tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31790722274843801212024-03-19T00:07:15.505-07:00Creation vs. Evolution<a href="http://hglsfbwritings.blogspot.com/2011/09/be-my-unwin-or-hooper-if-you-like.html">Feel free to reprint and to edit collections of my essays! (link to conditions)</a><br><br>"La vérité et l'érudition, en effet, ne sauraient être hérétiques, au point de redouter d'utiliser ce que des érudits, même hérétiques, ont écrit et exposé avec justesse". (Dom Guarin)Hans Georg Lundahlhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01055583255516264955noreply@blogger.comBlogger921125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3179072227484380121.post-80763093058485394102024-03-15T12:12:00.000-07:002024-03-15T12:12:24.452-07:00CMI and AiG Still Boycott Geocentrism<br />
This one was refeatured in early March this year:
<br /><br />
<a href="https://creation.com/asc-cosmology"><i>Anisotropy Synchrony Convention</i>
<br />Different one-way speeds of lights
<br /><i>12 May 2012, Updated 16 Jun 2021 | Feedback archive → Feedback 2012</i>
<br />https://creation.com/asc-cosmology</a>
<br /><br />
This one is refeatured 16.III.2024
<br /><br />
<a href="https://creation.com/how-can-distant-starlight-reach-us-in-just-6000-years">How can distant starlight reach us in just 6,000 years?
<br /><i>by Mark Harwood | Feedback archive → Feedback 2009</i>
<br />https://creation.com/how-can-distant-starlight-reach-us-in-just-6000-years</a>
<br /><br />
Here is the solution they have to Distant Starlight:
<br /><br />
<blockquote>6,000 years have passed since the Creation Week. If the models outlined above are correct, the light we see today from any star that is greater than 6,000 light years away from the earth will have originated on Day 4 itself. This would include most of the visible stars, all of which are part of the Milky Way galaxy. We are effectively looking at God’s creative activity on Day 4 as we gaze into the universe!
<br /><br />
So what do we make of supernova 1987A? At 170,000 light years away we are looking at an event that occurred on Day 4 but whose light did not reach us until 1987.</blockquote>
<br /><br />
The question they are NOT asking is, <i>is</i> any star that far away?
<br /><br />
Is there a possibility for the supernova to be only <i>one light day</i> away?
<br /><br />
Well, if stars are generally smaller and closer. And this means, if the parallax measures of some several light years away are not valid trigonmetry. What would that take? Geocentrism would do.
<br /><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://hglwrites.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/geo.jpg" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0; text-align: center; "><img alt="" border="0" width="320" data-original-height="597" data-original-width="800" src="https://hglwrites.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/geo.jpg"/></a></div>
<br /><br />
If the star is moving, instead of one distance and two angles, we have one angle. And if that is part of the task of some angels, the star, any given star, could be moving./HGLHans Georg Lundahlhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01055583255516264955noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3179072227484380121.post-21766224601580731102024-03-12T07:44:00.000-07:002024-03-12T07:46:50.157-07:00Neolithic Agrarian to Industrial Revolutions : Uniformitarian vs Creationist<br />
<a href="https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2024/03/neolithic-agrarian-to-industrial.html">Neolithic Agrarian to Industrial Revolutions : Uniformitarian vs Creationist</a> · <a href="https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2024/03/palaeolithic-to-neolithic-era.html">Palaeolithic to Neolithic Era : Uniformitarian vs Creationist</a>
<br /><br />
<b>Uniformitarian :</b>
<br /><br />
<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neolithic_Revolution">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neolithic_Revolution</a>
<br /><br />
<blockquote>Once agriculture started gaining momentum, around 9000 BP, human activity resulted in the selective breeding of cereal grasses (beginning with emmer, einkorn and barley), and not simply of those that favoured greater caloric returns through larger seeds</blockquote>
<br /><br />
<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial_Revolution">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial_Revolution</a>
<br /><br />
<blockquote>The Industrial Revolution, also known as the First Industrial Revolution, was a period of global transition of the human economy towards more widespread, efficient and stable manufacturing processes that succeeded the Agricultural Revolution, starting from Great Britain and spreading to continental Europe and the United States, that occurred during the period from around 1760 to about 1820–1840.</blockquote>
<br /><br />
2024 - 1840 = 184
<br />9000 - 184 = 8816 years.
<br /><br />
<b>Recalibrating:</b>
<br /><br />
<dl><dt>2454 BC
<dd>57.012 pmC, so dated 7104 BC
<dt>2437 BC
<dd>57.881 pmC, so dated 6937 BC
<br /><br />
<dt>(2454 + 2437 + 2437) / 3 = 2443 BC
<dd>(57.012 + 57.881 + 57.881) / 3 = 57.59133 pmC
<dd>4550 + 2443 = 6993</dl>
<br /><br />
2443 BC + 1840 AD = 4283
<br /><br />
8816 / 4283 = a factor of 2.058
<br /><br />
How much longer is it than the Industrial Era?
<br /><br />
8816 / 184 = a factor of 47.913
<br />4283 / 184 = a factor of 23.277
<br /><br />
Either way we count, our mentality should be profoundly shaped by the pre-Industrial era. It's far longer than the Industrial one. And it's far more accessible than the Palaeolithic or Mesolithic one./HGLHans Georg Lundahlhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01055583255516264955noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3179072227484380121.post-47054591491802757672024-03-12T07:42:00.000-07:002024-03-12T07:47:01.283-07:00Palaeolithic to Neolithic Era : Uniformitarian vs Creationist<br />
<a href="https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2024/03/neolithic-agrarian-to-industrial.html">Neolithic Agrarian to Industrial Revolutions : Uniformitarian vs Creationist</a> · <a href="https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2024/03/palaeolithic-to-neolithic-era.html">Palaeolithic to Neolithic Era : Uniformitarian vs Creationist</a>
<br /><br />
<b>Uniformitarian:</b>
<br /><br />
Homo sapiens is considered to have a common ancestor with Neanderthals 750 000 BP on uniformitarian views.
<br /><br />
No Industrialism or Agrarian society is supposed to have existed before 9000 ~ 10 000 BP.
<br /><br />
750 000 BP - 9000 BP = 741 000 years
<br /><br />
741 000 / 8816 = a factor of 84.052 for the Palaeolithic over Neolithic.
<br /><br />
<b>Creationist:</b>
<br /><br />
Man suffered technology loss after the Flood.
<br /><br />
Palaeolithic Neanderthals existed before the Flood, but like Palaeolithic Esquimeaux existed before Greenland was colonised = beside people with more efficient means of production.
<br /><br />
This means, the hunter-gatherers only existence (apart from Noah's pionneering of a farmstead to recover agriculture and in the process discover wine), lasted only from the Flood to when Agriculture took ... root.
<br /><br />
2957 - 2443 = 514 years.
<br /><br />
514 / 4283 = a factor of 0.12 for Palaeolithic as upbeat to Neolithic.
<br /><br />
On Uniformitarian views, the Palaeolithic era should have left profound imprints on our organism, and in a subconscious and over worked and semi-camouflaged by later Neolithic Era progress, even on our brains and mental make-up.
<br /><br />
On Creationist views, the Palaeolithic Era looked back on a pre-Flood Civilisation (now lost), looked consciously forward to technology recovery (first recovering Agriculture, then metallurgy), and was on top of that fairly short. It did however do some culling when it came to adaptability to different climates.
<br /><br />
How does it compare to the Industrial Era?
<br /><br />
741 000 / 184 = a factor of 4027.
<br />514 / 184 = a factor of 2.793.
<br /><br />
Uniformitarians and Creationists will NOT agree on how important the Palaeolithic was, nor how it mentally looked like.
<br /><br />
Uniformitarians and Creationists SHOULD agree that the Agrarian Era is more important than the Industrial one./HGLHans Georg Lundahlhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01055583255516264955noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3179072227484380121.post-70493259401445682882024-03-08T10:06:00.000-08:002024-03-08T10:13:22.154-08:00Odd Perfect Numbers? Less Impossible than Abiogenesis or Evolutionary Origin of Human Language!<br />
<b>Correspondence of Hans Georg Lundahl:</b> <a href="https://correspondentia-ioannis-georgii.blogspot.com/2023/09/tomasello-not-answering.html">Tomasello Not Answering</a> · <b>New blog on the kid:</b> <a href="https://nov9blogg9.blogspot.com/2023/11/how-did-human-language-evolve-from-non.html">How did human language "evolve from non-human"?</a> · <b>Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere:</b> <a href="https://assortedretorts.blogspot.com/2023/12/adam-reismans-response-mr-flibbles.html">Adam Reisman's Response, Mr. Flibble's Debate</a> · <a href="https://assortedretorts.blogspot.com/2023/12/andrew-winklers-response-and-debate.html">Andrew Winkler's Response and Debate</a> · <b>Creation vs. Evolution:</b> <a href="https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2024/03/odd-perfect-numbers-less-impossible.html">Odd Perfect Numbers? Less Impossible than Abiogenesis or Evolutionary Origin of Human Language!</a>
<br /><br />
Here is a mathematician asked by Veritasium how one could prove this, and the mathematician isn't anything like opting for the remote chance of finding one, he goes for a disproof, but apparently we aren't there yet:
<br /><br />
<blockquote>What would a proof look like? Like how could we actually prove this?
<br />23:15
<br />- I think the main idea that people have been trying to approach this problem with is coming up with 23:21 more and more conditions odd perfect numbers have to satisfy, it's called this web 23:26 of conditions where it has to have 10 prime factors now that we know and maybe thousands 23:33 of non distinct prime factors and has to be bigger than 10 to the 3000. And it has to do all these different things 23:40 and we hope that eventually there's just so many conditions that can strain the numbers so much that they can't exist.</blockquote>
<br /><br />
How likely is it that an odd perfect number exists? The smallest <i>even</i> perfect number is 6, the next one is 28. The smallest odd perfect number has recently been proven to be larger than 10<sup>2200</sup>, if it exists at all. I e, no odd perfect numbers can exist that are smaller than that, that is already disproven. Even so, Derek Muller on Veritasium and the Professor Pace Nielsen, Mathematics at Brigham Young University, whom he asked, are open to there being an odd perfect number. Though the professor is simply asking when the constraints are such that they cannot possibly be all of them fulfilled. He thinks it likely that could be proven, but at constraints already known pointing to a number larger than 10<sup>2200</sup>, he thinks we aren't there yet. Perhaps two conditions contradicting would be one way ...
<br /><br />
Jonathan Sarfati on CMI and his pals over there, have basically made 100 hurdles of contradictory conditions for Abiogenesis.
<br /><br />
I have made at least one or two hurdles of contradictory conditions for evolutionary emergence of language, and taken over one from Dominique Tassot on le CEP.
<br /><br />
Emergence of new chromosomes and of new protein coding genes are other examples. Evolution does not work, not even if you give it Deep Time to "try."
<br /><br />
So, if you are interested in a less daunting quest than proving Evolution possible, like trying to find an Odd Perfect Number. Then. Head over to:
<br /><br />
<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zrv1EDIqHkY">The Oldest Unsolved Problem in Math
<br /><i>Veritasium | 8 March 2024</i>
<br />https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zrv1EDIqHkY</a>
<br /><br />
Derek Muller is always pleasant company. Meanwhile, stop believing Evolution. And for Theistic Evolutionists, stop believing Adam had any non-human ancestry, whether direct or remote./HGLHans Georg Lundahlhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01055583255516264955noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3179072227484380121.post-86602976384448106202024-03-07T05:52:00.000-08:002024-03-07T05:54:59.526-08:00Modernity is a Myth, and Not the True One<br />
I take the term myth here as "shared story" ... Damien Walter considers these shared stories, these myths, were, basically invariably, fantasies.
<br /><br />
He also considers, modernity was a big effort to step out of make-believe and be rational.
<br /><br />
I hold this never happened. Modernity never was rational. And myths, in the sense of shared stories, never was synonymous with fantasy. But first, let's hear Damien Walter:
<br /><br />
<blockquote>13:52 the very long-term importance of fantasy to our world because in the pre-modern 13:58 world all societies 14:04 were based on a fantasy we could be more constructive and call 14:10 it a mythos but i mean it's also fair to call it a fantasy every human 14:17 civilization from the ancient Greeks to the slightly 14:22 less ancient Romans we go further back and look at the assyrian empire the first Babylonian 14:32 cities i could continue with a list of ancient civilizations but one thing in common 14:39 across these civilizations is that they had a shared story a narrative i often 14:47 talk about this and just reiterating it here a story a narrative a mythos 14:55 a fantasy because it was impossible 15:00 to know what was happening in the world [...] this is 16:56 how we lived in very unified communities 17:02 it's questionable how much individual identity anybody had 17:07 for thousands of years because we were submerged in into these mythic narratives these 17:14 fantasies okay and now we're trying to live very 17:20 differently we are trying to leave these fantasies behind and live in the modern 17:28 world and this is an incredibly complex 17:33 transition to make and very often we fail making it both as 17:40 individuals and as civilizations 17:46 we try to step into a world that is driven by reason driven by science driven by 17:54 technology uh by objectivity 17:59 but when this goes wrong there's an incredible temptation to fall back to 18:06 the pre-modern and the fantasy that shaped the pre-modern</blockquote>
<br /><br />
Now, let's take individual identities first ... every individual is part of some collective or some overlap of collectives. Not true for Adam and Eve at the start ... except it kind of was. They began as part of the same collective as the unfallen angels. By sinning, they briefly became, and rendered their posterity liable to becoming, part of the collective of fallen ones. By repenting, they founded the Church Militant, that is people on earth who are trying to save their souls against a backdrop of sin already existing, and they entered it as two penitents.
<br /><br />
But one thing is certain, modernity has not changed this. You can be a member of the Catholic Church, the Young Earth Creationist movement, cosplaying and reenacting, or sth similar, fandom of Tolkien <i>and</i> of Tomahawk (I just found out that what Tolkien was for Frodo, Joseph Samachson was for Tom Hawk), <i>and</i> of Tomb of Dracula (I thank Stan Lee for teaching me, even before I became a Christian, that vampires are afraid of garlic, Crucifixes and prayers in Latin ... a fine connexion between happy parts of my childhood and my attachment to the Latin Mass ...), but in each of these, you are not just an individual, you are also part of a collective. Virgil and Horace were not just the same civilisation, not just colleagues, not just both dependent on the mecenate Maecenas (the name giver of the concept mecenate), but also, as such, friends. What I can see from their poetry, they were different people, perhaps I'm a bit biassed due to not having read Bucolica, I suppose Bucolica is much closer to Horace's typical fare, and Horace approaches the Aeneid, when after the battle of Actium, he writes "nunc est bibendum," (I book, song XXXVII of Carmina Horatii) ... still, they were not the same person, they were individuals.
<br /><br />
You could no more mistake one for the other, than you could mistake Tolkien for Lewis (I was going to suggest, they had no mecenate, but as both were paid by Oxford University for lecturing and tutoring in literature heavy subjects, English Language history, with Old English and early Middle English literature for Tolkien, English literature starting with Chaucer for Lewis, this is not strictly true). You could put the parallel further, just as both Virgil and Horace were patriots in face of Cleopatra, both Tolkien and Lewis (while wary of their ally Stalin) were patriots in face of Hitler.
<br /><br />
So, being submerged under collectives does not make one not individuals, unless of course, the collective is making sure to make the individual not count.
<br /><br />
Enlightenment or the Modern Project has not made us more individual, and in some versions actually battles to make us less so (Communism and National Socialism allow only élites — like SS officers or Nomenklatura to cultivate individualism, and I'm not even sure how much SS officers lower than Goering in rank were allowed to). So, let's get individualism vs collectivism out of the way.
<br /><br />
<blockquote>because it was impossible 15:00 to know what was happening in the world</blockquote>
<br /><br />
Each of us experiences consciously and remembers a not majority but still fair portion of 24 hours, 1440 minutes, 86 400 seconds per day. This is 126 230 400 seconds in four years. After a year, any conscious second that too closely resembled many other conscious seconds is subsumed into a more abstract memory, which is to the individual memory input a bit like a wiki is to the individual contributor. In 72 years of life, or 80, let's say 76, if we live that long, that's 2 398 377 600 seconds, most of which are forgotten or resumed in remolded memories. If you read of someone's day with an outlook on their broader life, in five minutes, how much will that leave out? What you read may be totally truthful, but it is a fraction of what he could know of his day or his life, when he wrote that five minute read.
<br /><br />
To even read in five minutes about even one day with just an outlook on the life of a person, obviously will take you five minutes, if you do that with only one person. We are 8 billion persons currently alive. To read about each would take 2 400 000 000 000 seconds. It would take you 1000 or 1001 of your lifetimes. And it would be that short only if you needed no time to sleep or eat or do other things. Then imagine all the people already dead. Some people pretend, whether they are right or wrong, that the ones now alive are more than have ever been alive together, so that dying is no longer "joining the majority" (as it was not yet the case when Abel died, but that's not where they take their estimates from). If so, that study would take 2001 lifetimes.
<br /><br />
We inevitably know only some of the things that happen in the world. Most of us will know of peace treaties and of divine miracles (which unlike peace treaties are not broken) from hearsay, or by indirect inference from their situation. Knowing some was obviously equally possible to Assyrians and Romans, Babylonians and Greeks. One of the things that have been more possible genuinely to know the last 150 years is the food peoples eat elsewhere. In the late 1800's, German people could read about Mate in novels by Karl May. In 2024, Mate is both drunk from a bobadilla in Paris (and presumably Germany too) and also as a kind of lemonade, in Germany and in Paris too. Reminds me, up to stamping holly as poisonous, people drank holly ... and the poison in holly was basically the same as in coffee or chocolate. It's caffeine. The poisonous effects were what overconsumption of coffee would today cause in convulsions or Caffeine-induced anxiety disorder, or the stupid idea to test on pets, as dogs are far likelier to die from even small doses of caffeine or theobromine. Or, a stunt to make people consume coffee instead of holly, depend on imports rather than their garden ... Yerba mate and holly are both the genus ilex, in Linnean nomenclature.
<br /><br />
What does it then even mean to say people in the premodern past knew very little? I'll quote parts of what I left out:
<br /><br />
<blockquote>they had some progression of 15:24 knowledge the Romans knew quite a lot more than the Assyrians did but they still knew very little and ordinary 15:31 people knew very little</blockquote>
<br /><br />
Obviously, from what I said, from a human point of view, we <i>all</i> know very little. It's part of the human condition. But presumably, Damien Walter meant sth. I'll wager, he meant primarily two things.
<br /><br />
<ul><li> Galenos was substantially a better doctor than an Assyrian had been 1000 years before him (and yes, Galen was preserved in the Middle Ages, that was not a technology loss, at least not overall and where it partially happened, it was reversed);
<li> Assyrians were flat earthers; Romans were round earthers; both considered the heavenly bodies as moving around us and had no concept (that we can identify as such) of solar systems, galaxies, Big Bang, light years of distance ...</ul>
<br /><br />
In other words, Damien Walter pretends that Newtonian mechanics as sole (or as approximation of sole Einsteinian) cause of movement in celestial bodies is "knowledge" and any other explanation of what happens is "myth" ... I disagree. Just as I disagree that holly is poison and coffee totally safe. The idea was probably circulated to get the poor to consume little caffeine, by reducing the homegrown caffeine to decorations, put on par with belladonna, while their paymasters or landlords could still get <i>their</i> caffeine by imported coffee or tea, the Heliocentric Revolution, about the same time, and Siccar point's view on the "ages" by James Hutton c. a century later, and in between, Hume's denial of miracles, are all, not just myths, but in fact untrue myths. Bluffs at worst, bad guesses at best, and often enough bad guesses at first and then promoted as useful bluffs.
<br /><br />
Either way, the Enlightenment Myth has shown a huge capacity for displacing the Christian shared story, or if you wish, the Christian myth, which as C. S. Lewis and J. R. R. Tolkien will tell you, is myth coinciding with fact. This makes me prone to presume that much, if not all, of the Enlightenment Myth, is myth coinciding with non-fact. Like the <i>non-fact</i> that holly is less safe than coffee.
<br /><br />
Similarily, since Roman times, Christianity as "myth" or society cohesive narrative has more than once (from St. Bathildis of Neustria and Burgundy to Wilberforce), while not in principle condemning slavery, managed to practically abolish it. Modernity, by contrast, equally has a knack of not in principle accepting slavery (except in the very first century of it ... I think Charles A. Coulombe may have a thing or two to say on the connexion of slavery and rising modernity in his book <i>Rum: The Epic Story of the Drink That Conquered the World,</i> 2004), so of not in principle accepting slavery any longer, still more and more and more than once reintroducing it. Basically <i>every</i> kind of slavery to which people in England were subject in the time of Chesterton, was a modern one.
<br /><br />
The kind of people who tell you, <i>"you are more free to form your own identity, if you know you developed slowly from apes by inevitable misfortunes culling away the ones less evolving, in the places where needed, obviously apes remained apes in Africa,"</i> are also telling some of you <i>"no, you are not free to form your identity on parenthood, in order to continue evolving, we intend to arrange artificial misfortunes on the gonads, if not physical persons who have them"</i> — in the 19th C. their racism was mainly ethnic, and Marx dreamed of eradicating Celts and Negroes. In the 20th C. their racism has (especially since 1945) shifted to a more <i>case by case</i> approach to eugenics (though the sterilisation of vagrant people in Sweden up to the 70's was indeed likely to target Lapps, Tatters and Gipsies more than ethnic Swedes or Finns).
<br /><br />
Kent Hovind has given the world Dinosaur Adventure Land. Evolution believing and Big Bang believing fans of secularised and public only education systems have given the world the kind of schools in which possibly Cassie Bernall, certainly someone, said "yes" about believing in God. And was then killed by Harris or Klebold. So, no, I think, when it comes to toxicity, Modernity has a much steeper downward record than Christianity has a slow upward record. Plus, Harris and Klebold were Evolutionist Atheists, not Young Earth Creationist Christians.
<br /><br />
But even so, wouldn't it be irrational to believe just the Christian myth of all myths not derived from the works of scientists, and totally disbelieve all the others? Yes, it would. And that is the exact reason why I also believe in Greek myths about city founders and heros. I do not believe their theology. I do not feel inspired to worship Delphic Apollo on reading Oedipus Rex. I feel more inclined to thank God for St. Paul casting OUT Apollon from a poor slave girl, who, having become useless was probably freed socially as well as spiritually, even if the story in Acts doesn't say so. Now, Damien Walter considered this rejection of modernity as a temptation, even as a temptation to irrationality. I disagree. I think Modernity is the most toxic of myths, and more toxic than any of the pre-modern ones, one of which was not just historically true, like the account of Oedipus could be and the Book of Acts is, <i>but theologically as well,</i> as the Book of Acts is, and the tragedy of Sophocles isn't. Apart from Modernity being very meagre on history and totally abject on theology, and used by the news slave hunters, it is also pretty unique in its distortion of history and of science in the service of its own toxic myth. Damien Walter calls the "return to pre-modern fantasy" Fascism. I'm tempted to reply, not with anything in Lord of the Rings, but simply the end of The Silver Chair:
<br /><br />
<blockquote>For, with the strength of Aslan in them, Jill plied her crop on the girls and Caspian and Eustace plied the flats of their swords on the boys so well that in two minutes all the bullies were running like mad, crying out, "Murder! Fascists! Lions! It isn't fair."</blockquote>
<br /><br />
Since reading that, I have been aware that "Fascists" is not just a description of various movements in the 1920's and 1930's, sometimes extending dictatorships into the 1940's and beyond, not all of which were good, but not all of which were bad either, it's also a Commie cuss word, a way of marking out someone they dislike as bad without having to defend that classification by classic moral values, simply by making anti-Fascism a bogus political morality. It is ironic that a man who pretends to be concerned about individuality is so concerned about being anti-Fascist, that in practise he subsumes morality (usually an individual concern) under a specific tribal version of politic morality. It is nearly as ironic, but not as bad, that C. S. Lewis, who was far closer to the Left condemning both Spain and Italy, than Tolkien was, by those lines, made me lifetime immune against imagining a thing is bad just because someone can describe it as "Fascist" ....
<br /><br />
Apart from genuine historic memory, though the oracle that misled Oedipus may have been re-labelled as Delphic Apollo after an earlier one was forgotten, Pagan mythology unfortunately also had another source of "knowledge" which wasn't a true one. Delphic Apollo. The closest we get to that cult might nearly be Voodoo mediums. But in social importance the closest, and in internal mechanism the second closest, we could definitely name Scientism, the belief in Modern Science (done by a specific ideology), as a legitimate source of information, trumping both history, and the divine revelation, garanteed by non-Apollo and even anti-Apollo miracles, which is historically attested in the Bible and in Church history.
<br /><br />
Hans Georg Lundahl
<br />Paris
<br />St. Thomas Aquinas
<br />7.III.2024
<br /><br />
Damien Walter cited from his video:
<br /><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8K7MXRHKAEc">Lord of the Rings and fascist fantasy
<br /><i>Science Fiction with Damien Walter | 6 March 2022</i>
<br />https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8K7MXRHKAEc</a>Hans Georg Lundahlhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01055583255516264955noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3179072227484380121.post-25399210824619858972024-03-04T07:40:00.000-08:002024-03-04T07:40:59.814-08:00How Long was the Period?<br />
<a href="https://www.livescience.com/archaeology/europes-last-hunter-gatherers-had-sophisticated-societies-that-helped-them-avoid-inbreeding">Europe's last hunter-gatherers had sophisticated societies that helped them avoid inbreeding
<br /><i>News, LiveScience : By Kristina Killgrove published 4.III.2024</i>
<br />https://www.livescience.com/archaeology/europes-last-hunter-gatherers-had-sophisticated-societies-that-helped-them-avoid-inbreeding</a>
<br /><br />
<blockquote>An investigation into the genomes of 10 people who lived between 6350 and 4810 B.C. revealed few biological links among these small communities, according to a study published Feb. 26 in the journal PNAS.</blockquote>
<br /><br />
<dl><dt>2369 BC
<dd>61.339 pmC, so dated 6419 BC
<dt>2352 BC
<dd>62.199 pmC, so dated 6302 BC
<br /><br />
...
<br /><br />
<dt>2148 BC
<dd>72.384 pmC, so dated 4798 BC
<br /><br />
<dt>(2369 + 2352) / 2 = 2360.5
<dd>(61.339 + 62.199) / 2 = 61.769 => 4000 => 6360 BC</dl>
<br /><br />
So, we deal with 2360 to 2148 = 212 years.
<br /><br />
Not with 6360 to 4798 = 1562 years (or 6350 to 4810 = 1540 years).
<br /><br />
5200 - 2360 = 2840 after Creation.
<br />5200 - 2148 = 3052 after Creation
<br /><br />
2840 - 2242 = 598 after the Flood (Shelah just died, Heber, Peleg, Reu were alive)
<br />3052 - 2242 = 810 after the Flood (Peleg and Eber just died, Reu and Sarug were grown, Nakhor was 17).
<br /><br />
Could early post-Flood longevity, and the relatively short timespan explain the distance of the relatedness?/HGL
<br /><br />
Own resources used:
<a href="https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2024/01/the-revision-of-i-ii-ii-iii-iii-iv-may.html"><i>Creation vs. Evolution: The Revision of I-II, II-III, III-IV May be Unnecessary, BUT Illustrates What I Did When Doing the First Version of New Tables</i>
<br />https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2024/01/the-revision-of-i-ii-ii-iii-iii-iv-may.html</a>
<br /><br />
<a href="https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2019/12/lxx-without-ii-cainan.html"><i>Creation vs. Evolution: LXX without II Cainan</i>
<br />https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2019/12/lxx-without-ii-cainan.html</a>Hans Georg Lundahlhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01055583255516264955noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3179072227484380121.post-73518753320277808182024-02-26T16:08:00.000-08:002024-02-27T03:22:34.127-08:00Have Fundies Changed Sides, or is Something Else Going On?<br />
<b>Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere:</b> <a href="https://assortedretorts.blogspot.com/2024/02/trent-horn-pretended-to-oppose-satans.html">Trent Horn Pretended to Oppose "Satan's Guide to the Bible"</a> · <b>Creation vs. Evolution:</b> <a href="https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2024/02/have-fundies-changed-sides-or-is.html">Have Fundies Changed Sides, or is Something Else Going On?</a>
<br /><br />
Trent Horn on his video* presented statistics basically saying:
<br /><br />
<table><tr><th>1984 <th>2004 <th>2014 <th>2022</tr>
<tr><td>37 <td>34 <td>28 <td>20 <th>Actual and literal word of God</tr>
<tr><td>46 <td>48 <td>47 <td>49 <th>Inspired, not literal</tr>
<tr><td>12 <td>15 <td>21 <td>29 <th>Fables</tr>
<tr><td>95 <td>97 <td>96 <td>98</tr></table>
<br /><br />
So, he made it a question about "Fundamentalists have changed sides."
<br /><br />
Now, what exactly has he missed?
<br /><br />
Two things:
<br /><br />
<ul><li> the ones alive 1984 and the ones alive in 2022 overlap (I was alive in both years), but are not identic;
<li> most people have been exposed to public school, which has become more Marxist in the USA.</ul>
<br /><br />
Yes, he has a point that the idea "you don't need to take the Bible literally to take it as God's word" has a power to resist Marxists who consider it as not literally true. The idea "the Bible is the literal word of God" does not resist as well, unless supported by evidence, which is not provided everyone. But there is a reason it is not provided everyone, the Marxist schools cry out about "fake science", plus Church authorities tending in many denominations to side with "inspired, not literal" ... sth which the Marxists running the schools have not been really attacking.
<br /><br />
Now, how about taking this in another way. It has not been Fundamentalists changing sides. It has been sons of Fundies raised as Infidels by Schools. And instead of vaunting "inspired but not literal" as miraculously resistant to Marxism, one could take the non-decline of it as a sign Marxists had protected it. And the prevalence of "fables" compared to earlier as a failure to sell this idea to Fundies. Or rather to their sons and daughters, pushed into schools with non-Christians, at an age at which they were undecided.
<br /><br />
If so, it might even happen the guys who took "inspired, not literal" were helping the Marxists to push away Fundies from Actual and literal word of God to Fables — because "inspired but not literal" is too mushy for them.
<br /><br />
It's illusory to imagine the 50 % or so Fundie material are going sufficiently mushy to accept "inspired but not literal" ... on the other hand, before 19th C. Liberalism and then Marxism took hold of schools, and by the way increased the compulsion to attend them, I would say all of that 50 % had a pretty good chance of believing the Bible to be the actual and (usually) literal word of God. And the mushy half really didn't have too much of a problem living under that régime.
<br /><br />
Meanwhile, it is annoying that Trent Horn totally misses the enforced attendance at "Biblical scholarship" in at least some High School classes, even for those who didn't continue to College.
<br /><br />
<blockquote>24:56 — 25:05
<br />...so what seems to be happening is that Christians would have very rigid Fundamentalist view of Scripture that couldn't withstand the facts of Biblical Scholarship ended up just abandoning the Faith altogether</blockquote>
<br /><br />
In Sweden, such facts are even more striking. The reason is simple. Home schooling is basically totally outlawed, and Private schools that are religious have had a tough time**. Parents who are "too Christian" risk losing custody. The public school system has long been infiltrated by Stasi, by Swedish teachers studying in East Germany, under de facto control of not just East German academia, but actually Stasi. Meanwhile, the Novus Ordo Catholics are partly doing a similar thing.
<br /><br />
Hans Georg Lundahl
<br />Paris
<br />St. Galmier of Lyons
<br />27.II.2024
<br /><br />
* <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Se2yEZigXA">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Se2yEZigXA</a>
<br />** Exceptions were early on granted <a href="https://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ekebyholmsskolan">to 7DA</a> and <a href="https://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solvikskolan">to Steinerians.</a> This has been somewhat released since joining the EU.Hans Georg Lundahlhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01055583255516264955noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3179072227484380121.post-30308392359907428402024-02-26T01:46:00.000-08:002024-02-26T12:06:01.901-08:001909 vs § 390<br />
<a href="https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2023/08/adam-was-not-individual-fall-was.html">"Adam was not an individual, the fall was collective" - Evil or Just Wrong?</a> · <a href="https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2023/08/what-about-jimmy-akin-solution.html">What About The Jimmy Akin Solution?</a> · <a href="https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2024/02/1909-vs-390.html">1909 vs § 390</a>
<br /><br />
Should Genesis 3 be taken metaphorically rather than literally? Let's first hear the magisterium from 1909.*
<br /><br />
<blockquote>V. Utrum omnia et singula, verba videlicet et phrases, quae in praedictis capitibus occurrunt, semper et necessario accipienda sint sensu proprio, ita ut ab eo discedere numquam liceat, etiam cum locutiones ipsae manifesto appareant improprie, seu metaphorice vel anthropomorphice, usurpatae, et sensum proprium vel ratio tenere prohibeat vel necessitas cogat dimittere?
<br />Resp. Negative.</blockquote>
<br /><br />
This translates:
<br /><br />
<blockquote>V. Whether all and each, both words and phrases, that occur in the aforementioned chapters, always and necessarily should be accepted in the proper sense, so that it would never be licit to step away from them, even when the same expressions overtly appear used improperly, or metaphorically or anthropomorphically, and either reason forbids to hold or necessity forces to abandon the proper sense?
<br />Resp. Negative.</blockquote>
<br /><br />
Now, the judge signing this was not expressing, and was not here free to express what he considered as occasions when reason or necessity forbid to hold the literal sense. Further down (VIII) he says it's licit to take "day" as referring to <i>"quodam temporis spatio,"</i> / a certain space of time. As Fulcran Vigouroux was a day ager, we can safely assume he considered six literal days as one no no in the proper sense of words.
<br /><br />
However, he was not free to express that opinion as his judgement. He was stuck with "yes" or "no" and sometimes subdividing a question, to the questions he got. His answer certainly does not oblige us to consider the six days as non-literal, since in V he's not speaking of what occasions to use a liberty to use metaphors as exegetic clues and in question VIII he is only speaking of allowing, not of any necessity. Or rather, the guy who wrote the question is, but that means Fulcran Vigouroux too.
<br /><br />
There actually is, if you look over the three chapters, at least one expression where at least one of the parts is not the proper and usual sense of the words in everyday life.
<br /><br />
Genesis 2:17 <b>But of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat. For in what day soever thou shalt eat of it, thou shalt die the death.</b>
<br /><br />
Either "what day soever" is improperly used for "millennium" or "die" is not used about bodily death. Adam died spiritually the same moment, and he died bodily the same millennium. But spiritual death and millennium are not the proper ways in whcih "death" and "day" are usually used. When it comes to anthropomorphic language, it seems clear that up to Adam's sin, he could see and hear God, and I would hold, this refers to a theophany, i e, he could do so with his physical eyes and ears. This means, God looking for Adam was not just an anthropological expression about what God did spiritually, but God taking a visible shape actually did play hide and seek for that last day Adam had in Paradise. However, if Fr. Fulcran consided this false, this is not really the point I am trying to make.
<br /><br />
The fact remains, Fr. Vigouroux never was precisely judging on such or such an expression actually needing metaphoric or less man-shaped interpretation. He was just saying IF there were such a thing, such interpretation is licit.
<br /><br />
Fast Forward to 1992. A doubtful Pope or more probably certain non-Pope, Karol Wojtyla, issues a new catechism, for the Latin Church. For those who don't know, the Catholic Church has several rites, Latin and Byzantine being the two foremost. The Byzantine Rite has the catechism Jesus, Our Pascha. But the Latin Rite, or those of it accepting "John Paul II" as real Pope, has the catechism "Catechism of the Catholic Church" ... it has a § 390. I'll actually take a look at another one too:
<br /><br />
<blockquote>390 The account of the fall in Genesis 3 uses figurative language, but affirms a primeval event, a deed that took place at the beginning of the history of man. Revelation gives us the certainty of faith that the whole of human history is marked by the original fault freely committed by our first parents.
<br /><br />
...
<br /><br />
397 Man, tempted by the devil, let his trust in his Creator die in his heart and, abusing his freedom, disobeyed God's command. This is what man's first sin consisted of. All subsequent sin would be disobedience toward God and lack of trust in his goodness.
<br /><br />
398 In that sin man preferred himself to God and by that very act scorned him. He chose himself over and against God, against the requirements of his creaturely status and therefore against his own good. Constituted in a state of holiness, man was destined to be fully "divinized" by God in glory. Seduced by the devil, he wanted to "be like God", but "without God, before God, and not in accordance with God".
<br /><br />
399 Scripture portrays the tragic consequences of this first disobedience. Adam and Eve immediately lose the grace of original holiness. They become afraid of the God of whom they have conceived a distorted image - that of a God jealous of his prerogatives.</blockquote>
<br /><br />
So, are Adam and Eve the "our first parents"? Or does "uses figurative language" involve Adam and Eve being figures of speech? That's the problem.
<br /><br />
The first mention of Adam in this section in § 388 says <i>"We must know Christ as the source of grace in order to know Adam as the source of sin."</i> — But this is clearly false, since the Jews of the first Century knew Adam as source of human sin before knowing, only some of them, Christ as their redeemer. Or as source of Grace. § 388 makes the first sin of Adam so much a theological statement, that its character as a historic statement seems fudged.
<br /><br />
This does not represent the Catholic tradition. 17.VI.1546 the Church** said:
<br /><br />
<blockquote>If any one does not confess that the first man, Adam, when he had transgressed the commandment of God in Paradise, immediately lost the holiness and justice wherein he had been constituted; and that he incurred, through the offence of that prevarication, the wrath and indignation of God, and consequently death, with which God had previously threatened him, and, together with death, captivity under his power who thenceforth had the empire of death, that is to say, the devil, and that the entire Adam, through that offence of prevarication, was changed, in body and soul, for the worse; let him be anathema.</blockquote>
<br /><br />
No "our first parents" and no "man" (as an abstract or collective entity), but "the first man" (prior to even Eve) is <i>immediately</i> explained as Adam. There is absolutely no distinction between the theological and the historic level of the statement. The historic level is not a "portrayal" of the theological one, much less one that "uses figurative language" ... and as obviously, the knowledge of Adam's fall was a perfectly historical one, if you look up*** Father George Leo Haydock's comment on Genesis 3.
<br /><br />
<blockquote>Concerning the transactions of these early times, parents would no doubt be careful to instruct their children, by word of mouth, before any of the Scriptures were written; and Moses might derive much information from the same source, as a very few persons formed the chain of tradition, when they lived so many hundred years. Adam would converse with Mathusalem, who knew Sem, as the latter lived in the days of Abram. Isaac, Joseph, and Amram, the father of Moses, were contemporaries: so that seven persons might keep up the memory of things which had happened 2500 years before. But to entitle these accounts to absolute authority, the inspiration of God intervenes; and thus we are convinced, that no word of sacred writers can be questioned. (Haydock)</blockquote>
<br /><br />
We are far from the mental universe in which Adam's first sin is only accessible knowledge through Jesus' reversal of it. We are firmly in a world where Adam and Eve transmitted the events to Moses, through a limited number of intermediaries. 1909 was still Catholic in the Vatican. So was the Catholic minority in England in 1811—1814, when Haydock published his Bible commentary. Whoever was in charge in 1992, writing § 390 and the other ones, well, seemingly not.
<br /><br />
Hans Georg Lundahl
<br />Paris
<br />St. Porphyrius of Gaza
<br />26.II.2024
<br /><br />
<i>Gazae, in Palaestina, sancti Porphyrii Episcopi, qui, tempore Arcadii Imperatoris, Marnam idolum ejusque templum evertit, ac, multa passus, quievit in Domino.</i>
<br /><br />
* <a href="https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/pcb_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19090630_genesi_lt.html">PONTIFICIA COMMISSIO BIBLICA : DE CHARACTERE HISTORICO TRIUM PRIORUM CAPITUM GENESEOS
<br />https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/pcb_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19090630_genesi_lt.html</a>
<br /><br />
** Citing canon 1 of
<br /><a href="http://www.thecounciloftrent.com/ch5.htm"><i>The Council of Trent : CONCERNING ORIGINAL SIN; FIRST DECREE</i>
<br />http://www.thecounciloftrent.com/ch5.htm</a>
<br /><br />
*** Citing last section of the last verse comment of
<br /><a href="https://haydockcommentary.com/genesis-3"><i>Haydock Commentary Online : Genesis 3</i>
<br />https://haydockcommentary.com/genesis-3</a>Hans Georg Lundahlhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01055583255516264955noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3179072227484380121.post-88714344179145942232024-02-21T07:37:00.000-08:002024-02-21T07:52:49.699-08:00Convergence of Uneven pmC?<br />
<a href="https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2020/08/have-you-really-taken-all-factors-into.html">Have you Really Taken ALL the Factors into Account?</a> · <a href="https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2020/08/new-tables.html">New Tables</a> · <a href="https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2020/08/why-should-one-use-my-tables.html">Why Should one Use my Tables?</a> · <a href="https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2020/08/and-what-are-lineups-between.html">And what are the lineups between archaeology and Bible, in my tables?</a> · <a href="https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2020/08/bases-of-c14.html">Bases of C14</a> · <a href="https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2020/08/an-example-of-using-previous.html">An example of using previous</a> · <a href="https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2020/08/difference-with-carbon-14-from-other.html">Difference with Carbon 14 from Other Radioactive Methods</a> · <a href="https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2024/01/tables-i-ii-and-ii-iii-and-iii-iv.html">Tables I-II and II-III and III-IV, Towards a Revision?</a> · <a href="https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2024/01/the-revision-of-i-ii-ii-iii-iii-iv-may.html">The Revision of I-II, II-III, III-IV May be Unnecessary, BUT Illustrates What I Did When Doing the First Version of New Tables</a> · <a href="https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2024/02/convergence-of-uneven-pmc.html">Convergence of Uneven pmC?</a>
<br /><br />
<b>HGL'S F.B. WRITINGS:</b> <a href="https://hglsfbwritings.blogspot.com/2024/02/table-i-to-ii-perhaps-doubled-beginning.html">Table I to II Perhaps Doubled Beginning (Upper / Lower Limits) ?</a> · <b>Creation vs. Evolution:</b> <a href="https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2024/02/convergence-of-uneven-pmc.html">Convergence of Uneven pmC?</a>
<br /><br />
My latest correction so far for the carbon date of the Flood sets it at precisely 39 000 BP.
<br /><br />
But what if there was actually a range? If samples from then did not have all precisely 1.628 pmC, but rather* as per 1) content in volcanic gas ranging from 0.4 to 4.8 pmC in the present, and 2) this after a decay to c. 54.748 % of the original content, originally 3) an atmosphere had a content of 0.73 to 8.767 pmC? The Flood date would then not be precisely 39 000 BP, but 45 680 to 25 080 BP. This is fairly close to the CMI statement of Flood items dating between 50 000 and 20 000 BP.**
<br /><br />
I will now assume, somewhat unrealistically, that they mingle perfectly, without similar divergence,
<br /><br />
<table><tr><th colspan="3">I - II 2957 - 2607 = 350</tr>
<tr><td colspan="3">95.854 %, compensates normally 4.146 pmC</tr>
<tr><td> </tr>
<tr valign="top"><th>I - II lower<td> <th>I - II higher</tr>
<tr valign="top"><td>0.73 * 95.854 / 100 = 0.7
<br />43.438 - 0.7 = 42.738
<br />42.738 / 4.146 = 10.308<td> <td>8.767 * 95.854 / 100 = 8.404
<br />43.438 - 8.404 = 35.034
<br />35.034 / 4.146 = 8.45</tr></table>
<br /><br />
Perhaps it is more useful to divide the table into larger time chunks, like 50 years? 99.397 %, 0.603 pmC normal replacement, replacement here between 6.216 and 5.095 pmC points.
<br /><br />
<dl><dt>2957 BC
<dd>0.73 pmC, so dated 43 680 BC
<dd>8.767 pmC, so dated 23 080 BC
<br /><br />
<dt>2907 BC
<dd>6.941 pmC, so dated 24957 BC
<dd>13.809 pmC, so dated 19257 BC
<br /><br />
<dt>2857 BC
<dd>13.115 pmC, so dated 19 657 BC
<dd>18.822 pmC, so dated 16 657 BC
<br /><br />
<dt>2807 BC
<dd>19.252 pmC, so dated 16 407 BC
<dd>23.803 pmC, so dated 14 657 BC
<br /><br />
<dt>2757 BC
<dd>25.351 pmC, so dated 14 107 BC
<dd>28.755 pmC, so dated 13 057 BC
<br /><br />
<dt>2707 BC
<dd>31.414 pmC, so dated 12 257 BC
<dd>33.677 pmC, so dated 11 707 BC
<br /><br />
<dt>2657 BC
<dd>37.441 pmC, so dated 10 757 BC
<dd>38.569 pmC, so dated 10 557 BC
<br /><br />
<dt>2607 BC
<dd>43.431 pmC, so dated 9507 BC
<dd>43.432 pmC, so dated 9507 BC</dl>
<br /><br />
Now, the reason why this convergence is somewhat unrealistic is, towards the end of this time period, you have the Younger Dryas. Part of the impact would have added lots of carbon 14.
<br /><br />
Hans Georg Lundahl
<br />Paris
<br />Ember Wednesday
<br />21.II.2024
<br /><br />
* <a href="https://hglsfbwritings.blogspot.com/2024/02/table-i-to-ii-perhaps-doubled-beginning.html">Table I to II Perhaps Doubled Beginning (Upper / Lower Limits) ?</a>
<br />** See footnote 4 on their article, on this occasion the one of Joel Tay responding to Phil K., <a href="https://creation.com/triceratops-soft-tissue">Triceratops soft tissue</a>Hans Georg Lundahlhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01055583255516264955noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3179072227484380121.post-67645455418768477322024-02-18T09:02:00.000-08:002024-02-22T04:13:38.322-08:00For Anyone Disputing the Relevance of Genesis 5 and 11, the Genealogy of Matthew is a Go To<br />
<a href="https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2024/02/does-genesis-1-through-11-have-author.html">Does Genesis 1 through 11 have an author prior to Moses?</a> · <a href="https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2024/02/whoever-astute-observer-was-science-and.html">Whoever the "Astute Observer" was — Science and Factually Exact Are Not the Same</a> · <a href="https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2024/02/should-one-not-read-donald-j-wiseman.html">Should One NOT Read Donald J. Wiseman?</a> · <a href="https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2024/02/for-anyone-disputing-relevance-of.html">For Anyone Disputing the Relevance of Genesis 5 and 11, the Genealogy of Matthew is a Go To</a>
<br /><br />
Young Earth Creationists don't dispute the chronological relevance of Genesis 5 and 11, they believe it.
<br /><br />
Atheists don't dispute it either, they use it as a way of attacking the Bible.
<br /><br />
I don't know if there are Jews who believe the historicity of the Exodus and not the chronology of Genesis 5 and 11.
<br /><br />
The people I am speaking of are people who believe the historicity of the Gospel and not the chronology of Genesis 5 and 11. In the last century there have been many of them. C. S. Lewis for very long into his life as an Anglican and carreere as Christian Apologist, certainly, J. R. R. Tolkien, probably. A certain Damien Macckey seems (perhaps) to have joined their ranks:
<br /><br />
<a href="https://www.academia.edu/115036022/Matthews_Genealogy_of_Jesus_the_Messiah_far_from_straightforward">Matthew’s Genealogy of Jesus the Messiah far from straightforward
<br /><i>by Damien F. Mackey</i>
<br />https://www.academia.edu/115036022/Matthews_Genealogy_of_Jesus_the_Messiah_far_from_straightforward</a>
<br /><br />
Now, he does cite Monsignor John McCarthy and the Church Fathers.
<br /><br />
The omission of Ahaziah Joash (Jehoash) and Amaziah, is because they descend from Joram's wife Athaliah. An idolatrous woman. Three generations are omitted because they are too close to her. During the Old Covenant, God visited the sins of the parents onto third and fourth generation (inclusive), so, 1) Athaliah, 2) Ahaziah 3) Joash (Jehoash) and 4) Amaziah are omitted for this reason, and Joram is not omitted, because Athaliah began overtly sinning after his death. Athaliah would perhaps have been omitted anyway, since a woman, otherwise, she would have been a woman of worse special connotation to cite than Rahab, prostitute, Ruth, Gentile, Bathseeba, adulteress. The French playwright Racine so to speak "makes up for the omission" by making her antagonist of an eponymous play.
<br /><br />
Now, what Mackey doesn't get, and I don't pretend to fully and definitely understand either, is the omission of Jehoiachim. But on one occasion, he had previously identified him with Haman.*
<br /><br />
Either way, I certainly trust the wisdom of the Church Fathers on this matter, and this would, for those who prefer "full LXX" over Julius Africanus on the chronology of Genesis 11 (1070 over 942 years) can take this as a cue: the famous or infamous second Cainan can have actually lived, been omitted in the Hebrew text by Moses on this principle, though kept in memory orally, then been inserted into the actual text in the LXX, as a cultural translation, Greeks not having this custom of "damnatio memoriae" ...
<br /><br />
Now, the quibble is, with overlaps, we don't really deal with 3 * 14. Except we do. Not mathematically, but linguistically. We have three sets. Each set consists of 14 people who are different persons. The fact of an overlap between the sets is irrelevant. 42 as such isn't relevant. The relevant part is each set is 14, like Daleth Vav Daleth, the name of the fourteenth from Abraham. Or, even better, the fact of an overlap is relevant artistically. He's building an authentic and plagal scale in tetracaidecachords rather than tetrachords. In an authentic scale, they don't overlap:
<br /><br />
<div align="center"><table><tr><td>D<td>E<td>F<td>G</tr>
<tr><td> <td> <td> <td> <td>A<td>B<td>C<td>D</tr></table></div>
<br /><br />
In a plagal scale, they do:
<br /><br />
<div align="center"><table><tr><td>A<td>B<td>C<td>D</tr>
<tr><td> <td> <td> <td>D<td>E<td>F<td>G</tr></table></div>
<br /><br />
What other 3 14 do we have? It would not be π-ous not to mention Exodus chapter 3 verse 14.
<br /><br />
So, no years are given in the genealogy of St. Matthew. The only chronological information given is the big well known landmarks Abraham, King David, Babylonian Captivity, recent history. But what exact time from Abraham's birth to that of Jesus should we expect ? Matt Baker recently commented on a thesis of common ancestry and used "30 years" as an average.
<br /><br />
41 * 30 = O, 3 * 14 ... seriously!
<br /><br />
41 * 30 = 1230 years. No, Abraham was not born 1230 BC. However, we might want to add, sometimes generations were longer back then. What about 50? 41 * 50 = 2050 (decent, Jesus was born year 2015 after Abraham's birth). And if we skip the ritual and do the maths on physical reality? 45 generations? 2015 / 45 = 44.78 years per generation. Nearly as if there were 45 years of 45 generations. My grandpa was 47 when my mother was born. God bless her memory.*
<br /><br />
The point is, whatever liberty St. Matthew took by omitting generations, it didn't distort the chronology by orders of magnitude. It didn't distort the chronology at all.
<br /><br />
Now, in Genesis 5 and 11, some people would want us to believe, omissions could have distorted the chronology by orders of magnitude. 2242 + 942 = 3184 years. 2242 + 1070 = 3312 years. Already a dire indiction on the historic reliability of a tradition on Genesis 3 down to Abraham IF generations had been 30 years per generation. But they weren't, at least not the line leading down to Noah, and then the line leading down to Abraham. Abraham was 20th or 21st from Adam. But if we count minimally overlapping generations, Haydock counts Abraham fourth: <i>"<u>Adam</u> would converse with <u>Mathusalem</u>, who knew <u>Sem</u>, as the latter lived in the days of <u>Abram</u>."</i> I would put Abraham as sixth, counting this way. Either way, it is certain (except to hacks and infidels, sorry, I'm repeating myself) that Abraham had and maintained historic knowledge of the facts of Genesis 3. Suppose we played around and admitted the "fluidity level of Matthew"? 45 / 41 * 3312 = 3635 years. Abraham would be likely to come out at worst as number 8 — where Father Haydock put Moses. The historicity of Genesis 3 would not be compromised.
<br /><br />
I do have a problem with the power of suggestion. The absolutely worst thing about Dr. Mackey's work is the title: <i>Matthew’s Genealogy of Jesus the Messiah far from straightforward.</i> If he had said, "not totally straightforward" — I'd agree. If he had said somewhere else than the title, it was far from straightforward for St. Matthew <i>to produce,</i> I'd see where he was coming from, but I'd say "that's not counting with Divine inspiration" (even I, who don't claim that, have an experience of what a "stroke of genius" means). But he places it in the title, doesn't immediately qualify in what way and therefore leaves the statement as unqualified as the main clue to the content. The impression this gives is disastrous. He pretends, "it is far from straightforward for us to read" ...
<br /><br />
He wants to bolster a kind of doctrine of "obscurity of Scripture" so as to make the pronouncement of the magisterium not just overall, but for every specific issue, a bit like the answer clue to the quiz. Sure, the character of Jesus is to some somewhat of a quiz. Chesterton was right to state the teaching (not just magisterial pronouncement, but he specifically mentions iconography, which has its own version of imprimatur, well before the printing press) is the answer clue. The majority of mankind are not the kind of sly and mean Pharisees Jesus had to deal with on occasions, they are not the kind of greedy people whom Jesus faced with a whip in the Court of the Gentiles. Hence, the Church shows them the kind of smile He offered the repentance of Magdalene or the kind of sorrow He bore for our Redemption. But Chesterton was definitely NOT saying that the passages of the cleansings of the temple "are hard to understand" (as some fans of Tovia Singer have been pretending to find them). He was not saying "we can't tell if Genesis 5 means 2242 years or 22042 years, because Scripture's just SO obscure and it seems I can't find an infallible dogma on it" ... and <i>if</i> that's not what Dr. Mackey tried to suggest, perhaps he's not a very competent writer. As I think he is, I would say he intended the effect. Should I ask him to procure himself a very rare icon of Jesus in anger from the perspective of a money-changer, and use it for his devotions, until he repent?
<br /><br />
Since this type of "obscurity of Scripture" doctrine actually has a prooftext, let's go to it, and leave it a decent comment after citing the indecent one. St. Peter is speaking of St. Paul:
<br /><br />
<b>As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are certain things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, to their own destruction.</b>
<br />[2 Peter 3:16]
<br /><br />
The indecent comment goes: "see, it's sufficient to be unlearned and go to any of the scriptures, and you'll wrest it to your own destruction" ... that's not what St. Peter is saying. He's speaking of a specific type of person who is not just unlearned, but also unstable. And he's not speaking of unconscious wresting, but of a conscious effort to misunderstand, since the misunderstanding gives room for a fleeting pleasure of sin and error while considering oneself a Christian in good standing with God, like the idea of using Romans for the kind of "Romans road" approach that flatters the easily exhausted they don't need to fast, and need not combat sin, because we can't anyway and it's not necessary to get redeemed. Or similarily with people who love to cite a truncated and therefore faked version of Ephesians 2:8—10, same purpose. Or an equally truncated and faked version of Matthew 16:16—19 to pretend Petrine supremacy is based on a supposed misunderstanding of whom Jesus called "this rock" ... a lack of clarity that disappears like morning fog by 9 am in Spring in Spain. IF THEY JUST READ ONE VERSE MORE.
<br /><br />
Hans Georg Lundahl
<br />Paris
<br />Quadragesima Lord's Day
<br />18.II.2024
<br /><br />
* <a href="https://www.academia.edu/115183363/Evil_persecutor_of_the_Jews_Haman_had_Egyptian_name">His latest identification of Haman is ... not ...an Egyptian priest of Amun.</a> It actually is still Jehoiachin:
<br /><br />
<blockquote>According to my reconstruction, King Amon of Judah was the same person as Jehoiachin the Captive (which word the Greek text has wrongly reproduced as “Amalekite”).</blockquote>Hans Georg Lundahlhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01055583255516264955noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3179072227484380121.post-81891068726809001312024-02-09T07:00:00.000-08:002024-03-17T09:05:25.103-07:00Why is Carbon Dating More Important than Potassium Argon?<br />
<b>Creation vs. Evolution:</b> <a href="https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2024/02/why-is-carbon-dating-more-important.html">Why is Carbon Dating More Important than Potassium Argon?</a> · <b>Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere:</b> <a href="https://assortedretorts.blogspot.com/2024/02/why-science-cannot-prove-earth-is.html">Argon, Carbon, Magnetic Field</a> · <b>HGL'S F.B. WRITINGS:</b> <a href="https://hglsfbwritings.blogspot.com/2024/02/ken-wolgemuth-understood-argument.html">Ken Wolgemuth Understood the Argument</a> · <a href="https://hglsfbwritings.blogspot.com/2024/03/if-ken-wolgemuth-avoids-answering-me.html">If Ken Wolgemuth Avoids Answering Me Directly, What Does That Say of Him? Update : he did some answering</a> · <a href="https://hglsfbwritings.blogspot.com/2024/03/he-did-some-answering-though-to-others.html">He did some answering, though, to others ...</a>
<br /><br />
What are the equal percentages of parent isotope in relation to time?
<br /><br />
For carbon dating, the half life is 5730 years. This is roughly speaking testable, or better, the combined presumption of this halflife along with a not radically rising carbon level in the atmosphere during the last 2500 years (I could have gone one step further but was lazy) is. 477 BC to 1523 AD are historical dates. For all of this time, we have lots of detailed information of who was what and when and where, so we can state "this coffin belongs to so and so" or "this table was commissioned for so and so" and so on.
<br /><br />
This corresponds to carbon 14 levels given with pmC values. The abbreviation pmC stands for "percent modern Carbon" and could be further explicitated as "percent modern Carbon 14 corrected to pre-Industrial Values" but that's too long to use in even abbreviated form.
<br /><br />
Alternative to the combined assumption of 100 pmC (roughly) and 5730 years halflife, at least for this kind of test, one could imagine twice as long a halflife, but Carbon 14 still on the rise, so that back in 1180 BC it had 80 pmC rather than 100 pmC, and then a steady rise from then. That would cause a kind of "bulge" on the calibration curve, but it would be covered by the other bulges and wiggles of it.
<br /><br />
<div align="center"><table><tr><td align="center"><table><tr><td><dl><dt>500 YA = 1523 AD
<dd>94.131 pmC
<dt>1000 YA = 1023 AD
<dd>88.606 pmC
<dt>1500 YA = 524 AD
<dd>83.406 pmC
<dt>2000 YA = 24 AD
<dd>78.511 pmC
<dt>2500 YA = 477 BC
<dd>73.903 pmC</dl><td> <td><dl><dt>108 900 524 YA = ?
<dd>94.131 "poK"
<dt>217 801 047 YA = ?
<dd>88.606 "poK"
<dt>326 701 571 YA = ?
<dd>83.406 "poK"
<dt>435 602 094 YA = ?
<dd>78.511 "poK"
<dt>544 502 618 YA = ?
<dd>73.903 "poK"</dl></tr></table></tr></table></div>
<br /><br />
Now the point is, these exact same percentages in Potassium dating would involve totally uncheckable (at least historically, which I consider the <i>main</i> go to about the past) ages. How do you check an age "108 million years ago" without a Time Machine?
<br /><br />
The abbreviation here is for "percent original K" or "percent original potassium" (K is for the alternative name Kalium, found in German and in Nordic languages). Both methods ideally compare the % to the original content. But they arrive there different ways. In carbon dating, it's presumed the atmosphere has been at least roughly stable, so it is actually the pre-Industrial present that's key to this past original content of the parent isotope. In carbon dating, the daughter isotope isn't used at all, it doesn't matter if carbon 14 decays to nitrigen 14 or to carbon 12, I have seen both of these assumed. But in K-Ar, the original content of K (potassium) is verified by adding the current contents of K and Ar (argon).
<br /><br />
This is not the only fudge factor about K-Ar dating. The more important one is, the dating method presumes we get all argon from either air or previous reactions before eruption nullified by the argon escaping before lava solidifies. If the lava solidifies quickly and this can happen due to lots of cold water, argon will be trapped, and it will skew the results heavily.
<br /><br />
In the Flood (I said history was my main go to for the past, didn't I?) lots of water could cool down the lava lots quicker than it cools normally now, and trap lots more of argon.
<br /><br />
So, when I see a date of "2 mill. years" or "4 mill. years" I think I can calibrate that too. But in a much simpler way. With that much cool water, the date is 2958 BC (or whatever date you prefer setting as the Biblical date of the Flood.)
<br /><br />
Hans Georg Lundahl
<br />Paris
<br />St. Apollonia of Alexandria
<br />9.II.2024Hans Georg Lundahlhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01055583255516264955noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3179072227484380121.post-89451230092160808442024-02-03T07:29:00.000-08:002024-02-18T09:06:04.687-08:00Should One NOT Read Donald J. Wiseman?<br />
<a href="https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2024/02/does-genesis-1-through-11-have-author.html">Does Genesis 1 through 11 have an author prior to Moses?</a> · <a href="https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2024/02/whoever-astute-observer-was-science-and.html">Whoever the "Astute Observer" was — Science and Factually Exact Are Not the Same</a> · <a href="https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2024/02/should-one-not-read-donald-j-wiseman.html">Should One NOT Read Donald J. Wiseman?</a> · <a href="https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2024/02/for-anyone-disputing-relevance-of.html">For Anyone Disputing the Relevance of Genesis 5 and 11, the Genealogy of Matthew is a Go To</a>
<br /><br />
That would be going too far.
<br /><br />
When he states that Old Sumerian writings were present since 3000 or even 3500 BC, I disagree. 3500 BC was before the Flood, 3000 BC was shortly before the Flood or perhaps shortly after it depending on whether you go by the Roman Martyrology for Christmas Day or the chronology of George Syncellus.
<br /><br />
Wiseman had no access to carbon dates.
<br /><br />
But the dates he gives are close to these, and the chronology that was conventional in the early 1900's had already been monitored by lying moves of Satan (often enough in the records of ancient non-Hebrew peoples under his influence) in ways that would tend to match what God could tell him the later carbon dates were going to be.*
<br /><br />
So, what are 3500, 3300, 3000 and 2800 in carbon dates, if we translate this to Biblical dates (using the Roman martyrology)?**
<br /><br />
<dl><dt>1935 B. Chr.
<dd>82.73 pmC, so dated as 3485 B. Chr.
<br /><br />
<dt>1868 B. Chr.
<dd>84.1262 pmC, so dated as 3318 B. Chr.
<br /><br />
<dt>1778 B. Chr.
<dd>85.9766 pmC, so dated as 3028 B. Chr.
<dt>1756 B. Chr.
<dd>86.4346 pmC, so dated as 2956 B. Chr.
<br /><br />
<dt>1711 B. Chr.
<dd>87.3468 pmC, so dated as 2811 B. Chr.
<br /><br />
<dt>(1778 + 1756) / 2 = 1767
<dd>(85.9766 + 86.4346) / 2 = 86.2056
<dd>1250 + 1767 = 3017</dl>
<br /><br />
The real dates would be 1935 BC, 1868 BC, 1767 BC and 1711 BC.
<br /><br />
Does this deny the related practise between Babylonian scribes and the parts of the Genesis that first used these systems? No.
<br /><br />
Here are two of them, around page breaks*** 41 and 51:
<br /><br />
<table><tr><th colspan="3">Tablet series <td> <th>Contents</tr>
<tr><td>1 <td> <td>1:1 to 2:4 <td> <td>This is the book of the origins of the heavens and the earth.</tr>
<tr><td>2 <td> <td>2:5 to 5:2 <td> <td>This is the book of the origins of Adam.</tr>
<tr><td>3 <td> <td>5:3 to 6:9a <td> <td>These are the origins (or histories) of Noah.</tr>
<tr><td>4 <td> <td>6: 9b to 10:1 <td> <td>These are the origins (or histories) of the sons of Noah.</tr>
<tr><td>5 <td> <td>10:2 to 11:10a <td> <td>These are the origins (or histories) of Shem.</tr>
<tr><td>6 <td> <td>11:10b to 11:27a <td> <td>These are the origins (or histories) of Terah.</tr>
<tr><td>7 & 8 <td> <td>11:27b to 25:19a <td> <td>These are the origins (or histories) of Ishmael and Isaac.</tr>
<tr><td>9~11 <td> <td>25:19b to 37:2a <td> <td>These are the origins (or histories) of Esau and Jacob.</tr></table>
<br /><br />
<blockquote>Evidence of these literary aids may be observed in the following significant repetition of words and phrases connected with the beginning or ending of each of the series of tablets, now incorporated in the book of Genesis.
<br /><br />
1:1 God created the heavens and the earth.
<br />2:4 Lord God made the heavens and the earth.
<br />2:4 When they were created.
<br />5:2 When they were created.
<br />6:10 Shem, Ham and Japheth.
<br />10:1 Shem, Ham and Japheth.
<br />10:32 After the Flood.
<br />11:10 After the Flood
<br />11:26 Abram, Nahor and Haran.
<br />11:27 Abram, Nahor and Haran.
<br />25:12 Abraham's son.
<br />25:19 Abraham's son.
<br />36:1 Who is Edom.
<br />36:8 Who is Edom.
<br />36:9 father of the Edomites (lit. Father Edom).
<br />36:43 father of the Edomites (lit. Father Edom).
<br /><br />
The very striking repetitions of these phrases exactly where the tablets begin and end, will best be appreciated by those scholars acquainted with the methods of the scribes in Babylonia, for those were the arrangements then in use to link the tablets together. I submit that the repetition of these words and phrases precisely in those verses attached to the colophon, 'These are the origins of ... ', cannot possibly be a mere coincidence. They have remained buried in the text of Genesis, their significance apparently unnoticed.</blockquote>
<br /><br />
However, that P.J.Wiseman did the original work, republished*** by his son D.J. Wiseman, cited by Charles V Taylor and Damien Mackey alike, doesn't mean he saw all issues correctly. It is perfectly OK to depend on one purely human author for an idea, while stating he was plain wrong on some other account. One thing Wiseman did not have access to was this:
<br /><br />
<a href="https://www.amazon.fr/Prehistory-Making-Human-Mind-English-ebook/dp/B00AJ20NR4/">Prehistory: The Making Of The Human Mind (English Edition) Format Kindle
<br /><i>Édition en Anglais de Colin Renfrew (Auteur) </i>
<br />https://www.amazon.fr/Prehistory-Making-Human-Mind-English-ebook/dp/B00AJ20NR4/</a>
<br /><br />
So, what difference does this make?
<br /><br />
Well, it records human sacrifice in the III Dynasty of Ur, servants sacrificed to keep the company of the dead king. Here° is from the French translation:
<br /><br />
<blockquote>La découverte la plus spectaculaire fut effectuée non loin de là, dans le grand cimitière dela ville sumérienne d'Ur, par Sir Leonard Woolley. En 1928, il exhuma les "tombes royales", des tombeaux intacts datant de 2300 av. J.-C. remplis d'or et de lapis-lazuli, et portant la trace des rites funéraires, dont la mise à mort de dizaines de serviteurs qui accompagnent leurs maîtres. (P. 38)</blockquote>
<br /><br />
Did Wolley already date them like that? Did Wiseman know?
<br /><br />
The thing is, if you believe God is good, you don't believe He would allow this to take place around the <i>ancestors of</i> Abraham. Yet, 2300 BC, that's before the birth of Abraham. Whose native city many consider was this Ur of Woolley, rather than the Urfa way further North-West in Mesopotamia.
<br /><br />
I'm not suggesting, even if the date had been correct, that Thera, Nachor or Sarug would have been involved in this horror, but some who pretend that Genesis 1 to 11 is essentially, as to the story line if not theology "pagan myth" point to the idea of Abraham having been born into an (entirely) pagan family. To me, this is obviously false, since carbon dated 2300 = 1644 BC in real time:
<br /><br />
<dl><dt>1655 B. Chr.
<dd>91.4498 pmC, so dated as 2395 B. Chr.
<dt>1633 B. Chr.
<dd>93.3283 pmC, so dated as 2203 B. Chr.
<br /><br />
<dt>1644 (obviously)
<dd>(91.4498 + 93.3283) / 2 = 92.38905
<dd>650 + 1644 = 2294</dl>
<br /><br />
And since real time 1935 BC, when Abraham was 80, is carbon dated (by reed mats from En-Gedi / Asason Tamar) to 3500 BC, meaning that this horrible human sacrifice certainly took place some important time <i>after</i> Abraham had already left whatever Ur he came from.
<br /><br />
Sarug to Abraham played the role of Lord Francis of Sales to the young saint, of the same name, when telling the young saint "Calvinism is a young religion, I've seen it born" — because Sarug was indeed anterior to the time of idolatry.
<br /><br />
<blockquote><a href="https://www.ellopos.net/elpenor/physis/septuagint-genesis/11.asp?pg=3">Genesis 11, LXX / English :</a> <b>22 And Seruch lived a hundred and thirty years, and begot Nachor. 23 And Seruch lived after he had begotten Nachor, two hundred years, and begot sons and daughters, and died. 24 And Nachor lived a hundred and seventy-nine years, and begot Thara. 25 And Nachor lived after he had begotten Thara, an hundred and twenty-five years, and begot sons and daughters, and he died. 26 And Thara lived seventy years, and begot Abram, and Nachor, and Arrhan.</b></blockquote>
<br /><br />
2015 (birth of Abram) + 70 (of Thera) + 179 (of Nachor) + 130 (of Sarug) = 2394 BC. When Sarug was 94, he was very far from seeing this kind of human sacrifice, here are his early days in themselves and translated to carbon dates:
<br /><br />
<dl><dt>2399 B. Chr.
<dd>57.0291 pmC, so dated as 7049 B. Chr.
<br /><br />
<dt>2287 B. Chr.
<dd>63.387 pmC so dated as 6037 B. Chr.</dl>
<br /><br />
Ah, that's more like it. Sarug was from an earlier <i>and saner</i> age than Abraham, not an earlier and insaner one. Even the temporary resurgence of cannibalism (a pre-Flood sin), in Herxheim, El Toro and Fontbrégoua, start after Sarug was already a man, and far away in the west.°° So, really no trace of idolatry from when Sarug was small, nor of even more evil practises, like the III Dynasty of Ur ... or whenever this evil was.
<br /><br />
<blockquote>The Third Dynasty of Ur, also called the Neo-Sumerian Empire, refers to a 22nd to 21st century BC (middle chronology) Sumerian ruling dynasty based in the city of Ur and a short-lived territorial-political state which some historians consider to have been a nascent empire.
<br /><br />
The Third Dynasty of Ur is commonly abbreviated as Ur III by historians studying the period. It is numbered in reference to previous dynasties, such as the First Dynasty of Ur (26-25th century BC), but it seems the once supposed Second Dynasty of Ur was never recorded.
<br /><br />
<blockquote><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Dynasty_of_Ur">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Dynasty_of_Ur</a></blockquote></blockquote>
<br /><br />
I actually traced the horror to the First Dynasty of Ur.
<br /><br />
<blockquote><blockquote>The introduction of massive death pits at Ur is usually associated to Meskalamdug, one of the kings of Ur that was also known as the paramount ruler of all the Sumerians. He started the practice of such a massive entombment with the sacrifice of soldiers and an entire choir of women to accompany him in the afterlife.</blockquote>
<br /><br />
<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meskalamdug">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meskalamdug</a>
<br /><br />
<blockquote>It has also been suggested that the Great Death Pit was the tomb of Mesannepada.</blockquote>
<br /><br />
<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mesannepada">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mesannepada</a>
<br /><br />
<blockquote><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Cemetery_at_Ur">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Cemetery_at_Ur</a></blockquote></blockquote>
<br /><br />
This first year of the 26th C. BC was obviously 2600 BC:
<br /><br />
<dl><dt>1678 B. Chr.
<dd>89.4653 pmC, so dated as 2598 B. Chr.</dl>
<br /><br />
The Hebrews were already in Egypt, at a very safe distance from being contaminated by Meskalamdug or Mesannepada.
<br /><br />
Hans Georg Lundahl
<br />Paris
<br />St. Blasius
<br />3.II.2024
<br /><br />
* That is raw carbon dates, or standard calibrations, carbon dates in assuming the original carbon content of the atmosphere was 100 pmC, or vaccillating closely around that value.
<br /><br />
** Real dates to carbon dates, here as in the following:
<br /><br />
<a href="https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2020/08/new-tables.html"><i>Creation vs. Evolution: New Tables</i>
<br />https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2020/08/new-tables.html</a>
<br /><br />
*** <a href="https://info2.sermon-online.com/english/PercyJohnWiseman/Clues_To_Creation_In_Genesis_1977.pdf"><i>Percy John Wiseman, Clues to Creation in Genesis</i>
<br />https://info2.sermon-online.com/english/PercyJohnWiseman/Clues_To_Creation_In_Genesis_1977.pdf</a>
<br /><br />
° Quoted via my post:
<br /><br />
<a href="https://filolohika.blogspot.com/2018/10/colin-renfrew-marxisme-anthropologie.html"><i>Φιλολoγικά/Philologica : Colin Renfrew, Marxisme, Anthropologie A-Chrétienne</i>
<br />https://filolohika.blogspot.com/2018/10/colin-renfrew-marxisme-anthropologie.html</a>
<br /><br />
°° See my post:
<br /><a href="https://assortedretorts.blogspot.com/2023/02/abraham-ended-evil-cannibals.html"><i>Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : Abraham Ended Evil Cannibals</i>
<br />https://assortedretorts.blogspot.com/2023/02/abraham-ended-evil-cannibals.html</a>Hans Georg Lundahlhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01055583255516264955noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3179072227484380121.post-84934708905910528452024-02-02T06:19:00.000-08:002024-02-18T09:06:30.039-08:00Whoever the "Astute Observer" was — Science and Factually Exact Are Not the Same<br />
<a href="https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2024/02/does-genesis-1-through-11-have-author.html">Does Genesis 1 through 11 have an author prior to Moses?</a> · <a href="https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2024/02/whoever-astute-observer-was-science-and.html">Whoever the "Astute Observer" was — Science and Factually Exact Are Not the Same</a> · <a href="https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2024/02/should-one-not-read-donald-j-wiseman.html">Should One NOT Read Donald J. Wiseman?</a> · <a href="https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2024/02/for-anyone-disputing-relevance-of.html">For Anyone Disputing the Relevance of Genesis 5 and 11, the Genealogy of Matthew is a Go To</a>
<br /><br />
There has been a time (or maybe even more than once) in the past 100 to 150 years, when the Seine was so high, it touched the feet of the Zouave statue on the Pont de l'Alma in Paris.
<br /><br />
This is not usually the case. This* is from 2013:
<br /><br />
<blockquote>La Seine atteignait samedi matin 9 février 3,86m de haut et le zouave du pont de l'Alma, célèbre statue qui sert de repère aux Parisiens, avait les pieds dans l'eau.
<br /><br />
Mercredi, le fleuve avait été mesuré à 3,79 mètres mercredi, à l'échelle située au pont d'Austerlitz, alors que son niveau habituel est de 2 mètres.</blockquote>
<br /><br />
The Seine is (in Paris) usually 2 m (6 ft, 6~7 in) above river bottom. As on Saturday, the 9th of February, 2013, it was unusually 3.79 m (12 ft 5 in), the Zouave had the feet in the water.
<br /><br />
Here is a "dry feet" version of him, by the way:
<br /><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/19/Paris-zouave-pont-de-l-alma.jpg" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0; text-align: center; "><img alt="" border="0" height="320" data-original-height="720" data-original-width="354" src="https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/19/Paris-zouave-pont-de-l-alma.jpg"/></a></div>
<br /><br />
<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zouave_%28Pont_de_l%27Alma%29#/media/File:Paris-zouave-pont-de-l-alma.jpg"><i>The Zouave</i> statue in 2004
<br /><i>Greudin and one more author - Own work | Public Domain</i>
<br />https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zouave_(Pont_de_l%27Alma)#/media/File:Paris-zouave-pont-de-l-alma.jpg</a>
<br /><br />
I think I had evoked this some time before 2013, on an early blog of mine. Cannot find it, was it perhaps taken down after the 2013 event?**
<br /><br />
Anyway, the thing is, we have some even higher levels according to Le Parisien:
<br /><br />
<blockquote>En 2001, la Seine avait atteint 5m21 et lors de la grande crue de 1910, elle a culminé à 8m62.</blockquote>
<br /><br />
Grande crue means "big flooding" and the measures are 5.21 m = 17 ft 1 in; 8.62 = 28 ft 3 in.
<br /><br />
The thing is, if I say that the Seine in 1910 went past its normal 6 ft 7 in to 28 ft 3 in, I am not claiming to be a hydrologist.
<br /><br />
If a hydrologist said "that can't happen" and I say, "yes, it happened in 1910" I am still not claiming to be a hydrologist.
<br /><br />
If a hydrologist asked me for a credible source and I said "Le Parisien" I would not be claiming this newspaper were a scientific committee of hydrologists. I would just state that I had confidence in Le Parisien's reporting, that one should have confidence in its reporting, that this primes over any a priori a hydrologist could come up with.
<br /><br />
Now, a hydrologist might not be so stupid as to deny the flooding of 1910. But somehow, when some other types of scientific specialists come up with a priori's or other calculations against the account of the Bible, to some people this equates to misconstruing the Bible as "a modern science publication" ... it's no more that than Le Parisien is Journal of Hydrology, and it's no more <i>claiming</i> that than I am <i>claiming</i> that Le Parisien is Journal of Hydrology.***
<br /><br />
Factual exactness is not the monopoly of either modernity or science. The alternative to "exact down to three decimal points" is not just "vastly exaggerated so the factuality if any cannot be discerned" and the problem with denying the globality of the Flood from an exegetical p o v is that "large regional flood" is not a kind of "more precisely" you can add to a "round number" ....
<br /><br />
So, the "astute observer" may be <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriarch_Kirill_of_Moscow">ex-KGB Kirill</a> of his partner in Ecumenical crime <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Benedict_XVI">Ratzinger,</a> or both, or someone else — but on this item, he was extremely far from being "astute" .../HGL
<br /><br />
For the Zouave, see also:
<br /><br />
<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zouave_%28Pont_de_l%27Alma%29#/media/File:Zouave_du_pont_de_l%27Alma_le_3_juin_2016.jpg">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zouave_(Pont_de_l%27Alma)#/media/File:Zouave_du_pont_de_l'Alma_le_3_juin_2016.jpg</a>
<br /><br />
I am not using it, since I will not allow others to add to this work, according to the share alike condition, CC BY-SA 4.0, hence just linking to it. I think that lots of my troubles about getting an editor is some kind of French jurisprudence that sees only three copyright levels to a work, copyrighted, public domain, and between them the one and only CC BY-SA 4.0. No, one can dispose of one's authorship in other ways, which is what I did.
<br /><br />
* <a href="https://www.leparisien.fr/paris-75/en-images-le-zouave-du-pont-de-l-alma-a-les-pieds-dans-l-eau-09-02-2013-2554059.php">Le Parisien : EN IMAGES. Le zouave du pont de l'Alma a les pieds dans l'eau
<br /><i>Le 9 février 2013 à 16h27</i>
<br />https://www.leparisien.fr/paris-75/en-images-le-zouave-du-pont-de-l-alma-a-les-pieds-dans-l-eau-09-02-2013-2554059.php</a>
<br /><br />
** Not by me, though.
<br /><br />
*** <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/journal/journal-of-hydrology/publish/open-access-options"><i>Science Direct : Journal of Hydrology (Open Access)</i>
<br />https://www.sciencedirect.com/journal/journal-of-hydrology/publish/open-access-options</a>Hans Georg Lundahlhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01055583255516264955noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3179072227484380121.post-61847332390074482592024-02-02T03:35:00.000-08:002024-02-18T09:06:42.045-08:00Does Genesis 1 through 11 have an author prior to Moses?<br />
<a href="https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2024/02/does-genesis-1-through-11-have-author.html">Does Genesis 1 through 11 have an author prior to Moses?</a> · <a href="https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2024/02/whoever-astute-observer-was-science-and.html">Whoever the "Astute Observer" was — Science and Factually Exact Are Not the Same</a> · <a href="https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2024/02/should-one-not-read-donald-j-wiseman.html">Should One NOT Read Donald J. Wiseman?</a> · <a href="https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2024/02/for-anyone-disputing-relevance-of.html">For Anyone Disputing the Relevance of Genesis 5 and 11, the Genealogy of Matthew is a Go To</a>
<br /><br />
I am obviously not even envisaging JEPD as potentially true, that's the kind of madness people abuse their academic personnel for when they resolutely turn their back on the obvious and usually also true answer.
<br /><br />
The other day, I read how in 1850, the rotation of the earth had been proven. No, it hadn't. The supposals used for taking Foucault's Pendulum (1851, not 1850) and three experiments in falling bodies (Benzenberg, Reich and before the Guilielmini, all three before 1850) as proof for this involve the unproven assumption, now abandoned by modern physics, that space is empty coordinates. I actually read that Brahe had been disproven. No. Even with rotation of the earth, unproven and counterintuitive as it is, the Earth could still have been direct centre for Moon, Sun, Fix-Stars and have the Sun as moving epicentre for "planets" (other than Sun and Moon, and including asteroids and comets, and with Titan or Io having one moving epicentre more, namely Saturn and Jupiter). The assumption involved in "disproving" this is, either a) God hates spirograph patterns, thinks they are too ugly for heaven, even in orbits (Copernicus' take), or b) this can't be since the movements are too complex for gravity and inertia, and God and angels either don't exist or wouldn't want to move either heaven or heavenly bodies.
<br /><br />
The point is not that I'm an expert in astronomy. I'm hardly even an amateur. The point is, the assumptions made by the experts are published and known, and can therefore be criticised by non-experts, including myself.
<br /><br />
Dito for the JEPD hypothesis. One of the assumptions, never stated and indeed never even admitted, so absurd is it, is <i>"if Jews, Samaritans and Christians believed it was written by Moses, then therefore Moses can't have written it, such traditions of a religion are never right."</i> This is a fairly open admission of animosity towards the God of the Old Testament, and a scholar who presents himself as serving a university faculty in theology usually wouldn't want to alienate all Church institutions by stating <i>"we are Marcionites or Albigensians here, Jews and Catholics are not welcome"</i> — but another one is pretty absurd too. It's that if two names for God, JHVH (Adonai) and Elohim, occur in different places of a text, it's really two conflated texts, one of the original authors using JHVH (Adonai) and the other using Elohim. A single author varying his names for God is seemingly not even on the list. A third is, if something markedly differs from Babylonian theology, while parallelling a Babylonian narratives (Flood section of the Gilgamesh Epic or Enuma Elish or Sumerian King List), the Babylonian narrative was naively taken over as overall narrative, the theological differences are the polemics against Babylonian theology, and that polemics is all there is of the real message of the Hebrew author ... who must obviously have been posterior to when Hebrews had their first admittedly welldocumented (i e in non-Hebrew sources) encounters with Babylonians. Both people inheriting the story that Noah had to tell, and his three sons had to tell, and the Babylonians being the people twisting history for purposes of adapting it to bad theology (like probably even eliminating a first human couple), somehow also not on the list.
<br /><br />
There is a very different approach, which is not very often expressed in traditional Catholic scholarship, neither very much among today's Young Earth Creationists, at least not the ones I have a look on. The Hebrews knew nothing at all or had contradictory views about Henoch the son of Jared. On this view, not my view. Then Moses, precisely as God spoke to him and said He would send an angel before the people, Exodus 33, also received Genesis 4 and 5 like that. And while we are at it, the Hebrews didn't even need to go through the Red Sea, and remember it, it's sufficient that God spoke to Moses and told him to write the narrative in Exodus 14 and they somehow believed him. This is a parodic version of one idea about how Divine Inspiration for Scripture works, taken over from an idea of the Quran, when Mohammed is only dictating the Quran when "Allah" speaks to him, and the rest, the Al-Sīra al-Nabawiyya, for instance, is, venerable, but lower than what God dictated. To us, history which is in the Bible is <i>not</i> lower than what God dictated, even if it is not dictated this way. We can say God chose the words, but God did not take away natural sources, like prior histories or testimonies, He gave the hagiographer good and infallible judgement about them, and a correct choice of words.
<br /><br />
So, given that Moses did the Exodus 430 years after God had given his promise to Abraham (and some would say more, claiming erroneously the 430 years started when Jacob went to Egypt and was received by his son Joseph, but the 430 years started pretty much right away, Abraham was living as an immigrant, certainly an immigrant Beduin with a large tribe, but an immigrant none-the-less), Abraham was not in a position to speak to Moses. And given that the Flood happened 292, 942 or 1070 years before Abraham was even born, depending on text, Moses could not have a chat with Noah either. So, given divine dictation was not Moses' (sole) source of knowledge, and given that contemporaneous testimony was no longer contemporaneous when Moses wrote, what happened?
<br /><br />
<blockquote>P. J. Wiseman, like I. M. Kikawada and A. Quinn, will present a case for the more traditional view of the Book of Genesis against JEDP theory, though with a twist. Moses substantially the author of the Pentateuch, was not properly speaking the author of Genesis, but its editor.</blockquote>
<br /><br />
I just cited:
<br /><a href="https://www.academia.edu/114367942/Genesis_a_finely_unified_tapestry">Genesis, a finely unified tapestry
<br /><i>by Damien F. Mackey (on Academia)</i>
<br />https://www.academia.edu/114367942/Genesis_a_finely_unified_tapestry</a>
<br /><br />
So, Damien Mackey is attempting to give a review of three scholars that say Moses had sources. I agree on that point, if not on all the other ones. Here is one I don't agree on:
<br /><br />
<blockquote>Perhaps somewhat more surprisingly, the same can basically be said for the fundamentalist biblical approach, ridiculed by Kikawada and Quinn as reactionary.
<br /><br />
For although those, such as the Creationists for instance, might give the impression of their complete dedication to uncovering the truths of the Bible - and I am sure that that is generally their sincere intention - they, too, read the text from a modern, generally Westernised, scientific point of view. In fact one astute commentator has rightly described Creationism as a form of modernism, attempting to reduce Genesis to science.</blockquote>
<br /><br />
Damien Mackey is, if so, very far from <i>à jour</i> with current Creationist literature. We regard Genesis, not as true systematic science, but as true, chronological, sequence of events history. When I say "history" and not "historiography", some may object that it's not historic research conducted in the way that modern scholars conduct historic research. It's a very ancient historiography. Yes, but history the way that modern scholars conduct historic research is a very modern historiography. History primarily, throughout history, means what certain modern historians would call historiography.
<br /><br />
I don't think modern historians are to be confused with scientists, and the ones doing so are <i>not</i> us Creationists, it's the ones pretending we confuse Genesis with science, when in fact we don't.
<br /><br />
In fact, sorry, Damien, the paper just shown is an 18 minute read, and I'm trying to get this post finished, I may return to the 18 minute read later.
<br /><br />
First, <i>"with a twist ... not properly speaking the author of Genesis, but its editor."</i> The question is, is this even a twist on the traditional view or is it the traditional view? Let's compare the idea that Samuel was the author of Judges:
<br /><br />
<blockquote>This Book is called Judges, because it contains the history of what passed under the government of the judges, who ruled Israel before they had kings. The writer of it, according to the more general opinion, was the prophet Samuel. (Challoner)
<br /><br />
Some are of opinion, that the judges might have each left records of their respective administrations, (Menochius) which might be put in order by Samuel. The author of this book seems to have lived under the reign of Saul, before David had expelled the Jebusites, chap. xviii. 31. (Du Hamel)</blockquote>
<br /><br />
<a href="https://johnblood.gitlab.io/haydock/id564.html"><i>Haydock's Catholic Bible Commentary, 1859 edition. JUDGES - Introduction</i>
<br />https://johnblood.gitlab.io/haydock/id564.html</a>
<br /><br />
Basically, when we say that Samuel is author of Judges, we mean that Samuel is in some sense final editor of Judges.
<br /><br />
Before we return to Genesis, we'll take a look at Judges. The book starts after the death of Joshua, and Samuel lived 100's of years later. Judges is basically a work of cumulative narration and cumulative authorship. A diary has single authorship, but cumulative narration. The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle has cumulative narration, but through cumulative authorship. I believe Judges is essentially this kind of book. With Samuel as final editor.
<br /><br />
Now, this brings up the question, was there a kind of summing up within the book of Genesis, for instance 1 to 11 or 2 to 11, prior to Moses?
<br /><br />
Here I will first cite Haydock:
<br /><br />
<blockquote>Concerning the transactions of these early times, parents would no doubt be careful to instruct their children, by word of mouth, before any of the Scriptures were written; and Moses might derive much information from the same source, as a very few persons formed the chain of tradition, when they lived so many hundred years. Adam would converse with Mathusalem, who knew Sem, as the latter lived in the days of Abram. Isaac, Joseph, and Amram, the father of Moses, were contemporaries: so that seven persons might keep up the memory of things which had happened 2500 years before. But to entitle these accounts to absolute authority, the inspiration of God intervenes; and thus we are convinced, that no word of sacred writers can be questioned. (Haydock)</blockquote>
<br /><br />
<a href="https://johnblood.gitlab.io/haydock/id329.html"><i>Haydock's etc. GENESIS - Chapter 3</i>
<br />https://johnblood.gitlab.io/haydock/id329.html</a>
<br /><br />
So, he believed in oral tradition of each event (at the very least for the Genesis 3 event) up to the time of Moses, who relied (and was right in relying) on his family tradition.
<br /><br />
I take a somewhat different approach.
<br /><br />
<a href="https://creation.com/who-wrote-genesis-are-the-toledoth-colophons"><i>Who Wrote Genesis? Are the Toledoth Colophons?</i>
<br />by Charles V Taylor, M.A., Ph.D., PGCE, LRAM, FIL, Cert. Theol. | This article is from
<br /><i>Journal of Creation 8(2):204–211, August 1994</i>
<br />https://creation.com/who-wrote-genesis-are-the-toledoth-colophons</a>
<br /><br />
Charles Taylor, and lots of Creationists after him, have taken the view, each of the patriarchs wrote, on a physical material. Again, Moses stringed the work together.
<br /><br />
I take a view somewhat intermediate between Father Haydock and Charles V Taylor.
<br /><br />
Oral tradition could have taken place all along the way up to Abraham. Or the tradition was written, and lost, and orally transmitted to Abraham. The reason why I believe the chapters up to 11 that have human observers implied for the events were orally transmitted to Abraham is, they are different, they are shorter, while later chapters of Genesis are more prolix. Why is that important? Because shortness is a very good way to keep a text memorisable, without written support. African Griots and Homeric aoidoi can memorise a list (Ship Catalogue and the Genealogy of Kunta Kinte existed orally, before taken down by the sons of Peisistratus or by Alex Haley). But the reason they can do it well is, each item in the list is, within that list, memorised as an item, a sentence, not several paragraphs. And the narratives, just as much as table of nations (Genesis 10) or as genealogies in Genesis 5 or 11 or the unchronological one in Genesis 4, are also short. We don't get dialogues between God and a patriarch about what to do in the face of another patriarch, as later on (Jacob and Laban). Hence, sufficiently few necessary intermediates (plus as many as possible redundant ones) plus shortness of text, makes a text transmittable.
<br /><br />
Genesis 3 (as mentioned), could have been transmitted to Abraham this way, all the way from Adam and Eve. Or they could have been written down, Sarug had long time access to the books, but they were taken away when his son and grandson became idolaters, so, he had to transmit it to Abraham from memory.
<br /><br />
Either way, from Abraham on to the migration to Egypt, the Beduin tribe that became the Ancient People of God could transport the very short text mass on camel back, and from Joseph's arrival to power and on, the camel back archives and the narrative of Joseph's own misfortunes and fortune could be restored in Goshen. This is the kind of material that Moses dealt with. It's rationally speaking at the very least, even if we do not bring Divine inspiration into the picture, a roughly speaking reliable historiography of events. The alternatives this contradicts are not better or more reliable historiography (including for Egypt), it's not science that's as good as Coulombe's law or Newtons III Law of Movement, its reconstruction and pseudo-science, on level with the infamous JEPD theory.
<br /><br />
Hans Georg Lundahl
<br />Nanterre UL
<br />Candlemass
<br />2.II.2024Hans Georg Lundahlhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01055583255516264955noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3179072227484380121.post-45436582483201645652024-01-31T12:15:00.000-08:002024-01-31T12:16:07.856-08:00CMI Weakness : "It's not in X, it's in Y"<br />
Example* from today:
<br /><br />
<blockquote>Now Plimer is notoriously unreliable (see Plimer Files), and here he claimed that Vilna is in Poland when it’s in Lithuania, and seemed to be unaware that pi is an irrational number, so I don’t take his word for things.</blockquote>
<br /><br />
I have no idea on whether Plimer denied that pi is an irrational ratio, but if he said "Vilna is in Poland" that's not simply false and unreliable.
<br /><br />
Back in the time when Gedimynas founded Vilnius, it was in Lithuania. Now it is in Lithuania. After the three partitions, it was in Russia, as in Russian Empire. Between 1945 (or subsequent years) and 1990, it was in the Soviet Republic of Lithuania. At a certain point during World War II, it had been under German occupation, except for a very brief interval 1939 to 1940 when it was under Lithuania. The same is true for World War I.
<br /><br />
What was it between World War I and World War II?
<br /><br />
<blockquote>On 20 February 1922, after the highly contested election in Central Lithuania, the entire area was annexed by <i>Poland,</i> with the city becoming the capital of the Wilno Voivodeship (Wilno being the name of Vilnius <i>in Polish).</i> Kaunas became the temporary capital of Lithuania. ... By 1931, the city had 195,000 inhabitants, making it the fifth largest city <i>in Poland</i> with varied industries, such as Elektrit, a factory that produced radio receivers.
<br /><br />
<blockquote><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vilnius#Interwar_Poland">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vilnius#Interwar_Poland</a></blockquote></blockquote>
<br /><br />
Are they among the guys who say things like "Göbekli Tepe is not in Mesopotamia, it's in Turkey"?
<br /><br />
I actually fear so!/HGL
<br /><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjyF_Bs6YtTx-s3BbG9vo__EuguWiL4gNyEkdB-jtUl9I5nA4h8Oo5KV5Bqxz5TgzxOtTvmqGnD2blataZwIFM2LYFgDwdQk6UcrYb7iLaaX6SF0JQQ77Vs073LMnkYoSBuS_GgotnP1fbYN7gmPa0cTte8uwSSPBzi3MRynEK2Z-483g0DmAs00O4aftY/s1284/plaineensennaar.jpg" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0; text-align: center; "><img alt="" border="0" width="320" data-original-height="758" data-original-width="1284" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjyF_Bs6YtTx-s3BbG9vo__EuguWiL4gNyEkdB-jtUl9I5nA4h8Oo5KV5Bqxz5TgzxOtTvmqGnD2blataZwIFM2LYFgDwdQk6UcrYb7iLaaX6SF0JQQ77Vs073LMnkYoSBuS_GgotnP1fbYN7gmPa0cTte8uwSSPBzi3MRynEK2Z-483g0DmAs00O4aftY/s320/plaineensennaar.jpg"/></a></div>
<br /><br />
(While it's not visible on the map, the sources of both rivers are actually 38° N and some more, while Göbekli Tepe, East of Euphrates, is 37° N and some more, short of 38° N.)
<br /><br />
* <a href="https://creation.com/bible-contradiction-claims">https://creation.com/bible-contradiction-claims</a>Hans Georg Lundahlhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01055583255516264955noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3179072227484380121.post-85157652983887641682024-01-29T07:14:00.000-08:002024-01-29T07:58:51.055-08:00Width of the Atlantic<br />
Wolgemuth has been posting this on FB:
<br /><br />
<blockquote>The diagram below shows the Atlantic Ocean with North America and Africa have been separating at a rate of 1.2 in/yr. So if the earth were 10,000 years old, The Atlantic would be less than 1/4 mile across! What does this mean about young-earth creationism?</blockquote>
<br /><br />
Also a screen shot stating:
<br /><br />
<blockquote>3,500 miles = 220,000,000 in
<br /><br />
220,000,000 in / 180,000,000 years = 1.2 in/year</blockquote>
<br /><br />
I would say, the Atlantic did not exist to the time of the Flood.
<br /><br />
I will for the purpose of this one ignore the idea of Atlantis, though I'll be back to it at the end.
<br /><br />
The Flood was 2958 BC. 2958 + 2024 = 4982 years.
<br /><br />
220,000,000 in / 4982 years = 44,159 in / year
<br /><br />
If we presumed that the speed has been declining constantly, this means, the Atlantic would have been expanding 3610 feet or a little more than 2/3 of a mile per year back in 467 BC. This is not very credible.
<br /><br />
How about, the decline has declined, it both started out more rapidly than 7220 feet per year in the Flood, and declined more rapidly than reaching half distance in 467 BC.
<br /><br />
1.2 in / year * 4982 years = 5978.4 = 498.2 feet, less than 10 % of a mile.
<br /><br />
220,000,000 in / 5978.4 in = 36,799 times faster.
<br /><br />
36,799 * 36,799 = 1,354,166,401* times faster initially? No:
<br /><br />
<blockquote>1 354 166 401 * 1.2 = 1,624,999,681.2 inches in the sole year of the Flood.
<br />= 135,416,640.1 feet in the sole year of the Flood.
<br />= 25,647 miles in the sole year of the Flood.</blockquote>
<br /><br />
That's wider than it is today.
<br /><br />
I think I just might take kind of a Fibonacci view of modelling decreasing velocity of the spreading out of the Atlantic. Peak velocity during the Flood.**
<br /><br />
Let the period 4982 years be divided into 27 shorter periods. 184.518518 etc years.
<br /><br />
Now take the Fibonacci series to the 27. The sum of all of these is 504228.
<br /><br />
220,000,000 in / 504,228 = 436.310,557,922 in
<br /><br />
The last period would have had 436.311 inches added, giving 2.365 inches per year as medium since 1840. And even since 1656, since the previous period would also have had 436.311 inches added.
<br /><br />
Let this then be the module, multiplied by the diverse Fibonacci numbers.
<br /><br />
<dl><dt>2957 BC — 2772 BC
<dd>1283.7 mi
<dt>2772 BC — 2588 BC
<dd>835.9 mi
<dt>2588 BC — 2403 BC
<dd>516.6 mi
<dt>2403 BC — 2219 BC
<dd>319.3 mi
<dt>2219 BC — 2034 BC
<dd>197.3 mi
<dt>2034 BC — 1850 BC
<dd>122 mi
<dt>1850 BC — 1665 BC
<dd>75.4 mi
<dt>1665 BC — 1481 BC
<dd>46.6 mi
<dt>1481 BC — 1296 BC
<dd>28.8 mi
<dt>1296 BC — 1112 BC
<dd>17.8 mi
<dt>1112 BC — 927 BC
<dd>11 mi
<dt>927 BC — 743 BC
<dd>6.8 mi
<dt>743 BC — 558 BC
<dd>4.2 mi
<dt>558 BC — 374 BC
<dd>13707 ft, above 2 miles
<dt>374 BC — 189 BC
<dd>8472 ft, above a mile
<dt>189 BC — 5 BC
<dd>5236 ft, nearly a mile
<dt>5 BC — 180 AD
<dd>3236 ft
<dt>180 AD — 364 AD
<dd>2000 ft
<dt>364 AD — 549 AD
<dd>1236 ft
<dt>549 AD — 733 AD
<dd>764 ft
<dt>733 AD — 918 AD
<dd>473 ft
<dt>918 AD — 1102 AD
<dd>291 ft
<dt>1102 AD — 1287 AD
<dd>182 ft
<dt>1287 AD — 1471 AD
<dd>109 ft
<dt>1471 AD — 1656 AD
<dd>73 ft
<dt>1656 AD — 1840 AD
<dd>36 ft
<dt>1840 AD — 2025 AD
<dd>36 ft</dl>
<br /><br />
So, is 1283.7 mi / 185 years too much? 7 miles a year. 100 feet a day.*** Too much for a stable world one could live in even far inland way from the Atlantic? Perhaps.
<br /><br />
Does it add up?
<br /><br />
1283.7 + 835.9 + 516.6 + 319.3 + 197.3 + 122 + 75.4 + 46.6 + 28.8 + 17.8 + 11 + 6.8 + 4.2 = 3465.4 mi
<br />13,707 + 8472 + 5236 + 3236 + 2000 + 1236 + 764 + 473 + 291 + 182 + 109 + 73 + 36 + 36 = 35,851 ft = 6.8 mi
<br /><br />
Nearly. Decently close.
<br /><br />
So, for precise information on the width of the Atlantic, this is pretty lame. The sum total is too far from 3500 miles. It's just 3472.2 miles.
<br /><br />
3472.2 is however the value for 220,000,000 inches. So, no, it's pretty exact, given the input data given. Not pretty lame after all.
<br /><br />
What can be done about the 100 feet per day during the time after the Flood? Well, obviously, during the Flood itself, it could have been widening even more than that per day. The more it widened during the Flood, the less it had to widen after the Flood. That's one part.
<br /><br />
Another part, what about Atlantis? What if in one go, by the sinking of a North Atlantic quasi continent, or an island larger than Australia, the Atlantic went from two straits of sea water to a huge ocean?
<br /><br />
The thing is, The Old World and The New World, on this scenario, would already have been somewhat apart during pre-Flood times.
<br /><br />
I think, the width of the Atlantic is no total problem, unless you dogmatise that 1.2 inches per year had to be the speed for all of the time, just because it's the speed we observe now.
<br /><br />
Hans Georg Lundahl
<br />Paris
<br />St. Francis of Sales
<br />29.I.2024
<br /><br />
* Idea after:
<br /><br />
<a href="https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2020/05/himalayas-ter.html"><i>Creation vs. Evolution: Himalayas, ter</i>
<br />https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2020/05/himalayas-ter.html</a>
<br /><br />
** Idea after:
<br /><br />
<a href="http://nov9blogg9.blogspot.com/2015/10/avec-un-peu-daide-de-fibonacci-jai-une.html"><i>New blog on the kid : Avec un peu d'aide de Fibonacci ... j'ai une table, presque correcte</i>
<br />http://nov9blogg9.blogspot.com/2015/10/avec-un-peu-daide-de-fibonacci-jai-une.html</a>
<br /><br />
*** 30.48 m per day; 1.27 m per hour; 2.1166666667 cm per minute; 0.3527777778 mm per secondHans Georg Lundahlhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01055583255516264955noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3179072227484380121.post-1782500204424938992024-01-28T08:42:00.000-08:002024-01-28T08:44:00.391-08:00Cheddar Man : Conventional plus a few of my tables<br />
<a href="https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2024/01/carbon-date-of-otzi-conventional-plus.html">Carbon Date of Ötzi : Conventional plus a few of my tables</a> · <a href="https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2024/01/cheddar-man-conventional-plus-few-of-my.html">Cheddar Man : Conventional plus a few of my tables</a>
<br /><br />
First Conventional:
<br /><br />
<blockquote>Cheddar Man has been directly radiocarbon dated on two separate occasions, giving calibrated dates of 8540–7990 BC and 8470–8230 BC.
<br /><br />
<blockquote><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheddar_Man#Archaeological_context">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheddar_Man#Archaeological_context</a>
<br /><br />
Footnote cites: Meiklejohn, C (2011). "Radiocarbon Dating Of Mesolithic Human remains in Great Britain". Mesolithic Miscellany. 21: 20–58.</blockquote></blockquote>
<br /><br />
I take it, then the second carbon date was a narrowing down of the first. 8470—8230 BC.
<br /><br />
<dl><dt>Monday 5 October 2015
<dt>My very first table:
<dd><a href="https://nov9blogg9.blogspot.com/2015/10/datation-de-carbone-14-comment-ca-carre.html"><i>Datation de Carbone 14, comment ça carre avec la Chronologie Biblique</i>
<br />https://nov9blogg9.blogspot.com/2015/10/datation-de-carbone-14-comment-ca-carre.html</a>
<br /><br />
I only now realised how I was supposed to read it. From 2957 to 500 BC, I see the carbon 14 level in the air's carbon content as building up in stages of 1/32 of "n" = "now" = 100 pmC. On, obviously, 1/32 of the timespan of 2457 years. At 25/32 that would give, for 4030 BP, normally, 6080. Instead I make it 6019 (2015 + 4004), in reference to that being when AronRa places Ur ... which I then supposed to be the birthplace of Abraham (4030 = 2015 + 2015). So, where would this place this man? Somewhere between 15/32 and 16/32.
<br /><br />
<table><tr><td>n*25/32<td> <td>4030<td> <td>6019</tr>
<tr><td>n*24/32<td> <td>4068</tr>
<tr><td>...</tr>
<tr><td>n*16/32<td> <td>4369</tr>
<tr><td>n*15/32<td> <td>4407</tr>
<tr><td>...</tr>
<tr><td>n*13/32<td> <td>4482<td> <td>11930</tr></table>
<br /><br />
16/32 = 50 % = 5730 years more = 10099 - 2015 = 8084 BC
<br />15/32 = 46.875 % = 6250 years more = 10657 - 2015 = 8642 BC
<br />(14/32 = 43.75 % = 6850 years more = 11295 - 2015 = 9280 BC)
<br /><br />
<dt>Saturday 31 October 2015
<dt>My Fibonacci table:
<dd><a href="https://nov9blogg9.blogspot.com/2015/10/avec-un-peu-daide-de-fibonacci-jai-une.html"><i>Avec un peu d'aide de Fibonacci ... j'ai une table, presque correcte</i>
<br />https://nov9blogg9.blogspot.com/2015/10/avec-un-peu-daide-de-fibonacci-jai-une.html</a>
<br /><br />
<dl><dt>2778 av. J.-Chr.
<dd>40,23593 % + 7550 ans, 10 328 av. J.-Chr.
<dt>2599 av. J.-Chr.
<dd>62,75068 % + 3850 ans, 6449 av. J.-Chr.</dl>
<br /><br />
(2778 + 2599) / 2 = 2689 BC
<br />(40.23593 + 62.75068) / 2 = 51.493305 pmC
<br />5500 + 2689 = 8189
<br /><br />
(2778 + 2778 + 2599) / 3 = 2718 BC
<br />(40.23593 + 40.23593 + 62.75068) / 3 = 47.74085 pmC
<br />6100 + 2718 = 8818
<br /><br />
So, I would have set, for carbon dates 8189 and 8818 BC, surrounding those of Cheddar man, the real dates 2689 to 2718 BC.
<br /><br />
<dt>Tuesday 14 February 2017
<dt>Modified Fibonacci
<dd><a href="https://nov9blogg9.blogspot.com/2017/02/table-modifiee-analysee-par-convergence.html"><i>Table modifiée, analysée par convergence avec l'a priori</i>
<br />https://nov9blogg9.blogspot.com/2017/02/table-modifiee-analysee-par-convergence.html</a>
<br /><br />
<dl><dt>2733 av. J.-C.
<dd>49,279 % + 5850 ans, 8583 av. J.-C.
<dt>2688 av. J.-C.
<dd>56,3215 %, + 4750 ans, 7438 av. J.-C.</dl>
<br /><br />
(2733 + 2733 + 2733 + 2688) / 4 = 2722 BC
<br />(49.279 + 49.279 + 49.279 + 56.3215) / 4 = 51.039625
<br /><br />
5550 + 2722 = 8272 BC
<br /><br />
So, 8583 BC and 8272 BC pretty well surround the limit dates for Cheddar man, making on this view 2733 to 2722 BC the likely real year.
<br /><br />
<dt>jeudi 13 août 2020
<dt>New Tables
<dd><a href="https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2020/08/new-tables.html"><i>New Tables</i>
<br />https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2020/08/new-tables.html</a>
<br /><br />
<dl><dt>2556 B. Chr.
<dd>0.481415 pmC/100, so dated as 8606 B. Chr.
<dt>2534 B. Chr.
<dd>0.494539 pmC/100, so dated as 8334 B. Chr.
<dt>2511 B. Chr.
<dd>0.507242 pmC/100, so dated as 8111 B. Chr.</dl>
<br /><br />
(2556 + 2534 + 2534) / 3 = 2541 BC
<br />(48.1415 + 49.4539 + 49.4539) / 3 = 49.01643 pmC
<br />5900 + 2541 = 8441 BC
<br /><br />
(2534 + 2511 + 2511) / 3 = 2519 BC
<br />(49.4539 + 50.7242 + 50.7242) / 3 = 50.30077 pmC
<br />5700 + 2519 = 8219 BC
<br /><br />
Since 8441 is a bit later than 8470, and 8219 a bit later than 8230 BC, the real dates would be a bit later than 2541 and 2519 BC.
<br /><br />
<dt>lundi 22 janvier 2024
<dt>Revisions of New Tables
<dd><a href="https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2024/01/the-revision-of-i-ii-ii-iii-iii-iv-may.html"><i>The Revision of I-II, II-III, III-IV May be Unnecessary, BUT Illustrates What I Did When Doing the First Version of New Tables</i>
<br />https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2024/01/the-revision-of-i-ii-ii-iii-iii-iv-may.html</a>
<br /><br />
<dl><dt>2573 BC
<dd>48.992 pmC, so dated 8473 BC
<dt>2556 BC
<dd>51.761 pmC, so dated 8006 BC</dl>
<br /><br />
2573 BC would be the first limit date "8470 BC"
<br /><br />
(2573 + 2556) / 2 = 2565 BC
<br />(48.992 + 51.761) / 2 = 50.3765 pmC
<br />5650 + 2565 = 8215 BC
<br /><br />
The other one, a bit before 8215 BC, would be a bit before 2565 BC.
<br /><br />
Cheddar man's from 2573 to 2565 BC. If this revision holds./HGL</dl>Hans Georg Lundahlhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01055583255516264955noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3179072227484380121.post-90038539628958857202024-01-27T06:11:00.000-08:002024-01-28T08:44:11.414-08:00Carbon Date of Ötzi : Conventional plus a few of my tables<br />
<a href="https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2024/01/carbon-date-of-otzi-conventional-plus.html">Carbon Date of Ötzi : Conventional plus a few of my tables</a> · <a href="https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2024/01/cheddar-man-conventional-plus-few-of-my.html">Cheddar Man : Conventional plus a few of my tables</a>
<br /><br />
Here is first conventional:
<br /><br />
<blockquote>Using the radiocarbon dating method Ötzi’s age was placed between 5,348-5,298 years, at the end of the European Neolithic.
<br /><br />
<blockquote><a href="https://www.csueastbay.edu/museum/pre-exhibit/dna/history-iceman.html">Cal State East Bay : THE ICE MAN “FOUNDETH”
<br />https://www.csueastbay.edu/museum/pre-exhibit/dna/history-iceman.html</a></blockquote></blockquote>
<br /><br />
This can be translated as 3348 to 3298 BC.
<br /><br />
<dl><dt>Monday 5 October 2015
<dt>My very first table:
<dd><a href="https://nov9blogg9.blogspot.com/2015/10/datation-de-carbone-14-comment-ca-carre.html"><i>Datation de Carbone 14, comment ça carre avec la Chronologie Biblique</i>
<br />https://nov9blogg9.blogspot.com/2015/10/datation-de-carbone-14-comment-ca-carre.html</a>
<br /><br />
I had no clue at all.
<br /><br />
<dt>Saturday 31 October 2015
<dt>My Fibonacci table:
<dd><a href="https://nov9blogg9.blogspot.com/2015/10/avec-un-peu-daide-de-fibonacci-jai-une.html"><i>Avec un peu d'aide de Fibonacci ... j'ai une table, presque correcte</i>
<br />https://nov9blogg9.blogspot.com/2015/10/avec-un-peu-daide-de-fibonacci-jai-une.html</a>
<br /><br />
<dl><dt>2241 av. J.-Chr.
<dd>86,26541 % + 1200 ans, 3441 av. J.-Chr.
<dt>2062 av. J.-Chr.
<dd>91,58056 % + 730 ans, 2792 av. J.-Chr.</dl>
<br /><br />
Between 2241 and 2062 BC, much closer to 2241.
<br /><br />
(2241 + 2241 + 2241 + 2062) / 4 = 2196 BC
<br />(86.26541 + 86.26541 + 86.26541 + 91.5805) / 4 = 87.5941825 pmC
<br /><br />
1100 + 2196 = 3296 BC
<br /><br />
So, Ötzi would have been from 2196 BC verging towards 2241 BC. But not quite as far back. My own estimate would have been within a closer range than the 50 year range of the conventional carbon daters.
<br /><br />
<dt>Tuesday 14 February 2017
<dt>Modified Fibonacci
<dd><a href="https://nov9blogg9.blogspot.com/2017/02/table-modifiee-analysee-par-convergence.html"><i>Table modifiée, analysée par convergence avec l'a priori</i>
<br />https://nov9blogg9.blogspot.com/2017/02/table-modifiee-analysee-par-convergence.html</a>
<br /><br />
<dl><dt>1928 av. J.-C.
<dd>83,689 % + 1472 ans, 3400 av. J.-C.
<dt>Ici
<dd>l'épaisseur des années considérées pour calcule est dimidiée, encore une fois:
<dt>1883 av. J.-C.
<dd>84,882 %, + 1350 ans, 3233 av. J.-C.</dl>
<br /><br />
Between 1928 BC and 1883 BC.
<br /><br />
(1928 + 1883) / 2 = 1905~1906
<br />(83.689 + 84.882) / 2 = 84.2855 pmC
<br /><br />
1400 + 1905 = 3305 BC
<br /><br />
<dt>jeudi 13 août 2020
<dt>New Tables
<dd><a href="https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2020/08/new-tables.html"><i>New Tables</i>
<br />https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2020/08/new-tables.html</a>
<br /><br />
<dl><dt>1868 B. Chr.
<dd>0.841262 pmC/100, so dated as 3318 B. Chr.
<dt>1845 B. Chr.
<dd>0.845892 pmC/100, so dated as 3245 B. Chr.</dl>
<br /><br />
3318 already falls within the span, but ... I cannot get closer to 3298 BC without going beyond it, towards 3245.
<br /><br />
<dt>lundi 22 janvier 2024
<dt>Revisions of New Tables
<dd><a href="https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2024/01/the-revision-of-i-ii-ii-iii-iii-iv-may.html"><i>The Revision of I-II, II-III, III-IV May be Unnecessary, BUT Illustrates What I Did When Doing the First Version of New Tables</i>
<br />https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2024/01/the-revision-of-i-ii-ii-iii-iii-iv-may.html</a>
<br /><br />
As Ötzi is not on III—IV, but on IV—V, his date is not affected./HGL</dl>Hans Georg Lundahlhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01055583255516264955noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3179072227484380121.post-61948237961882760262024-01-25T04:25:00.000-08:002024-01-25T04:25:04.348-08:00Do You Believe Homo Sapiens Underwent a Neurological Mutation to Us?<br />
Here are a few seconds from a video:*
<br /><br />
<blockquote><b>0:02 — 0:21</b>
<br />humans have been the smartest creatures on the planet for a long time but while species appeared to do nothing remarkable over the first 200,000 years has long been a mystery to many in fact the abrupt emergence of human culture over a stunningly short period continues to be one of the great enigmas of human evolution</blockquote>
<br /><br />
Oh, yeah?
<br /><br />
I suppose this means, a) Homo sapiens has existed for 300 000 years, b) Homo sapiens has been producing human culture for only 100 000 years. Or, if you like, shorten it down even to 240 000 and 40 000.
<br /><br />
But, let's not forget, this is not historic memory. This is reconstruction. It's a reconstruction from finds and datings.
<br /><br />
Let's reformulate.
<br /><br />
a) Homo sapiens skeleta have been found dated to anything from near present to 300 000 BP
<br />b) Homo sapiens skeleta have been found with unambiguous proofs of actual culture, dated to anything from near present to 100 000 years ago.
<br /><br />
What can be known immediately about a skeleton that was dated to 150 000 years ago? It was NOT carbon dated.**
<br /><br />
Carbon dates have as utmost limit, either 60 — 70 000 BP or even just 50 — 60 000 BP.
<br /><br />
I looked it up, it's 55 — 60 000 BP.
<br /><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgxmeuWOEsCEgdC9UwhDcQOJpKEgxpSDCewZSv7JkfFgt2L_tkaotMU6f2q03nNNez5uCCahvxWTjb_wDleOGeypUJNZ8DA7RiAeLwNng45t9jHTUYF-EeEXVhzq34LiiDEfwUz_Ugt84VI_tcnbKlpipI218IretYzozTzkUQsjxVZCSj_dWRgnv_9BMjx/s456/60000.jpg" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0; text-align: center; "><img alt="" border="0" height="320" data-original-height="456" data-original-width="448" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgxmeuWOEsCEgdC9UwhDcQOJpKEgxpSDCewZSv7JkfFgt2L_tkaotMU6f2q03nNNez5uCCahvxWTjb_wDleOGeypUJNZ8DA7RiAeLwNng45t9jHTUYF-EeEXVhzq34LiiDEfwUz_Ugt84VI_tcnbKlpipI218IretYzozTzkUQsjxVZCSj_dWRgnv_9BMjx/s320/60000.jpg"/></a></div>
<br /><br />
So, what can we know about any date that's prior to 60 000 BP?
<br />a) It's not a carbon date.
<br />b) It's still not historic memory, so it's some kind of <i>other</i> date.
<br /><br />
There is a very big problem with the other dating methods commonly used in Earth Sciences. None of them has been tested on recent archaeology. None of them can have the half life verified by organic material (bodies, body parts or artefacts) of known historic age. If I want to verify that carbon 14 works, with a halflife of 5730 years, it's pretty easy.
<br /><br />
After 500 years, I am supposed to have 94.131 pmC left.*** So, 2024 - 500 = 1524. Plenty of historic material. Was there wood in the throne that Gustav Wasa hade made in 1527, is it preserved? Carbon date that.
<br /><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj3y6UxeNsndibNXcni913k5T67aukPb6ZjJJDzPmSwSd9H1DWSc_lL6bf-Oz2YxzDDiNbiaIMh_LC8icaMvT-szK41aQBsKuvLTcuK-WeVEQfd-rX4fogAWm2X-opDRff2dKXme6Ivyog1rA4V7cE5RWs5u_MKn_ZvSGP_bJMx4dVrzgU7kPeypKNVyJDi/s348/500.jpg" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0; text-align: center; "><img alt="" border="0" width="320" data-original-height="178" data-original-width="348" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj3y6UxeNsndibNXcni913k5T67aukPb6ZjJJDzPmSwSd9H1DWSc_lL6bf-Oz2YxzDDiNbiaIMh_LC8icaMvT-szK41aQBsKuvLTcuK-WeVEQfd-rX4fogAWm2X-opDRff2dKXme6Ivyog1rA4V7cE5RWs5u_MKn_ZvSGP_bJMx4dVrzgU7kPeypKNVyJDi/s320/500.jpg"/></a></div>
<br /><br />
Or, did Henry VIII own a tournament shield? Was there wood in that? Carbon date that. For 750 years it's 91.327 pmC, for 1000 years 88.606 pmC, and so on.
<br /><br />
By contrast, whatever method one is using to date a Homo sapiens skeleton to 300 000 years ago has never, ever, been used to date historic material of known age.
<br /><br />
A pretty common one is K-Ar. And as more rapid cooling of the lava results in more Argon getting trapped, making for bad K-Ar dates, I would simply pose that a K-Ar date of 300 000 BP means the person was covered by a lava layer or buried in mud covered by a lava layer, during the Flood.
<br /><br />
The reason (very typically) that a skeleton dated to 300 000 years ago shows no cultural items is, no one had to bury him in the Flood, and his clothes may have been burned by lava as well. The reason a Neanderthal dated 47 000 BP in a Gibraltar cave (not Gorham) is preserved, <i>with</i> cultural items is, the burial actually had a tendency to preserve these even beyond the Flood of Noah.
<br /><br />
So, if we believe Young Earth Creationism, we have no need to ask why "for 200 000 years" men supposedly exhibited existance, but not intelligence.
<br /><br />
Hans Georg Lundahl
<br />Paris
<br />Conversion of St. Paul
<br />25.I.2024
<br /><br />
* <a href="https://youtu.be/yendY1ZA9wo?si=LPXJ8fG-WqjDcBPL">https://youtu.be/yendY1ZA9wo?si=LPXJ8fG-WqjDcBPL</a>
<br />** Or else the carbon date was discarded.
<br />*** Apart from the <a href="http://earthsci.org/space/space/geotime/C14/Carbon%2014%20Dating%20Calculator.html">Carbon 14 Dating Calculator</a> I also refer to the calculation: 500 being out of 5730 the fraction 500/5730 (or 50/573), the remainder of carbon would be 50 % or 0.5<sup>(50/573)</sup> = 0.9413087854383377 = 94.131 % (pmC = % modern Carbon).Hans Georg Lundahlhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01055583255516264955noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3179072227484380121.post-77300510463694412132024-01-22T15:43:00.000-08:002024-02-21T07:38:35.503-08:00The Revision of I-II, II-III, III-IV May be Unnecessary, BUT Illustrates What I Did When Doing the First Version of New Tables<br />
<a href="https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2020/08/have-you-really-taken-all-factors-into.html">Have you Really Taken ALL the Factors into Account?</a> · <a href="https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2020/08/new-tables.html">New Tables</a> · <a href="https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2020/08/why-should-one-use-my-tables.html">Why Should one Use my Tables?</a> · <a href="https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2020/08/and-what-are-lineups-between.html">And what are the lineups between archaeology and Bible, in my tables?</a> · <a href="https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2020/08/bases-of-c14.html">Bases of C14</a> · <a href="https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2020/08/an-example-of-using-previous.html">An example of using previous</a> · <a href="https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2020/08/difference-with-carbon-14-from-other.html">Difference with Carbon 14 from Other Radioactive Methods</a> · <a href="https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2024/01/tables-i-ii-and-ii-iii-and-iii-iv.html">Tables I-II and II-III and III-IV, Towards a Revision?</a> · <a href="https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2024/01/the-revision-of-i-ii-ii-iii-iii-iv-may.html">The Revision of I-II, II-III, III-IV May be Unnecessary, BUT Illustrates What I Did When Doing the First Version of New Tables</a> · <a href="https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2024/02/convergence-of-uneven-pmc.html">Convergence of Uneven pmC?</a>
<br /><br />
I, II, III, IV are "nodes" = material things which can be carbon dated and also historically dated, archaeology with organic material meeting (mostly) Biblical history.
<br /><br />
I—II, II—III, III—IV are "tables" = tables at which divisions of the historic (mostly Biblical) chronology are supplied, from the nodes, with intermediate, probable, carbon 14 levels (counted in "percent modern Carbon" = pmC). The left hand of each states how many years are involved, what carbon decay that normally involves and what compensation that normally involves, so, 100 years normally mean a decay to 98.798 % of the initial value, which means that the normal carbon 14 production is 100 - 98.798 = 1.202 pmC.
<br /><br />
The right hand of each calculates how much faster the carbon 14 actually rose, so, 1) initial pmC * decay-remainder percentage = what's left of the original carbon when it ends, 2) that value is subtracted from the final pmC, to get the pmC units added, 3) then that addition is divided by the normal addition for such a time.
<br /><br />
If for instance, in 100 years, carbon 14 had risen from 25 pmC to 40 pmC, then 1) 25 pmC * 98.798 % = 24.6995 pmC; 2) 40 pmC - 24.6995 pmC = 15.3005 pmC; and 3) 15.3005 pmC / 1.202 pmC = 12.729,201,331,114,808,7 times faster. During these initial calculations, I'll give the decimals in full, without rounding, to get as exact a value of the rise as possible in each table.
<br /><br />
<table><tr><td colspan="3">I) 2957 BC
<br />1.628 pmC => 34 000 extra years => 34 000 + 2957 = 36 957 BC = c. 39 000 BP</tr>
<tr><td> </tr>
<tr valign="top"><td>I - II 2957 - 2607 = 350
<br />95.854 %, compensates normally 4.146 pmC<td> <td>I - II
<br />1.628 * 95.854 / 100 = 1.56050312
<br />43.438 - 1.56050312 = 41.87749688
<br />41.87749688 / 4.146 = 10.1006987168355041</tr>
<tr><td> </tr>
<tr><td colspan="3">II) 2607 BC
<br />43.438 pmC => 6900 extra years => 6900 + 2607 = 9507 BC</tr>
<tr><td> </tr>
<tr valign="top"><td>II - III 2607 - 2556 = 51
<br />99.385 %, compensates normally 0.615 pmC<td> <td>II - III
<br />43.438 * 99.385 / 100 = 43.1708563
<br />51.76 - 43.1708563 = 8.5891437
<br />8.5891437 / 0.615 = 13.9660873170731707</tr>
<tr><td> </tr>
<tr><td colspan="3">III) 2556 BC
<br />51.76 pmC => 5450 extra years => 5450 + 2556 = 8006 BC</tr>
<tr><td> </tr>
<tr valign="top"><td>III - IV 2556 - 1935 = 621
<br />92.763 %, compensates normally 7.237 pmC<td> <td>III - IV
<br />51.76 * 92.763 / 100 = 48.0141288
<br />82.753 - 48.0141288 = 34.7388712
<br />34.7388712 / 7.237 = 4.8001756528948459</tr>
<tr><td> </tr>
<tr><td colspan="3">IV) 1935 BC
<br />82.753 pmC => 1550 extra years => 1550 + 1935 = 3485 BC</tr></table>
<br /><br />
Now we get to divide each table into intermediate moments in time, and since the death of Noah to the birth of Peleg is 51 years, roughly corresponding to Babel, I will take a third of that, 17 years, as my "module" ... we still need as full decimals as possible right now, bear with me, please.
<br /><br />
17 years / 5730 years = 0.0029668411867365
<br /><br />
Now we raise 50 % or I'll actually use 0.5 to this value:
<br /><br />
0.5^0.0029668411867365 = 0.9979456554564613851
<br /><br />
For normal replacement in 17 years, we deal with:
<br /><br />
1 - 0.9979456554564613851 = 0.0020543445435386149
<br /><br />
Let's translate it to pmC, which, being a percentage, multiplies the value by 100 because percentages automatically involve dividing by 100.
<br /><br />
The normal substitution for carbon 14 in 17 years is then 0.20543445435386149 pmC.
<br /><br />
Before calculating each table, I then multiply this by the "how much faster" ratio. This is what is added within the table after each multiplication by the 17 year decay, instead of the normal substitution for carbon 14. The result in each place of a table is then used to calculate the extra years and is only after that actually rounded to 3 decimals. The second line of each place only gives the back then carbon 14 content and the carbon date, not the term in between, the extra years as conclusion from the pmC value and as added to real date to give the carbon date.
<br /><br />
I - II
<br />0.20543445435386149 * 10.1006987168355041 = 2.075031529485850690578760965727109
<br /><br />
<dl><dt>2957 BC
<dd>1.628 pmC, so dated 36 957 BC
<dt>2940 BC
<dd>3.7 pmC, so dated 30 240 BC
<dt>2923 BC
<dd>5.767 pmC, so dated 26 523 BC
<dt>2906 BC
<dd>7.83 pmC, so dated 23 956 BC
<dt>2889 BC
<dd>9.889 pmC, so dated 22 039 BC
<dt>2872 BC
<dd>11.944 pmC, so dated 20 422 BC
<dt>2855 BC
<dd>13.994 pmC, so dated 19 105 BC
<dt>2838 BC
<dd>16.041 pmC, so dated 17 988 BC
<dt>2821 BC
<dd>18.083 pmC, so dated 16 971 BC
<dt>2804 BC
<dd>20.121 pmC, so dated 16 054 BC
<dt>2787 BC
<dd>22.154 pmC, so dated 15 237 BC
<dt>2770 BC
<dd>24.184 pmC, so dated 14 520 BC
<dt>2753 BC
<dd>26.209 pmC, so dated 13 803 BC
<dt>2736 BC
<dd>28.23 pmC, so dated 13 186 BC
<dt>2719 BC
<dd>30.247 pmC, so dated 12 619 BC
<dt>2702 BC
<dd>32.26 pmC, so dated 12 052 BC
<dt>2685 BC
<dd>34.269 pmC, so dated 11 535 BC
<dt>2668 BC
<dd>36.274 pmC, so dated 11 068 BC
<dt>2651 BC
<dd>38.274 pmC, so dated 10 601 BC
<dt>2634 BC
<dd>40.271 pmC, so dated 10 134 BC
<dt>2617 BC
<dd>42.263 pmC, so dated 9717 BC</dl>
<br /><br />
II - III
<br />0.20543445435386149 * 13.9660873170731707 = 2.869115527441312168292912422926343
<br /><br />
As this one is the fastest buildup of all, you may ask why? Well, I think the Younger Dryas added radioactive carbon, and that during the following decades, it's mixing with the air further down.
<br /><br />
<dl><dt>2607 BC
<dd>43.438 pmC, so dated 9507 BC
<dt>2590 BC
<dd>46.218 pmC, so dated 8990 BC
<dt>2573 BC
<dd>48.992 pmC, so dated 8473 BC
<dt>2556 BC
<dd>51.761 pmC, so dated 8006 BC</dl>
<br /><br />
Here the carbon 14 substitution slows down.
<br /><br />
III - IV
<br />0.20543445435386149 * 4.8001756528948459 = 0.986121466055143495675731583494391
<br /><br />
<dl><dt>2556 BC
<dd>51.76 pmC, so dated 8006 BC
<dt>2539 BC
<dd>52.64 pmC, so dated 7839 BC
<dt>2522 BC
<dd>53.518 pmC, so dated 7672 BC
<dt>2505 BC
<dd>54.394 pmC, so dated 7555 BC
<dt>2488 BC
<dd>55.268 pmC, so dated 7388 BC
<dt>2471 BC
<dd>56.141 pmC, so dated 7221 BC
<dt>2454 BC
<dd>57.012 pmC, so dated 7104 BC
<dt>2437 BC
<dd>57.881 pmC, so dated 6937 BC
<dt>2420 BC
<dd>58.748 pmC, so dated 6820 BC
<dt>2403 BC
<dd>59.613 pmC, so dated 6703 BC
<dt>2386 BC
<dd>60.477 pmC, so dated 6536 BC
<dt>2369 BC
<dd>61.339 pmC, so dated 6419 BC
<dt>2352 BC
<dd>62.199 pmC, so dated 6302 BC
<dt>2335 BC
<dd>63.057 pmC, so dated 6135 BC
<dt>2318 BC
<dd>63.914 pmC, so dated 6018 BC
<dt>2301 BC
<dd>64.769 pmC, so dated 5901 BC
<dt>2284 BC
<dd>65.622 pmC, so dated 5784 BC
<dt>2267 BC
<dd>66.473 pmC, so dated 5667 BC
<dt>2250 BC
<dd>67.323 pmC, so dated 5500 BC
<dt>2233 BC
<dd>68.17 pmC, so dated 5383 BC
<dt>2216 BC
<dd>69.017 pmC, so dated 5266 BC
<dt>2199 BC
<dd>69.861 pmC, so dated 5149 BC
<dt>2182 BC
<dd>70.704 pmC, so dated 5032 BC
<dt>2165 BC
<dd>71.544 pmC, so dated 4915 BC
<dt>2148 BC
<dd>72.384 pmC, so dated 4798 BC
<dt>2131 BC
<dd>73.221 pmC, so dated 4731 BC
<dt>2114 BC
<dd>74.057 pmC, so dated 4614 BC
<dt>2097 BC
<dd>74.891 pmC, so dated 4497 BC
<dt>2080 BC
<dd>75.723 pmC, so dated 4380 BC
<dt>2063 BC
<dd>76.553 pmC, so dated 4263 BC
<dt>2046 BC
<dd>77.382 pmC, so dated 4146 BC
<dt>2039 BC
<dd>78.209 pmC, so dated 4089 BC
<dt>2022 BC
<dd>79.035 pmC, so dated 3972 BC
<dt>2005 BC
<dd>79.859 pmC, so dated 3855 BC
<dt>1988 BC
<dd>80.681 pmC, so dated 3788 BC
<dt>1971 BC
<dd>81.501 pmC, so dated 3671 BC
<dt>1954 BC
<dd>82.32 pmC, so dated 3554 BC
<dt>1937 BC
<dd>83.137 pmC, so dated 3487 BC</dl>Hans Georg Lundahlhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01055583255516264955noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3179072227484380121.post-90251553457904727362024-01-21T07:02:00.000-08:002024-02-21T07:38:48.581-08:00Tables I-II and II-III and III-IV, Towards a Revision?<br />
<a href="https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2020/08/have-you-really-taken-all-factors-into.html">Have you Really Taken ALL the Factors into Account?</a> · <a href="https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2020/08/new-tables.html">New Tables</a> · <a href="https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2020/08/why-should-one-use-my-tables.html">Why Should one Use my Tables?</a> · <a href="https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2020/08/and-what-are-lineups-between.html">And what are the lineups between archaeology and Bible, in my tables?</a> · <a href="https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2020/08/bases-of-c14.html">Bases of C14</a> · <a href="https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2020/08/an-example-of-using-previous.html">An example of using previous</a> · <a href="https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2020/08/difference-with-carbon-14-from-other.html">Difference with Carbon 14 from Other Radioactive Methods</a> · <a href="https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2024/01/tables-i-ii-and-ii-iii-and-iii-iv.html">Tables I-II and II-III and III-IV, Towards a Revision?</a> · <a href="https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2024/01/the-revision-of-i-ii-ii-iii-iii-iv-may.html">The Revision of I-II, II-III, III-IV May be Unnecessary, BUT Illustrates What I Did When Doing the First Version of New Tables</a> · <a href="https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2024/02/convergence-of-uneven-pmc.html">Convergence of Uneven pmC?</a>
<br /><br />
I have already noted, my table I begins too early in the carbon "chronology" ....
<br /><br />
I = the Flood, and it seems that the carbon date of this event was not 40 000 BP, but 39 000 BP.
<br /><br />
<a href="https://assortedretorts.blogspot.com/2022/09/so-far-confirming-my-theories.html"><i>Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : So Far Confirming my Theories</i>
<br />https://assortedretorts.blogspot.com/2022/09/so-far-confirming-my-theories.html</a>
<br /><br />
<blockquote><b>33:11</b> Unlike Toba, this was carbon dated.
<br /><br />
39 000 BP - like my carbon date for the Flood.
<br /><br />
Except it's 1000 years off.
<br /><br />
39 000 BP - 2000 AD = 37 000 BC
<br />37 000 BC - 2957 BC = 34043 extra carbon years.
<br /><br />
According to an Earth Science from Australia provided Carbon 14 Calculator, 34 043 years = 1.628 pmC.
<br /><br />
I had put my level at 1.4 pmC.</blockquote>
<br /><br />
In and of itself, that would concern table I-II only.
<br /><br />
But, there seems to be at least a slight revision on Göbekli Tepe's beginning, which is node II, and a further one on node III, end of Göbekli Tepe, which affects both table II-III and table III-IV.
<br /><br />
<a href="https://www.dainst.blog/the-tepe-telegrams/the-research-project/"><i>TEPE TELEGRAMS : The Site</i>
<br />https://www.dainst.blog/the-tepe-telegrams/the-research-project/</a>
<br /><br />
<blockquote>This immense ruin hill was formed of the debris of monumental constructions dating back to the mid-10th and late-9th/early-8th millenium cal. BC. Göbekli Tepe (i.e. the time between 9500/9250-8000/7750 cal. BC) was first noted as an archaeological site during a combined survey by the Universities of Chicago and Istanbul in the 1960s (Benedict 1980 – external link) due to its remarkable amount of flint flakes, chips, and tools, but the architecture the mound was hiding remained unrecognized until its re-discovery in 1994 by Klaus Schmidt, Murat Akman and Michael Morsch. Excavations started the following year and are still ongoing.</blockquote>
<br /><br />
Note, 9500 and 8000 would seem to be the "raw" dates with Cambridge halflife.
<br /><br />
So, new values for the first three nodes, according to this:
<br /><br />
<dl><dt>I) 2957 BC
<dd>1.628 pmC => 34 000 extra years => 34 000 + 2957 = 36 957 BC = c. 39 000 BP
<dt>II) 2607 BC
<dd>43.438 pmC => 6900 extra years => 6900 + 2607 = 9507 BC
<dt>III) 2556 BC
<dd>51.76 pmC => 5450 extra years => 5450 + 2556 = 8006 BC</dl>
<br /><br />
This may get incorporated./HGL
<br /><br />
PS: the update on Göbekli Tepe spanning more carbon years for the 51 (or 40 ou of 51) real years could be the answer about what happened to atmospheric radiocarbon was affected by the Younger Dryas impact./HGLHans Georg Lundahlhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01055583255516264955noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3179072227484380121.post-57644940387956983922024-01-15T19:19:00.000-08:002024-01-16T10:15:05.886-08:00Durupınar Site is Geographically Possible, but the Drogue Stones are a Bad Argument<br />
I just saw someone promoting a Wyatt page for the landing place.
<br /><br />
I wondered what the coordinates were, and instead of Arzep, I founda Arzap:
<br /><br />
<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Durup%C4%B1nar_site#Arzap_drogue_stones"><i>Durupınar site : Arzap drogue stones</i>
<br />https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Durup%C4%B1nar_site#Arzap_drogue_stones</a>
<br /><br />
Now, I'll quote each of the 3 paragraphs. I'll then discuss why this is not a good argument for each.
<br /><br />
<blockquote>The Arzap drogue stones are a number of large standing stones found near the Durupınar site by amateur archaeologist Ron Wyatt with the aid of David Fasold and others. Fasold interpreted the artifacts as drogues, stone weights used to stabilize the Ark in rough seas, because they all have a chamfered hole cut at one end as if to fasten a rope to them, and his reading of the Epic of Gilgamesh, the Babylonian mythical account of the flood, suggested to him that such stones were used.[10][27]</blockquote>
<br /><br />
The Gilgamesh epic has a Flood story with a very impossible "Ark" — a giant version of a coracle. Not my go-to for sea safety matters on the Ark.
<br /><br />
But let's underline a few words:
<br /><br />
<blockquote>to stabilize the Ark in rough seas</blockquote>
<br /><br />
Rough seas occur only in shallow water. The Schooner Wyoming, which has been touted so much as a refutation of the Ark, despite huge differences, explicit or probable, sank in the Nantucket Sound — a place where the medium depth of water is 9 meters.
<br /><br />
Bea Tremblay made the point that rough seas would have destroyed the Ark quickly. I looked up a few things, and it seems her go to was a sea with a depth of 100 fathoms (the Spanish ones being shorter than the English ones).
<br /><br />
The Ark would not yet have been in water when the rising waters were only that deep. We find a hint it was built on the highest pre-Flood mountain of the whole earth, I'm quoting <a href="https://drbo.org/chapter/01007.htm">chapter 7:</a>
<br /><br />
<blockquote><b>10 And after the seven days were passed, the waters of the flood overflowed the earth. 11 In the six hundredth year of the life of Noe, in the second month, in the seventeenth day of the month, all the fountains of the great deep were broken up, and the flood gates of heaven were opened: 12 And the rain fell upon the earth forty days and forty nights. ... 17 And the flood was forty days upon the earth, and the waters increased, and lifted up the ark on high from the earth. 18 For they overflowed exceedingly: and filled all on the face of the earth: and the ark was carried upon the waters. 19 And the waters prevailed beyond measure upon the earth: and all the high mountains under the whole heaven were covered. 20 The water was fifteen cubits higher than the mountains which it covered.</b></blockquote>
<br /><br />
One not totally stretched reading is, it's after forty days that two things happen at once:
<br /><br />
<ul><li> [T]he waters ... lifted up the ark on high from the earth.
<li> The water was fifteen cubits higher than [all] the [high] mountains which it covered.</ul>
<br /><br />
Probably the waters kept increasing after that, but Noah had no way to know exactly how much. For the moment when the Ark started floating, it would have been fifteen cubits known from the water line.
<br /><br />
In other words, once the water covered the mountain, which was as high as or higher than any other mountain on earth, by 15 cubits, the ark popped up to match the new height of the water level. It makes perfect sense if the water line was 15 cubits up.
<br /><br />
Everything outside that mountain would have been lower and already covered by lots more water than 15 cubits. Unlike the mountain which was flooded after 40 days, the plane outside was flooded after only seven. In other words, the Ark was not risking any shallows. Until obviously, the landing, which may have been somewhat rough.
<br /><br />
<blockquote>Drogue stones were the equivalent of a storm anchor on ancient ships. They have been found in the Nile and elsewhere in the Mediterranean area, and like the stones found by Wyatt and Fasold, they are heavy and flat with a hole for tying a line at one end. Their purpose was to create drag in the water or along shallow sandy bottoms: the stone was attached to one end of a boat, and the drag produced would cause the bow or stern to face into the wind and wind-blown waves.[10]</blockquote>
<br /><br />
Let me underline:
<br /><br />
<blockquote>to create drag in the water or along shallow sandy bottoms:</blockquote>
<br /><br />
This was neither needed nor possible during the global Flood.
<br /><br />
<blockquote>A geological investigation of samples from the stones, published by geologist Lorence Collins in co-authorship with their original discoverer David Fasold, found that they are of local rock and thus could not have been brought from Mesopotamia, the Ark's supposed place of origin.[17] Similar stones found throughout ancient Armenia are recognised as pagan "holy stones" converted to Christian use by the addition of crosses and other Christian symbols. Many are found in Christian cemeteries, as these were.[26]</blockquote>
<br /><br />
For my part, I don't see why the Ark would be from Mesopotamia. The Gilgamesh epic says that, but then that is probably to glorify Shuruppak, which clearly existed after the Flood, even after Abraham, and did so before the tablets we have of Gilgamesh were written. Insofar as the Ark was built on a very high mountain, Armenia could make sense. However, I think the present mountain range of Armenia is post-Flood. In fact, if it had been in place, exactly as now, even a high mountain in it would have been a bad place to build the Ark, since the there were too many other mountains near by.
<br /><br />
If you ask me where I think the Ark was built, I'd say Spain or Russia, as in Altai. In both places you had Neanderthals and Denisovans (in Spain referred to as Heidelbergian or Antecessor, for the Denisovans) before the Flood, which makes either a likely place of origin for Noah's inlaws. That makes either of them likely. Theologically it is interesting that neither of the places has a majority of Protestants in the population. I favour a mountain which was scraped off the place and left the high plain known as the Meseta in Spain.
<br /><br />
Back to the landing place. Durupınar Site is in the Mountains of Armenia, so is Mount Judi. Durupınar Site is East of Göbekli Tepe, so is Mount Judi. Both places match Genesis 8:4. If Babel is Göbekli Tepe, both also match Genesis 11:2, with the correct translation of miqqedem. If Babel is geographically near Classical Babylon, neither does, you'd have to go as far East in Armenia as Arzak to find a place from which the voyage there would be a voyage from the East, and even then it would be more North-South than East-West.
<br /><br />
Hans Georg Lundahl
<br />Paris
<br />Pope St. Marcellus
<br />16.I.2024
<br /><br />
<i>Romae, via Salaria, natalis sancti Marcelli Primi, Papae et Martyris; qui, ob catholicae fidei confessionem, jubente Maxentio tyranno, primo caesus est fustibus, deinde ad servitium animalium cum custodia publica deputatus, et ibidem, serviendo indutus amictu cilicino, defunctus est.</i>
<br /><br />
He's the guy Marcel Lefebvre was named for./HGL
<br /><br />
PS, the following image is precisely how you should not imagine the Ark in the Flood. Unlike the following picture, the Ark was not a boat, and the Flood was not a storm in a coastal region./HGL
<br /><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi0GWi6z440Z2oVlwwz3MbHOdfxQNMgwGi9z4L0rg2fGiBTHBvAo313jlib8kwPy-D19WBcTULP617j0wT3eE5iggjoubHOK5pRvaHjOqlYBnWpQxMSX6hyphenhyphen2rKhYinDWKbGjdhceZxqrk1ZXimVHR8S6ZhQdlgCEeTWJrEscHjm9vN3XHtZnTBHM1G5DaKJ/s1280/dontimaginethis.jpg" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0; text-align: center; "><img alt="" border="0" width="320" data-original-height="722" data-original-width="1280" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi0GWi6z440Z2oVlwwz3MbHOdfxQNMgwGi9z4L0rg2fGiBTHBvAo313jlib8kwPy-D19WBcTULP617j0wT3eE5iggjoubHOK5pRvaHjOqlYBnWpQxMSX6hyphenhyphen2rKhYinDWKbGjdhceZxqrk1ZXimVHR8S6ZhQdlgCEeTWJrEscHjm9vN3XHtZnTBHM1G5DaKJ/s320/dontimaginethis.jpg"/></a></div>
<br /><br />
Credits to a video about / by Hancock, 1 min 36 sec in:
<br /><a href="https://youtu.be/MvThRpP8MTw?si=IuCPRMNjGHwR_A6W&t=96">https://youtu.be/MvThRpP8MTw?si=IuCPRMNjGHwR_A6W&t=96</a>Hans Georg Lundahlhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01055583255516264955noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3179072227484380121.post-84495614023739868172024-01-15T15:20:00.000-08:002024-01-15T15:20:36.489-08:00Funnel Beaker, Corded Ware, Bell Beaker, Dates<br />
EUpedia, partly accessed via this video:
<br /><br />
<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rNIwtJEPqa0">German DNA History 🇩🇪🧬
<br /><i>Ancestralbrew | 10 June 2023</i>
<br />https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rNIwtJEPqa0</a>
<br /><br />
Gives:
<br /><br />
Funnel Beaker a) 4200 — d) 2650
<br />Corded Ware b) 3000 — e) 2350
<br />Bell Beaker c) 2900 — f) 1800
<br /><br />
To recalibrate the dates Biblically within this framework:
<br /><br />
<a href="https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2020/08/new-tables.html"><i>Creation vs. Evolution : New Tables</i>
<br />https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2020/08/new-tables.html</a>
<br /><br />
The following comes close enough to my mind, I have avoided to get as far away as fifty years from the target:
<br /><br />
<table><tr valign="top"><td>A) (2041+2019)/2=2030
<br />(76.6964+77.8962)/2=77.2963
<br />2150 + 2030 = 4180<td> <td>D) (1700+1678+1678)/3=1685
<br />(87.575+89.4653+89.4653)/3=88.8352
<br />980 + 1685 = 2665</tr>
<tr><td> </tr>
<tr valign="top"><td>B) 1778
<br />85.976
<br />1250 + 1778 = 3028<td> <td>E) (1655+1633)/2=1644
<br />(91.4498+93.3283)/2=92.38905
<br />650 + 1644 = 2294</tr>
<tr><td> </tr>
<tr valign="top"><td>C) (1756+1734+1734+1734)/4=1739.5
<br />(86.4346+86.8913+86.8913+86.8913)/4=86.777125
<br />1150 + 1739.5 = 2889.5<td> <td>F) (1588+1566)/2=1555
<br />(97.068+97.441)/2=97.2545
<br />230 + 1555 = 1785</tr></table>
<br /><br />
Apart from reducing an important part of European pre-history from 4200 BC to 1800 BC to the lesser span of 2030 BC to 1740 BC, 2400 years reduced to 290 years, 8 times less extended, I have also shown how my tables work, since part of what is not shown is explicitated in these calculations. Line 1 of each is the Biblical year. Line 2 of each is the carbon level <i>back then</i> (and not the one remaining right now), Line three is a sum, first the extra years resulting from the carbon level being back then lower than 100 pmC, then the real year, which added together give the carbon dated year.
<br /><br />
Let's check. This time we'll do a date involving the age up to now and the remaining carbon now. We'll take the oldest.
<br /><br />
2030+2024 = 4054
<br />61.238*77.2963/100=47.334708194
<br />6200 old - 2024 AD = 4176 BC
<br /><br />
So, the apparent age is close enough to what it's supposed to be./HGLHans Georg Lundahlhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01055583255516264955noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3179072227484380121.post-11522678262189162672024-01-13T07:08:00.000-08:002024-01-13T07:08:00.191-08:00Do I Reject Natural Selection?<br />
I'm writing this on St. Genevieve's Day, Jan. 3, but leaving previous posts on top to honour Christmas.
<br /><br />
Some people don't go to my main blog and see me honour Christmas there, this year I had two Christmas themed things that were also Genesis themed, so, I can show the guys who read only this one, I do honour Christmas.
<br /><br />
Here is CMI:
<br /><br />
<a href="https://creation.com/natural-selection-fact-contra-guliuzza">The fact of natural selection
<br /><i>First published 16 Nov 2014; last updated 23 Nov 2023.</i>
<br />https://creation.com/natural-selection-fact-contra-guliuzza</a>
<br /><br />
Here are a few featured positions commented on in this post:
<br /><br />
<ul><li> Guliuzza believes God could have programmed kinds to be able to do "continuous environmental tracking";
<li> he denies that the term "natural selection" is appropriate, since it personifies nature, which is undue.
<li> CMI accepts natural selection as being at work in preserving different genes in different environments.
<li> CMI accepts epigenetics as partially fulfilling the role of "continuous environmental tracking".</ul>
<br /><br />
Here is the argument by CMI <i>for</i> natural selection:
<br /><br />
<blockquote>CMI scientists are unanimous that natural selection is a fact, and part of this fallen creation where unfit creatures die and sometimes even become extinct. Creationists proposed it before Darwin, so why should we be fearful of the term, and let Darwinists monopolize this phenomenon? So our major books like The Greatest Hoax on Earth? and Evolution’s Achilles’ Heels each have a whole chapter explaining this.</blockquote>
<br /><br />
Now, I accept epigenetics and reject other options for "continuous environmental tracking. However, this is not directly telling us why kinds diverge into different species that keep <i>different</i> genes.So, it is not really the issue.
<br /><br />
But I also accept Guliuzza's rejection of the term "natural selection" for two reasons:
<br /><br />
<ul><li> "nature" is quasi personified into an agent
<li> it involves "survival of the fittest".</ul>
<br /><br />
Instead I propose "providential selection", that is God is constantly using the kinds for his purposes, and on some occasions letting the fittest survive is not the means that best serves God's purpose.
<br /><br />
Psalm 103 (as it is in Catholic Bibles), also a go to for Geostasis,* has a few verses.
<br /><br />
<b>20 Thou hast appointed darkness, and it is night: in it shall all the beasts of the woods go about: 21 The young lions roaring after their prey, and seeking their meat from God. 22 The sun ariseth, and they are gathered together: and they shall lie down in their dens.</b>
<br /><br />
Often when lions hunt gazelles, the weakest and naturally slowest gazelle is the one caught, which means in a way the culling of the least fit. However, this would not necessarily mean gazelles are all the time primed to be fitter and fitter, it would, if totally systematic, mean that God in that way preserves a gazelle population from degrading.
<br /><br />
However, there are occasions when this is clearly not so, since the slowest gazelle might be slowest for being born last. It could have excellent material genetically and epigenetically. But it would on such an occasion still be lost. Or the gazelle caught could have stumbled on an obstacle, if the fright by the lions came very abrupt for all the gazelle herd, each gazelle off-tracked when it came to detecting stumbling blocks, it would be a matter of providence that this particular gazelle was the one which took the path that led to the stumbling.
<br /><br />
There is even a Biblical example:
<br /><br />
Genesis 22:13 <b>Abraham lifted up his eyes, and saw behind his back a ram amongst the briers sticking fast by the horns, which he took and offered for a holocaust instead of his son.</b> 14 <b>And he called the name of that place, The Lord seeth. Whereupon even to this day it is said: In the mountain the Lord will see.</b>
<br /><br />
If you have <i>any</i> sense of what sacrifice means, it is inconceivable that God was culling a herd of its least fit member, rather the ram had the absolute best genetic material, and was not transmitting more of it, when Abraham was done.
<br /><br />
So, instead of "natural selection" I propose a "providential selection" which often, but far from always, coincides somewhat with what "natural selection" would predict.
<br />/Hans Georg Lundahl
<br /><br />
* It's neutral between flat earth Geostasis in a boxed universe that could be vertically assymetric, and globe earth Geostasis in a globe shaped or orange shaped universe, which by definition means Geocentrism. I hold to the latter.Hans Georg Lundahlhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01055583255516264955noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3179072227484380121.post-59985357480221583122024-01-02T12:36:00.000-08:002024-01-02T12:36:16.991-08:00Joy to the World<br />
Yes, He will one day give us New Heavens and a New Earth, but on this old one, there are thorns for a reason. However, Someone was born to end them:
<br /><br />
<blockquote>No more let sins and sorrows grow,
<br />Nor thorns infest the ground;
<br />He comes to make His blessings flow
<br />Far as the curse is found,
<br />Far as the curse is found,
<br />Far as, far as, the curse is found.</blockquote>
<br /><br />
<a href="https://library.timelesstruths.org/music/Joy_to_the_World/"><i>Joy to the World | Isaac Watts</i>
<br />https://library.timelesstruths.org/music/Joy_to_the_World/</a>
<br /><br />
Hat tip to Calvin Smith:
<br /><br />
<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EC6i-cFX-RA">This Video About Christmas Will OPEN Your Eyes
<br /><i>Answers in Genesis Canada | 21 Dec. 2023</i>
<br />https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EC6i-cFX-RA</a>Hans Georg Lundahlhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01055583255516264955noreply@blogger.com0