened so quickly. But the problem for both sides is the same: why did it happen?


Habermehl is in fact wrong on what "everyone agrees".

Neanderthals disappeared, carbon dated (that is misdated by inflated timeline) 30 - 40 000 years ago.

If we make it 40 000 years, that gives me a carbon date for the Flood to be compared to the real, Biblical date. And therefore a carbon level at Flood.

Obviously, if Gorham cave of Gibraltar contains any actual bodyparts of Neanderthals (whether skulls or teeth) and not just Mousterian tools, the carbon date would be the later dates of Gorham level IV, which is a considerably more recent carbon date, a considerably higher carbon level at the Flood and therefore also some perspective of calibrating in detail C14 for pre-Flood times, which I had left out of reckoning as unrealistic. To me, any carbon date 40 000 - 70 000 (or 65 000, if that is the limit) simply means "pre-Flood" and I am so far not trying any calibration of what pre-Flood years. So, Anno Mundi 2242, was the carbon level 1.45 pmC, meaning we date the 5000 years and add the 35 000 "instant years" to get an inflated date of 40 000 years?

Or was the level 11.333 pmC, meaning we date the 5000 years and add only 18 000 "instant age" years, to get an inflated date of 23 000 BP, as per latest dates in Gorham level IV?

Level IIILevel IV
8 0 Number of AMS Dates <24 kyr bp
0 22 Number of AMS dates >24 kyr bp
10800 23040 Youngest Date (lower 95% confidence limit)
18600 33340 Oldest Date (upper 95% confidence limit)
0 103 Number of mousterian artefacts present
240 0 Number of upper Palaeolithic artefacts present
Omitting ratios I don't know the use of.


Gorham’s Cave, Gibraltar—The persistence of a Neanderthal population
http://www.ugr.es/~grupo179/pdf/finlayson%202008.pdf


In the latter case, one would actually have an interest in making similar calibrations for pre-Flood timeline (5199 - 2957 BC) as I have so far done exclusively for post-Flood (from 2957 BC especially to 2015, birth of Abraham, to some extent also even up to 1510, Exodus).

For my part, as long as I am not told explicitly that Gorham level IV contains actual Neanderthal bodily remains, I'll take it as post-Flood and Neanderthals as pre-Flood and Noah's family as visiting and doing or collecting Mousterian tools.

Now, why would modern man NOT have been a pre-Flood race, along Neanderthals?

Everyone agrees that modern humans showed up on the world scene at approximately the same time that the Neanderthals disappeared.


No, Evolutionists don't agreee on that.

They say modern humans turned up in Europe a few millennia before Neanderthals disappeared. Tool styles and art styles like Aurignacian, Magdalenian, Gravettian all turn up in Europe c. 40 000 ...

Aurignacien
Répartition géographique Europe, Moyen-Orient, Asie centrale, Altaï
Période Paléolithique supérieur
Chronologie de 43 000 à 29 000 AP
Gravettien
Répartition géographique Europe - Sibérie
Période Paléolithique supérieur
Chronologie 31 000 à 22 000 ans AP
Solutréen
Répartition géographique Ouest du Rhône et sud de la Seine en France, Espagne, Portugal
Période Paléolithique supérieur
Chronologie environ 22 000 à 17 000 avant le présent
Magdalénien
Répartition géographique Europe occidentale et centrale
Période Paléolithique supérieur
Chronologie Environ 17 000 à 12 000 avant le présent


However, they also say that modern humans were around well before turning up in Europe.

Homo sapiens idaltu (Afar: Idaltu; "elder" or "first born"[1]), also called Herto Man,[1] is the name given to a number of hominin fossils found in 1997 in Herto Bouri, Ethiopia. They date to around 160,000 years ago.[2]

Paleoanthropologists determined that the skeletal finds belong to an extinct subspecies of Homo sapiens which lived in Pleistocene Africa since the fossils possess some archaic cranial traits that are uncommon among anatomically modern humans. They also generally lack the derived features of classic Neanderthals. Homo sapiens idaltu are morphologically similar to both archaic African fossils and subsequent anatomically modern humans of the Late Pleistocene.

Because of their early dating and unique physical characteristics, they were believed to represent the immediate ancestors of anatomically modern humans, as suggested by the Out-of-Africa theory.[1][3] The oldest anatomically modern human fossils (315,000 years old) discovered at Jebel Irhoud, Morocco, have since been dated to nearly twice the age of the Herto fossils.


Why do I bother about Herto man or Jebel Irhoud being dated 160 or 315 millennia ago? They are not carbon dates, after all? And I mainly consider Potassium Argon dates as bogus or hazard game, right?

Well, Habermehl was talking of how "Everyone agrees that modern humans showed up on the world scene at approximately the same time that the Neanderthals disappeared" and she is including Evolutionists since she is talking, a) of "everybody" and b) specifically of how Evolutionists debate the millennia of coexistence.

Citing (the very biassed) Timeline of human evolution
 
130–80 kaMarine Isotope Stage 5 (Eemian).
 
 Modern human presence in Southern Africa and West Africa.[47] Appearance of mitochondrial haplogroup (mt-haplogroup) L2.
 
80–50 ka MIS 4, beginning of the Upper Paleolithic.
 
Early evidence for behavioral modernity.[48] Appearance of mt-haplogroups M and N. Southern Dispersal migration out of Africa, Proto-Australoid peopling of Oceania.[49] Archaic admixture from Neanderthals in western Eurasia, from Denisovans in East and Southeast Asia,[50][51] and from an unspecified "basal western African" lineage and other "deeply divergent" archaic humans in Sub-Saharan Africa.[52]
 
50–25 ka
 
Behavioral modernity develops, according to the "great leap forward" theory.[53] Extinction of Homo floresiensis[54] M168 mutation (carried by all non-African males). Appearance of mt-haplogroups U and K. Peopling of Europe, peopling of the North Asian Mammoth steppe. Paleolithic art. Extinction of Neanderthals and other archaic human variants (with possible survival of hybrid populations in Asia and Africa. Appearance of Y-Haplogroup R2; mt-haplogroups J and X.


For my part, I think modern men and Neanderthals coexisted for much of latter half if not all of the 2242 years before the Flood. They diverged, whether simply by genetic drift and if so, how far was Adam from modern human and to Neanderthal or Denisovan, or by a genetic experiment gone wrong.

The "genetic experiment" idea comes from Pääbo's observation that mitochondrial DNA of Neanderthals are half way between man and chimp.

But it is also possible, genetic divergence started out with a higher potential before the Flood, spanning "modern" as well as Neanderthal and Denisovan, and the carbon dates 55 to 40 millennia ago reflect the part of the pre-Flood world - Europe and perhaps Asia - where Neanderthals and Cro-Magnon were living together, mainly on Neanderthal terms.

And, Neanderthals are visible in remains, while Nodians are not, because they lived like today some Amerindians, in the sense of lacking agriculture and so on.

Genesis 6:[7] He said: I will destroy man, whom I have created, from the face of the earth, from man even to beasts, from the creeping thing even to the fowls of the air, for it repenteth me that I have made them.

Would it be against this verse, as Anne Habermehl argues, if any remains remain as bones, found in caves or sedimentary layers? I don't think so. A cave or a mudlayer (later hardening to sediment) by definition is no longer on the face of the earth. And the life is destroyed by death, even if bones remain.

I do think that if she would like to exclude this, arguing like only Hadean layers are from Flood (there was some time since I looked up her tables on matching Biblical real chronology with, simply, secular or conventional), then the major part of "geological column" (which she reckons with) will be post-Flood and so if no single disaster, at least successive disasters together would have left more sediment than the Flood. Which is an inconvenience.

I therefore, while deploring that Mr Pääbo is Evolutionist (but congratulations to his marriage!) find his work on Neanderthal DNA very interesting, and that partly due tothe fact we do share some Neanderthal DNA and partly the fact this is never from Y chromosomes or mitochondrial DNA, suggesting we are both patrilinearly and matrilinearly cut off from Neanderthals, as would be the case if the relevant genome had passed through a daughter in law of Noah (passing on no Y chromosome, since a female) who was Neanderthal on either father's or a grandfather's side, thereby excluding the Neanderthal genome also from being a carrier of mitochondrial DNA.

Meanwhile, I don't know exactly what parts of Neanderthal morphology and developmental morphology which are explained exclusively by the DNA, I cannot exclude Cuozzo has some points (shared with his admirer Habermehl) about the old ages of Neanderthals. That in turn, while consistent with very early post-Flood men, would also be very consistent with pre-Flood men.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
St Evarist, Pope and Martyr
26.X.2018

Romae sancti Evaristi, Papae et Martyris, qui Dei Ecclesiam, sub Hadriano Imperatore, suo sanguine purpuravit.

samedi 13 octobre 2018

CMI Promoting Heliocentrism Again


Quotes not specifically attributed before or after text to other source , but numbered, are from:

Our Amazing Created Solar System
[composite work under ed.] Russell Grigg
https://austore.creation.com/our-amazing-created-solar-system


But first I will quote another paper by CMI:

The distant starlight problem often raised against young-age creation cosmology is as follows: “If Creation occurred only a few thousand years ago, how can we see light from stars that are billions of light years away?” Over the past decades several solutions have been proposed including light created already in transit (Morris 1976), a variable speed of light (Setterfield 1989), gravitational time dilation (Humphreys 1994), supernatural time dilation (Hartnett 2003), and the anisotropic synchrony convention (ASC) model (Newton 2001; Lisle 2010). Faulkner (2013) provides a brief overview and criticism of the above solutions and offers his own, which involves the miraculous “shooting” forth (Hebrew: dasha) of light from distant stellar objects on Creation Day Four. However, Hartnett (2014) has pointed out that Faulkner’s scenario would have left behind several types of tell-tale physical evidence, none of which has been observed.

From : A SOLUTION FOR THE DISTANT STARLIGHT PROBLEM USING CREATION TIME COORDINATES
Tichomir Tenev et al. on International Conference on Creationism, 2018
http://creationicc.org/2018_papers/11%20Tenev%20starlight%20final.pdf


From their list of papers:
http://creationicc.org/papers.php?yr=2018


Why I am mentioning this? Because, of all the solutions given for Distant Starlight Paradox, one is lacking : a universe which is smaller, because even "close" stellar distances like alpha Centauri are using wrong method in accepting parallax based on Heliocentrism.

In other words, the Geocentric and "small universe" solution is lacking. Obviously, stars at 1 light day distance, while clearly smaller than billions of light years of distance, is still not small, similarily as creation in 5199 or 5500 BC (or some would go for 4004) is called "recent creation" even is 6 or 7 millennia is not really recent.

Their own solution here presented looks quite a bit like "yeah, starlight travelled for 100 000 years, but was still not emitted longer than 6000 years ago, because contemporary depends on when light arrives". Sure, that is as much Young Earth Creationism as the Djinn asking Bill Nye what he wanted and Bill Nye saying "I want to be a scientist". "Poof" "Nothing changed?" "Yes, I just changed the definition of scientist" ... and these guys just changed the definition of Young Earth Creationist ... unless they appeal to "Young Earth but Old Universe".

Why on their view stars "were" created on day four needs to be seen in their own words. Here is one formulation:

We also compared our solution to other current ones and noted a strong convergence of thought among creationist researchers pertaining to the arrangement of the stellar creation events in spacetime. That arrangement is the one in which the creation events of all the stars and galaxies, including the stars within our own galaxy, lay very close to Earth’s Day Four light cone when they were created by God. Simply from those initial conditions, first light from all these objects arrived on Earth during Creation Day Four, and the light that has arrived ever since carries the subsequent histories of these objects synchronized in time as measured by clocks on Earth.


So, on my view, suppose you have two points A and B at two light minutes distance. At 18:00 on Earth, a beam goes from A to B and from B to A. At 18:02 on Earth, they arrive. The emission of light beam A to B and the reception of light beam on A from B are not contemporary, therefore the light beams will seem consecutive. On point B they will seem consecutive in the reverse order. Between these points, a point C is exactly one light minute from each, and at 18:01 a light beam was sent in both directions, but other colour. Since on A, BA and CA arrive at same time, they will seem contemporary, but they will really be consecutive in the emission. On B, AB and CB seem contemporary, but will be consecutive in the emission. And this way, the they give solution really does say Universe is older than Creation week.

Enter Einstein. He will claim AB and CB are contemporary on B, BA and CA contemporary on A, AB and BA and CA and CB all four contemporary on C, bc this is what can be verified at each point. Therefore CA and CB will nowhere be last, even if they were so in emission. Hey presto, problem solved - except solution is unappealing. Counterintuitive. Conflating "verifiable" with true. While verifiable things are generally true, lots of true things are not verifiable, at least to some. A problem is not solved bc a "problematic" key term is redefined. Problametic here as showing where the problem is. It is actually the redefined terms which are problematic in the usual sense - like calling logarithms "numbers" when they aren't.

Another tidbit from that paper:

A side effect of our solution is the asymmetric relationship between the Earth and stars. While light from distant stars emitted on Day Four also reaches Earth on Day Four, the reverse is not true. In fact, due to the special initial conditions, a star located a billion light years away from Earth will not receive light, or any other signal from Earth, until its CTC clock strikes two billion years. This asymmetry is consistent with Scripture, according to which God appointed the stars “to give light upon the Earth” (Genesis 1:15) but did not grant man dominion over the stars like He did over other parts of Creation (Genesis 1:28). In other words, Scripture indicates that while stars are causally to affect Earth, the reverse is not true.


Well, for that to be true, it suffices that man will never reach the stars or his reaching them will be futile, and be resumed as "I came, I saw, I didn't much do anything". Which is, if Voyager one or two ever reach sphere of fix stars, is what I suppose will be the issue.

Now for the quotes from first mentioned paper, starting with I:

I) Galileo supported the theory of Nicolaus Copernicus (1473–1543) that the earth and other planets move around the sun. Anti-Christian propagandists make much of the conflict between Galileo and the Church, or ‘science vs religion’. But Galileo thought that the much simpler mathematics of the Copernican system compared to the unwieldy Ptolemaic system would best reflect God’s mathematical simplicity (i.e. God is not composed of parts but is Triune). The Encyclopædia Britannica identifies Galileo’s main opponents as the scientific establishment:


Why would movements of stars and planets need simplicity? I mean, what is the theological ratio?

We already have space reflecting the Holy Trinity by being one space with three dimensions.

That God is not composed of parts, does not mean He cannot mentally comprehend parts.

And making stellar movements on one level less perfect and more complex is a way of answering astrolatry. If God chose ellipses in order to avoid Platonic worship of stars moving in perfect circles, He can have put them in epicycles as well, for same reason.

Quote II purports to be from Encyclopedia Britannica, and I could not check the footnote to see from which edition, so, while I won't accuse them of fabricating a quote, I suspect it is an earlier and more biassed EB:

II) “The Aristotelian professors, seeing their vested interests threatened, united against him. They strove to cast suspicion on him in the eyes of the ecclesiastical authorities because of [alleged] contradictions between the Copernican theory and Scriptures.”


It would seem one of these "Aristotelian professors" was not a secular scientist at all, but a Dominican priest, and he reacted when he heard of or read Galileo's view of Joshua 10.

Here is another Britannica article, holding a different view from quote on who complained:

Galileo’s increasingly overt Copernicanism began to cause trouble for him. In 1613 he wrote a letter to his student Benedetto Castelli (1577–1644) in Pisa about the problem of squaring the Copernican theory with certain biblical passages. Inaccurate copies of this letter were sent by Galileo’s enemies to the Inquisition in Rome, and he had to retrieve the letter and send an accurate copy. Several Dominican fathers in Florence lodged complaints against Galileo in Rome, and Galileo went to Rome to defend the Copernican cause and his good name. Before leaving, he finished an expanded version of the letter to Castelli, now addressed to the grand duke’s mother and good friend of Galileo, the dowager Christina. In his Letter to the Grand Duchess Christina, Galileo discussed the problem of interpreting biblical passages with regard to scientific discoveries but, except for one example, did not actually interpret the Bible. That task had been reserved for approved theologians in the wake of the Council of Trent (1545–63) and the beginning of the Catholic Counter-Reformation. But the tide in Rome was turning against the Copernican theory, and in 1615, when the cleric Paolo Antonio Foscarini (c. 1565–1616) published a book arguing that the Copernican theory did not conflict with scripture, Inquisition consultants examined the question and pronounced the Copernican theory heretical. Foscarini’s book was banned, as were some more technical and nontheological works, such as Johannes Kepler’s Epitome of Copernican Astronomy. Copernicus’s own 1543 book, De revolutionibus orbium coelestium libri vi (“Six Books Concerning the Revolutions of the Heavenly Orbs”), was suspended until corrected. Galileo was not mentioned directly in the decree, but he was admonished by Robert Cardinal Bellarmine (1542–1621) not to “hold or defend” the Copernican theory. An improperly prepared document placed in the Inquisition files at this time states that Galileo was admonished “not to hold, teach, or defend” the Copernican theory “in any way whatever, either orally or in writing.”

From : Galileo, Italian philosopher, astronomer and mathematician
Written By: Albert Van Helden
https://www.britannica.com/biography/Galileo-Galilei#accordion-article-history


No mention of Aristotelian professors uniting against him before ecclesiastical authorities. Even less of them seeing their vested interests threatened. Perhaps Russell Grigg et al. were using an older edition with much more anti-Catholic and anti-Scholastic bias?

Here in quote III, someone is supposed to prove Heliocentrism was well supported among actual clergy:

III) Giorgio de Santillana (1902–1974), Professor of the History of Science at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, pointed out that contrary to myth:

“It has been known for a long time that a major part of the church’s intellectuals were on the side of Galileo, while the clearest opposition to him came from secular ideas.”


Both sides should have realized that all movement must be described in relation to something else—a reference frame—andfrom a descriptive point of view,all reference frames are equally valid.


Who is this Giorgio de Santillana?

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

Giorgio Diaz de Santillana (30 May 1902 – 1974) was an Italian-American philosopher and historian of science, and Professor of the History of Science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT).


Historians of science are often bad, and if at scientific institutes, my confidence is even weaker.

In 1969, he published a book entitled: Hamlet's Mill, An Essay on Myth and the Frame of Time with Dr. Hertha von Dechend. This book focused upon the understanding of the connection between the mythological stories of Pharaonic Egypt, Babylon, Greece, Christianity, etc. and the ancient observations pertaining to the stars, planets and, most notably, the 26,000 year precession of the equinoxes. He died at Beverly, Massachusetts, in 1974.


Not the kind of thing CMI would normally recommend, more like the kind of thing Gary Bates would consider UFOlogic and potentially demonic, but when it comes to judges of Galileo, CMI can by now be suspected of hatchet jobs. Perhaps especially Russell Grigg, who seems one of the more orrery about Catholicism.

However, the quote might conceivably be from Giorgio's contribution to another composite work, the volume The Mentor Philosophers: where he wrote the volume The Age of Adventure which treats of "Nicholas of Cusa, Da Vinci, Thomas More, Machiavelli, Michelangelo, Erasmus, Martin Luther, Albrecht Dürer, Copernicus, Montaigne, Kepler, Jakob Böhme, Galileo, Richard Hakluyt, Giordano Bruno."

I am not sure he was very familiar with Coimbra Jesuits. I somehow don't think he gave Riccioli's Novum Organum a very deep consideration. The list even omits Kepler's mentor Tycho Brahe.

Whom Bellarmine cited in the debates with Galileo in the first process, when the accused was not Galileo, but one of his books. Bellarmine was not Aristotelic or Ptolemaic, and the sun spots and the stars in the Milky Way and the Moons of Jupiter were all discussed and none of them were condemned. When Galileo mentioned how planets orbitting sun would simplify observations, Bellarmine specifically mentioned the solution of Tycho Brahe, and Galileo specifically rejected it.

Also, looking further on Giorgio Diaz de Santillana:

Son of the Tunisian-Italian jurist David Santillana, expert of Islamic Law, Giorgio was born and mostly educated in Rome, Santillana moved to the United States in 1936 and became a naturalized US citizen in 1945.


One aspect of Islamic law would by then in many places, and probably already in Tunisia too, have considered it vital to defend religion and clergy from any criticism which could come from the "falsafa", meaning, if Giorgio thought it impossible or even socially too irksome to defend Geocentrism, and if he transferred the idea to Catholicism, which even many Muslims would extend it to, he would try to pretend Catholicism had never been in conflict with this "proven truth" he took Heliocentrism for.

If you want one good historian of science, it is Duhem. He's the guy who dug up Nicolas Oresme, noted he had refuted all commonsense objections to Heliocentrism, except one, namely, without proof it is uneconomic. I haven't read him himself, I have only read people depending on him. Look up how he looked at Galileo case.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
St. Edward of England*
13.X.2018

* Also, 101 years since last apparition at Fatima.

jeudi 11 octobre 2018

Neanderthal Probably Innocent of Giantism? And other smaller tidbits of questions


I Neanderthal Probably Innocent of Giantism?


  • 1) Not six fingers and six toes:

    I Chronicles 20:[6] There was another battle also in Geth, in which there was a man of great stature, whose fingers and toes were four and twenty, six on each hand and foot: who also was born of the stock of Rapha

  • 2) Not extraordinary height:

    Deuteronomy 3:[11] For only Og king of Basan remained of the race of the giants. His bed of iron is shewn, which is in Rabbath of the children of Ammon, being nine cubits long, and four broad after the measure of the cubit of a man's hand.

    Haydock gives two versions of what this might mean:

    His bed was 13½ feet long, and 6½ feet broad, taking the cubit at least 18 inches, with Arbuthnot; though Calmet allows 20½ French inches, which are greater than ours. As beds are commonly made larger than the person who lies in them, he concludes that Og might be 14 or 15 feet high, unless he was possessed with the same vanity as Alexander the Great, who caused beds five cubits long to be left in his camp, when he returned from his Indian expedition, in order that the people might think that his soldiers were of a gigantic stature. Allowances must here be made for a royal bed; and, at any rate, it will not easily be proved that a human body might not exceed 12 or 15 feet in height, without injuring the just proportions, as T. Paine would have us believe. We know that the difference in size between the inhabitants of Shetland and of Patagonia is still very great; and the people of the former island would act very irrationally, if they would not credit the existence of the Lincolnshire ox, or of the large dray horses in London, because their own oxen are not bigger than mastiffs. See Watson, p. 26.


  • 3) The Neanderthals of one place in Spain were vegetarians, enjoying especially the pine nuts which are now used for pesto, the Neanderthal in Shanidar survived through cares of his own men after he had been crippled, and ...

  • 4) If Neanderthals had indeed been the Nephelim race, it is less probable that Noah would have allowed one of his sons to marry one even half or quarter Neanderthal, as seems to be the case with Mrs. Japheth.


All four are revertible, controvertible, none is totally conclusive. But they are notable.

II Four Rivers, Other Bid


0:31 in CRAZY-MUST SEE NOW! Entire Bible Explained Like a Boss - Truth of Nephilim, Anunnaki, Bloodlines
Evangelist Nick Garrett | 18.V.2018
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mpgSxuMputc


Where would that leave Gihon and Pishon now? Nile and Red Sea? Nile and Jordan? Either way, the arrangement if involving the Nile would involve at least one river changing the direction.

Or does the Evangelist think they are vanished into Mediterranean? Or is he speaking about Syria?

III Wallace and Darwin, Rip-Off or Agreement?
An article by Jerry Bergman, CMI, considered Darwin may have committed a rip-off on Wallace. This seems to indicate that was not quite the case:

Video: Darwin, Charles, and Wallace, Alfred, Natural Means of Selection, 1858. Peter Harrington.
PeterHarringtonBooks | 19.I.2018
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GT1n5akGgMM&list=UUvAHVPrufHJpdT_L3GaIfpw


Description: The first published statement of the theory of evolution in its original journal appearance. Following his return from his voyage aboard the Beagle, during which he had made the observations and gathered the specimens that would provide the data for his groundbreaking conclusions, Charles Darwin spent more than two decades formulating his theory. He was near completion of his great work On the Origin of Species when he was sent a manuscript on species change by the young naturalist Alfred Russel Wallace. It read much like an abstract of the book he was still compiling. In a compromise that would give both of the scientists a measure of priority, it was agreed that Wallace's paper and some of Darwin's writings showing his own discovery of natural selection would be read at the same Linnean Society meeting, on 1 July 1858. The journal combines two contributions by Darwin with one by Wallace. Following the introduction by Charles Lyell and Joseph Hooker is "Extract from an unpublished work on Species by C. Darwin, consisting of a portion of a Chapter entitled 'On the Variation of Organic Beings in a state of Nature; on the Natural Means of Selection; on the Comparison of Domestic Races and true Species'" (pp. 46–50). This is followed by "Abstract of a Letter from C. Darwin, Esq., to Prof. Asa Gray, Boston, U.S., dated Down, September 5th, 1857" (pp. 50–53). Finally comes Wallace's contribution, "On the Tendency of Varieties to depart indefinitely from the Original Type" (pp. 53–62).

The video is part on a series of a professional bookbinder. The book features, because it is a rare old book.

Other article on CMI, more correctly just mentions Wallace was involved:

CMI : Alfred Russel Wallace—‘co-inventor’ of Darwinism
By Russell Grigg | from Creation 27(4), September 2005
https://creation.com/alfred-russel-wallace-co-inventor-of-darwinism


IV
Messinian salinity crisis and Mediterranean.

Did the Mediterranean Sea desiccate numerous times?
by Michael J. Oard
https://creation.com/mediterranean-desiccate


Quoting:

The creation science explanation of such a huge deposit is that the ‘evaporites’ are actually precipitates. It’s a model that needs further work. The area and volume of these deposits imply a catastrophic mechanism typical of a global Flood. The thick layer of precipitates would place the Flood/post-Flood boundary in this area in the very late Cenozoic. Noah’s Flood is the only mechanism that could produce such a huge, thick deposit in a short time, not to speak of many of the other ‘evaporites’ worldwide.


Evaporites actually precipitates? Fine.

It's a model which needs further work? Not mine.

"imply a catastrophic mechanism" - in Mediterranean, we could actually be talking of two floods. I am still looking for the reference when writing this.

V
Some have considered rocketry is in the Bible.

I, for instance, consider "tower" as good a word for space rocket as any, referring to Genesis 11 (note, rocket per se means bobbin in Italian, more appropriate about firework rockets, right?)

Someone else, I forgot who but if not Rob Skiba someone his type, noted this:

"Though thou be exalted as an eagle, and though thou set thy nest among the stars: thence will I bring thee down, saith the Lord."
[Abdias (Obadiah) 1:4]

US, Russian astronauts safe after emergency landing
https://www.mail.com/int/scitech/news/8787852-us-russian-astronauts-safe-emergency-landing.html#.1258-stage-hero1-1


As per verse 1, the words are to Edom. Now, which of Russia and US is the Edomite eagle, or is it both?

Both at least have eagles in their emblems and here both tried to "set their nest among the stars".

And both were very safely brought down.

Update on story:

US astronaut thanks Russian rescuers for their quick work
https://www.mail.com/int/news/europe/8790148-us-astronaut-thanks-russian-rescuers-their-quick-w.html

mardi 9 octobre 2018

Theoretic and Real Decay Since Mid Göbekli Tepe


Göbekli Tepe starts at Carbon date 11600 BP.

Göbekli Tepe ends at Carbon date 10600 BP.

Two halflives old = 11460 BP = 25 pmC left.

Now look at the graph, real decay is just in the right half:

lundi 1 octobre 2018

Some s. c. Catholics demonise Tempier and Kilwardby


Note, Stephen II Tempier had been wary of St Thomas Aquinas, since he valued Plato and esp. Aristotle highly.

This means, some have construed it as if St Thomas Aquinas stood condemned posthumously by his erstwhile bishop.

Now, I don't think he was mentioned by name, but there were such rumours back then. 48 years later, when St Thomas Aquinas was canonised, Stephen III of Paris issued a declaration saying St Thomas was not condemned.

This has in some quarters been construed as if the condemnations by Tempier (a prototype of the Syllabus errorum by Pope Pius IX) had been overturned.

On some issues, what Tempier condemned and what St Thomas Aquinas endorsed was about two shades or one shade apart.

For instance, St Thomas Aquinas said, each angel is its species, since idividuals of one species de facto are separated by being created in different matter - while Tempier condemned the idea that God couldn't have done otherwise, but need to have created different angels in different species.

16 (81). Quod, quia intelligentie non habent materiam, deus non posset plures eiusdem speciei facere.


In other words, "that, since the intelligences (angels) don't have any matter, God couldn't have created more of a same species."

St Thomas on his part only says that God in fact didn't (for same reason). This doesn't mean St Thomas considers the angels are just a few, no, rather he considers there are "infinite numbers" (to human mathematicians) of species of angels. The nine choirs of angels are just major groupings.

This is the kind of tension which some have so construed that if you are for Tempier, you are against Aquinas or if you are for St Thomas, you think Tempier is overturned or was a "fanatic" or sth. Dominic Statham seems to have little use for them:

In the thinking of Plato, when ‘the Demiurge’ (the creator) shaped the world, he was not free to make it as he wished, but had to conform to certain rules and principles. In addition he had to use materials he had not created himself and these tended to resist his attempts to form them. Similarly, his pupil Aristotle saw the creator as having only limited power to impose his preferred order on the natural world. Galen was another influential Greek writer who rejected the Genesis account of creation because this was contrary to his understanding that the creator would be limited in his work by the nature of matter.


St. Thomas Aquinas was aware of this, and corrected these sides.

Btw, the problem with Aristotle was rather he considered God as "lacking motivation" to prefer or impose any order at all, except what the love of God self imposes on an eternal world.

Obviously St Thomas answered this that God is three Persons, therefore Love, therefore can create out of love.

Upcoming are the exact quotes from St. Thomas and a part in which I consider Newton.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris 13
St. Remigius
1.X.2018