Muslims and my Creationism

On the face of it, they are fairly encouraging.

I have misgivings, though. I'll first give two feedbacks, one of them encouraging, to a point, the latter less so, though both were meant to be encouraging.

"Darwin," (I translate) "was to manipulate and help control the masses."

His heirs are certainly being used that way and are certainly willing to be so used, but when it comes to exercising bad control, I think his relative Galton and his admirer Marx were far worse than he, at least in their intentions.

But there is a problem if one considers an ideology first and foremost about how much control it exercises and not about what its arguments are.

"I hope Darwin is in Hell, he's certainly having it very hot."

I agree he is very probably damned, reports of a death bed conversion are at least controverted, but for my part, I pity him if so and fear he is in Hell. My grandparents were believing Darwinists, and whatever high risk they are in Hell (I saw neither one's last moments and both were raised in Christian homes), it cannot be what I hope for.

Now, after the feedbacks, another point.

As far as I recall, one hadith or sth claims that Mohammed was 39th generation from Adam. I cannot find it, it could have been toned down, I'll ask David Wood about it.

Adam to Noah = 10, Sem to Abraham = 10, Ishmael = 1 more, 39 - 21 = 18.

Mohammed was born AD 570 and died at 62, a non-violent death, so reflecting on his health dispositions rather than fortune.

5199 + 570 = 5769 Anno Mundi.

2242 + 942 + 86 = 3270 Anno Mundi when Ishmael was born.

5769 - 3270 = 2499 from birth of Ishmael to birth of his descendant Mohammed.

2499 / 18 = 139 years of each father, not when he died, except coincidence, but when the relevant child was born. If Mohammed died at 62, I don't think his father even lived that long. 120 was a normal age in the day of Moses, way further back, but not in AD times, though it has been, rarely, achieved.

However, if they consider that the Blessed Virgin (and they are right to admit Her virginity) was the sister of Musa and Harun, of Moses and Aaron, they have a solution for that : just take away 1500 years or so, telescoping the Biblical history.

1999 / 18 = well, actually, 111 years when relevant son was born still looks too high.

While I cannot get a confirmation on 39 generations, look here:

Various genealogies of Adnan up to Isma'il have been narrated. Adnan was the ancestor of the Adnani Arabs of northern, central and western Arabia and a direct descendant of Isma'il. It is not confirmed how many generations are between them; however, Adnan was fairly close to Isma'il. Isma'il had twelve sons who are said to have become twelve tribal chiefs throughout the regions from Havilah to Shur (from Assyria to the border of Egypt).

hhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_tree_of_Muhammad#Adnan_to_Isma'il

Plus, it gives a concundrum for Chronology Musa, Daud, Suleiman, Isa ...

If Jesus is supposed to be nephew of Moses, how come Moses founded the Jews and by the time his nephew was an adult, they were already apostate (not most, but all, unlike the Christian view that some were still faithful, when Christ was born)? How does this fit in with David and Solomon being kings of Israel in between?

Probably most Muslims here being adapted will say "it's symbolic anyway" and the rest would not consider my blog as a corrective to their religion ... that may be one reason why I am little read in France.

It is not surprising to me, that Mohammed's followers consider history delicate and apt to huge distortions ... a bit like Henry Ford's history is bunk. A bit like Evangelicals about Church history. The Catholic Bible is 73 books (second smallest Christian canon, the Protestant 66 books being smallest, the 81 books of Tawhedo Church of Ethiopia being probably largest), and if historical books are not most books, they are at least the longest, with most chapters:

Φιλολoγικά/Philologica : Bible Chapters, Facts
https://filolohika.blogspot.com/2019/03/bible-chapters-facts.html

By contrast, the Coran is one book, 114 Surahs, and the form seems uniformly to be sermons, like exhortations, with some history allusions dropped in here and there.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
Sts Peter and Paul
29.VI.2020

PS, under stress, I miscalculated 2499 - 1500 into 1999, it should be 999. And 999 / 18 = 55 and a half years. Certainly possible. The problem is, this means taking away the 1510 years from Exodus to Christmas in Roman Martyrology, and gives the exact problems I have outlined, how did the Jews, all of them, apostatise so fast, how do Daûd and Suleiman fit in between an uncle and his nephew? Insoluble.

I should have added, St. Luke's Gospel chapter 3 gives 72 ancestors back to Adam, and this has no such problem. Up to Noah and even Abraham, lifespans are extremely long, but from Abraham, the remaining 51, or other line of descent from David to Christ, 42 - 1 + 3 + 1 = 45; St. Matthew, no such problem. Abraham born in 2015 BC, means 2015 / 51 = 39 and a half or 2015 / 45 = 44 and three quarters, which is clearly possible./HGL

Why would Nimrod Want a Rocket?

I actually got some feedback in France on this : if the tower was a rocket, what for? To combat the UFOs on the Moon?

Nope.

I simply take it Nimrod may have been a little less bad at cosmology than trying to reach God's heaven above the stars by a skyscraper. Nevertheless, he distrusted God's promise or supported people who did (arguably this distrust may have happened when seas rose drastically during Younger Dryas - after the Flood, but before God set a "fixed limit" or rather when He did so, as the psalmist said).

And the idea of saving mankind from a disaster by rockets has come back. 1970, Christin and Mézières wrote The City of Shifting Waters. They actually dream of a space time machine rather than a rocket. Recently, there was a film, 2014 or sth, with a theme "earth saw us born, it need not see us die" or "earth was our cradle, it need not be our grave". This time, it was about rockets.

So, obviously God was safe from Floods where He was sending the Flood from, Nimrod wanted to get there. Exactly the idea expressed by the Church Fathers, just that I think he may have been too smart for a skyscraper. By now, Voyager 1 and 2 still not arriving at fix stars after 50 years or so, I'd say it would have been smarter not to try even rockets either. As to the term, "if a rocket, why does it say tower", any new discovery and any new invention is named after things already known. Rocket is an Italian word for bobbin, which is a bit how a firework rocket looks. Nimrod having no firework rockets before him, would have called it a tower, unless his rocket was even the first attempt at a tower. A wording was chosen which would be remembered and partly understood after centuries when the rocket project was forgotten totally among ordinary people./HGL

Are Normal French People Allowed to Look?

French Catholics Usually NOT Young Earth Creationist - Why? · Are Normal French People Allowed to Look? · To French Fans of San Antonio · Are Some Catholics Being Taught That Young Earth Creationism Involves the Heresy "Sola Scriptura" [?] · Dear Dr. Sarfati, what does Scripture and Tradition Actually Mean?

Take a look at these statistics:

Répliques Assorties		Creation vs. Evolution
12 juin 2020 14:00 – 19 juin 2020 13:00
Italie 213		Turkménistan 1088
États-Unis 46		Italie 316
France 17		États-Unis 132
Turkménistan 8		Ukraine 111
Portugal 2		France 20
Royaume-Uni 1		Allemagne 9
Japon 1		Nouvelle-Zélande 8
Pays-Bas 1		Roumanie 6
		Canada 5
		Royaume-Uni 5

The blog to the left is totally in French - and yet you have 213 views in Italy for 17 in France. The one to the right has 20 in France, against 1088 in Turkmenistan, 316 in Italy and over hundred each in France and Ukraine.

It's possible that some of the glued small versions have been taken very swiftly away for loi Toubon, art.3, when it comes to this blog, but that is hardly an explanation for the French one./HGL

PS - over hundred each in US and Ukraine./HGL

French Catholics Usually NOT Young Earth Creationist - Why?

French Catholics Usually NOT Young Earth Creationist - Why? · Are Normal French People Allowed to Look? · To French Fans of San Antonio · Are Some Catholics Being Taught That Young Earth Creationism Involves the Heresy "Sola Scriptura" [?] · Dear Dr. Sarfati, what does Scripture and Tradition Actually Mean?

Catholics in France come, mainly, in two brands : progressives and trads.

For progressives, it is simple : back when Young Earth or Old Earth or "any strict" creationism was accidentally tied to species fixism some - in fact old earthers, usually, but check about Calhoun - came to argue black gentlemen and ladies did not descend from Adam and Eve. This angered - understandably enough - French Catholics and many embraced Transformationism as Evolutionism was then known as, consuming it with beak, claws and feathers. Teilhard de Chardin became the hero of this current.

Theologically speaking, there was a Sulpician Father, Fulcran Vigoroux, who advocated a moderate Old Earth position. To him, the six days were - alas - long periods, but the long periods ended when Adam and Eve were created, and from then on human history is at least basically as in Genesis. He advocated a limited flood - but limited only to all the parts with actual people on them. He was obviously inspired by species fixism in denying room on the Ark for all the species all over earth. If each Linnean species were separately fixed and therefore needed a separate survival from the pre-Flood world, one would have to agree. As it is now, Young Earth Creationism stands with limited transformationism : not from single celled creatures to elephants and bananas or from monkeys over apes to men, but from Adam and Eve to Cro-Magnon, Neanderthal and Denisovan, from Noah's family on the Ark to the present races, from a hedgehog couple on the ark to at least 16 hedgehog species, perhaps also 9 gymnures or moonrat species. Anyway, keep in mind, with some stretchability in principle on his part for genealogies of Genesis 5 and 11, and with a preference for LXX version with no stretch, he stood with the Bible as to from Creation of Adam and Eve.

But ... there was a conflict in France, more than once, actually, 1905 when French police killed Catholics who tried to defend their churches, many bishops standing with Action française from then on, then Pius XI banned it - not meaning it was dissolved, but meaning it was in theory impossible for a Catholic to be part of it, then World War II, then Algerian war ... many of the stricter Catholics had a tendency to stand with the more Fascist sides of politics. Not necessarily meaning they betrayed Jews to the occupant or things like that, but they were accused ... strict Catholics in France have had a rough time last century and have been hit on the head more than once.

If the Church, except Teilhard style progressives, including the conservative bishops who were replaced over being too close to Action française, would not have accepted men like Vacher de Lapouge promoting racism or eugenics (he promoted both), or tracing a race of human population to the glaciation of Güntz (back then dated to 180 000 BP, now it's more like 1 200 000 to 700 000 BP to uniformitarians), they were not all the guys conservative Catholic laymen had around them.

Hence, the weekly Rivarol in last number had an article on among other things the gay maffia, featuring, obviously, under the pen of Michel Fromentoux, a reference to Sodom and Gomorrah as a historical event, whereon I sent the editor, a Bourbon with first name Jérôme, a mail pointing out that Genesis 14 carbon dates to 3500 BC, and if it is correct, which it is, its real date would be around 1935 BC, so how about ditching inflated dates? You see, a previous number from May 27 had featured Vacher de Malpouge, Indo-European spirituality, Indo-European ultimate ancestors becoming what they became (white, tall, heroic, gloomy ...!) under the influence of the named glaciation of Güntz ...

French Conservative Catholics have had to keep for a while some curious company, and there are minds that read like cross breeds between the two allies against the left from earlier parts of last century.

Meanwhile, as I have not yet recevied any mail from Jérôme Bourbon, I am still waiting to see if I have a response from the more progressive, probably, curate of St. Anne, or his chaplain, one of them had preached on the Humility of the Blessed Virgin on the First Saturday, and I pointed out to him, the privileges of Mary have a great deal to do with Genesis 3, so much that if you deny historicity of Genesis 3 or even its historic reliability, by putting Adam and Eve 100 000 or more years back, you deny the privileges of the Blessed Virgin : the Church defined them in trust of the Bible and of Tradition, and if you make these untrustworthy, you do the same to dogmas built on them.

Obviously, if one of the priests is from Africa, I hope he has still less taste for the solution of Calhoun, if I recall correctly how it was characterised by Émile Mangenot, SJ, in 1920 ... or if it was the other dictionary with Catholic theology.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
St. Abraham of Auvergne
15.VI.2020

For those sceptical about Göbekli Tepe as Babel

As earlier mentioned, Shinar is more probably Mesopotamia than Sumer, and if Cizre in the mountains of Ararat* is the landing place moving the meeting from there to Göbekli Tepe would be removing from the East.

Here is more:

BREAKING NEWS - Astonishing Revelations at 'Oldest Temple on Earth' // Gobekli Tepe
Pete Kelly : 28th of May 2020
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gMuc0d_f9ug

• used as meeting place, not as permanent habitation
• "first temple" for those who consider Tower of Babel was a pagan temple
• three largest stone circles have central pillars forming between them an equilateral triangle of 63 feet

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
II Sunday after Pentecost
14.VI.2020

* = of Armenia, Cizre is in Turkish Armenia, though not in the independent state Armenia

How Amaotic!

Dalton City is one of the albums in Lucky Luke. It features a telegraphist who confuses D with M, A with I. Similiarity of Morse signals ... for some reason his employment is as stable as that of Gaston Lagaffe. Even though his fault liberates Joe Dalton rather than Joe Milton.

Now, confusing one letter for another is the very essence of mutations.

Someone may argue, this is also the case for sound laws. In certain ways, yes, though many are limited to unaccented places in the word. Swedish "gata" is Danish "gade". The stressed syllable "ga-" is the same (or nearly, two different prounciations of A), but "-ta" which is preserved in Swedish is become "-de" in Danish, because it is an unstressed syllable.

However, sound laws can be really impressive. Any word extant in both Latin and French is the different shape it is because of sound laws from Latin to French.

So, while in some cases the sound laws may impede communication (Dalton / Milton being more a Morse law than a sound law), they overall have the effect of creating a new language. To those who know French but not Latin, the newer one may even seem a more useful one per se, as more intelligible. Thing is, any language you learn is intelligible, any you don't know isn't, unless it's close enough to one you did learn (Danish in writing, I didn't need to learn, Danish orally, it took me some months in Denmark).

Also, this is only half the story. Sound laws as much as Morse laws do on occasion make things unintelligible - the ones leading from "solum" (soil) to "sol" were also leading from "solem" (sun) to "sol". French keeps the "sol" that's "solum" and replaces the theoretically possible other "sol" with "soleil" - which in Latin would have been "soliculum". The sun takes up smaller space above the horizon than the soil below it, so the sun became a diminutive. This kind of reparation is not "mutation" or even just "natural selection", it is a replacement of what is "naturally" selected away, and one which smells "Intelligent Design" a long way.

Some atheists see no intelligent designer, so they need to trust mutation and natural selection anyway, but as to Christians who like Evolution, I'll borrow a word about their choise from the telegraphist : how Amaotic. Remember, A and I are what get confused, as well as M and D. Also, I'm not saying it about their overall persons (Matthew 5:22), but I am saying it about that choice, "Theistic Evolution"./HGL

PS, if you haven't figured it out, "amaotic" stands for "idiotic" - the example in Dalton City lacks the ending "ic" or "ique", only features the noun .../HGL

Himalaya quinquies ... double-checked

Himalayas ... how fast did they rise? · Himalayas, bis ... and Pyrenees · ter · quater · quinquies ... double-checked

In part 1, in the footnote two ** (asterisks), I made a check on how the chronology works out, between real dates and carbon dates.

I rechecked the same example from:

• memory as to years involved
• table on paper rather than software for carbon values / years age (real, apparent or real + apparent).

Real year, 2170 BC, extra years 2700 (extra years = apparent age for scientists going back in a time machine and testing), "real + apparent" age or the apparent carbon age now = 4870 BC.

I look up in my table, 2865 years or half a half life is too much, it would give square root of 0.5, but the one before is 2148 years, with 0.77111 (77.111 percent).

2700 - 2148 = 552 years.

I look up in the short term table, 552 is closest to 537 years, value in percent modern carbon (for things having that age) is 0.93653.

In order to add 2148 and 537 years of apparent initial age, I multiply 0.77111 by 0.93653 and get 0.722167 sth, round it to 0.72217.

Real age for an object from back then is 2170 BC + 2020 AD = 4190 years.

Closest lower one is in the table 3581 years, with a value of 0.64842 or 64.842 % of initial value.

4190 - 3581 = 609.

The closest value on the short term table is 626 years, not 581, so I take the value for 626 which is 0.92701. This means that 3581 + 626 years of real age make a multiplication of 0.64842 by 0.92701. I get 0.60108 something which I round as that.

Now I multiply initial apparent age by real age, 0.72217 times 0.60108.

I get 0.4340819436. Closest higher value (younger age) is 0.4585 or 6446 years.

I divide 4340.819436 by 4585, and I get 0.946739. Closest value is 0.9473 for 447 years.

Now I add 6446 to 447 and get 6893 in the now apparent age, and I take away 2020 AD years to get the apparent BC value. It is 4873 BC, close to the 4870 BC given in the table.

Creation vs. Evolution : Himalayas ... how fast did they rise?
https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2020/05/himalayas-how-fast-did-they-rise.html

I cite myself:

... we do not have evidence of human post-Flood settlement in Himalayas before the ... wait, we do have the Patu industry in Nepal* carbon dated to c. 7000 BP ...

So, I can confirm that a carbon age of 7000 BP / 5000 BC would be between the deaths of Peleg and Eber or just around, as per my tables. They were done with the correct method.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
St. Vincent of Agen
9.VI.2020

PS : for the tables I used, I had made some in my note book, refining to within 22 years was not yet done when I made above calculations:

New blog on the kid : Calculé sans le logiciel, pour carbone 14
https://nov9blogg9.blogspot.com/2020/06/calcule-sans-le-logiciel-pour-carbone-14.html

Yes, it is in French, but the numbers would even so be comprehensible, take into account that French uses "decimal comma" and not "decimal point". The numbers of years are rounded./HGL

Carter, Neanderthals, Denisovans

He published this for

Journal of Creation
Volume 33, Issue 1 Published April 2019
https://creation.com/journal-of-creation-331

On the following pdf it is now available:

Patriarchal drive in the early post-Flood population
pp. 110 - 118, Paper by Robert W. Carter
https://dl0.creation.com/articles/p130/c13059/j33_1_110-118.pdf

Neandertals and Denisovans are also not yet part of this model. There are several reasons for this. First, there is but one partial Neandertal Y chromosome available to date.30 Also, its quality is questionable. Consider figure S11 in the much-discussed paper on ancient Canaanite DNA by Haber et al.31 Since mutations accumulate in all lineages over time, modern people should have more mutations than ancient people. The most ancient samples should be on the shortest branches. Yet the opposite is true here. This casts a suspicious light on all ancient DNA studies. For example, the long branches we see for the Neandertals and Denisovans might be artifactual. Second, we need to learn a lot more about inbreeding effects in small populations (Neandertals and Denisovans are the most inbred populations we have ever seen).32 Third, we need to formulate a theory of how they drifted from the root of mankind so quickly.

Unfortunately, the most interesting footnote, 31, is to a paper publication I am not accessing.

Now, the three reasons:

• 1) It is still clearly different from the Y-chromosomes we see today. Pääbo is wrong in being Old Age, but if he can trace the split between Neanderthal Y-chromosomes and our own to c. 600 000 BP, we could at least consider what he found is compatible with it being pre-Flood.
  
  
• 2) Inbreeding per se won't cause mutations, nor can it combine Y-chromosome mutations from both grandfathers, a man only inherits it from his paternal one, since a woman doesn't inherit it at all.
  
  
• 3) I have a theory, Robert Carter knows it, he prefers to ignore it.

We can imagine the pre-Flood to post-Flood boundary in carbon dates to be 60 000 BC rather than 40 000 BP as I prefer, this would leave the possibility of Neanderthals being post-Flood and any dated c. 70 000 BC being that by dating errors. They would still be a very early post-Flood population if so ... Robert W. Carter's problem would be unsolved.

Or, we can solve that problem easily (ignoring the point that Neanderthals could have a very short branch, when all factors so far considered suggest they have a long one), if we suppose instead Neanderthals, Denisovans and their mixes with each other and with our own Cro-Magnon race (same for Black, White, Yellow and all between basically, with some Neanderthal genes better shown in White and Yellow ones, some Denisovan ones in Polynesian or Austronesian and Tibetan ones), show it a very long one.

They were pre-Flood.

• A) Carter's model claims, the older the father, the more mutated his offspring - suppose this true for pre-Flood conditions, not necessarily true, we get fathers as old as 930 (Adam's age when he died) or 969 (years of Methuselah) before the Flood, oldest post-Flood ones would be Shem at 600.
  
  
• B) We have more time, potentially more generations, between Creation and Flood in Genesis 5 than between Flood and Abraham in Genesis 11. LXX chronology that I use, as per Roman Martyrology going back to Julius Africanus, 2242 (in Julius 2262) vs 942, or Masoretic chronology he uses, 1656 vs 292 (or sth like that).

If he cared to look at Sibley's paper, some of the 18th C. French guys - none of whom were devout Catholics - they raised same objections to fossils surviving Flood that he raised against me and human bones surviving it (without mentioning me directly) : that Flood waters would have been too violent to make so neat preservation possible.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
Pentecost Monday
1.VI.2020

PS, if small mutations have patriarchal drive, mongolism has a matriarchal one, and so have other chromosomal aberrations, I presume./HGL