When was the Upper Palaeolithic? Flood to Babel or post-Babel?

Origen has a few sermons on Genesis. The one on the Flood states that the words of Lamech about Noah (in Genesis 5:29), namely:

And he called his name Noe, saying: This same shall comfort us from the works and labours of our hands on the earth, which the Lord hath cursed.

... are only fulfilled typologically, in Christ, it is impossible to have them fulfilled in the son of Lamech back then.

In fact not. The Palaeolithic means the society of hunter-gatherers. And hunter-gatherers do in fact repose from agriculture.

So, was the Palaeolithic (after the démise of Neanderthals at least) post-Flood or post-Babel?

Kent Hovind compares the post-Flood situation to a Gilligan's Island scenario. CMI and AiG seem to have a preference for putting this Palaeolithic (and even the Neanderthals) post-Babel. Technology loss due to populations splitting up.

And I think the answer is given : it was Noah, not Nimrod, who brought repose from agricultural pursuits./HGL

Infighting? Because Fact First.

You look at the latest five posts prior to this one, four are adressed to CMI as disagreements, and one is adressed in general to Christians disagreeing with our common premise of Biblical inerrancy.

Only once you scroll past this, you get to a non-polemic (within Christendom, though polemic as against Uniformitarians, most of which are non-Christians or very loosely Christian) article, namely Scandinavian Stone Age Within Biblical History with my Table.

Facts are concerned with things, where curious people demand technical solutions to technical problems, if any. And in a world very dominated by Uniformitarians who believe Big Bang, Galaxies, Heliocentrism for each star that has planets, "including ours", Millions and Billions of Years, Abiogenesis by chemical processes, evolution of all things alive (or very few and minute exceptions) from one Last Universal Common Ancestor, common to bees and bananas, and humanisation by degrees involving tool use as being as important or more than language and morals, much of the other story, the one that used to dominate Christendom, will at first glance look problematic.

Or, the few times when we actually have a very non-problematic case, where the Uniformitarian one is admittedly immediately problematic (like origin of life and of language), we are up against a variety of people who claim to have solutions - even if they differ as much as ours.

This means, once we get into details, we get to areas where the Bible cannot be overturned, but needs to be supplemented by other observations, for the curious, and these areas are obviously open for disagreements.

Wishing to make it clear, both CMI and I, both Ken Ham and Kent Hovind, actually do believe Biblical inerrancy is a factual truth.

We are not stating Global Flood merely as an enumerative example of a Biblical inerrance merely adopted as rhetoric exaggeration for accepting Biblical values, which in turn may be a solemn rhetorical way of saying one adopts values current among people who used to believe Bible or OT part of Bible, perhaps also including the Qoran.

We do not value the Flood of Noah as a rhetorical point only (it is one also), we value the story of its happening as factual information. Hence technical solutions on "where in geological column" to put limit between Flood and post-Flood layers.

We do not value Biblical chronology as merely a resumé on "information got passed down from Adam" (though that happened too), but Genesis 4, 5 and 11 give lists of important intermediaries very much overlapping with each other in lifespans (the latter point is less evident in Genesis 4). This means, a chronology where either Adam has to be put as not first man or the intermediaries between him and Abraham are vastly inflated in number, most anonymous and the named ones usually not overlapping, is a complete nono. Hence technical solutions on which Bible text is correct on Chronology and on how Uniformitarian chronologies are to be explained in their inflation of ancient times before us.

We disagree, because on one very important point we agree : "Biblical values" are not enough. The Bible isn't true like Silmarillion is true or Lord of the Rings is true, namely only in morals. The Bible is true like the multiplication table or - better still, since not a priori but empiric - like the periodic table of Mendeleiev is true. As fact, first.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris XI
XIII Sunday after Pentecost
and Nativity of the Blessed Virgin
8.IX.2019

Question for Madagascar ...

I am looking up Madagascar on the google site Palaeocritti.

Brief review of what periods mean. Upper is more recent than lower of each. And middle comes in between.

The named labels are from less to more recent : Permian, Triassic, Jurassic, Cretaceous.

This means that a creature from "Upper Jurassic" should be older than any creature from Cretaceous, upper or lower, and more recent than any from Lower Jurassic, any Triassic or any Permian.

Now, I am looking - or was a moment ago and will again - at a specific creature from Upper Jurassic.

Brachypterygius

As it is an ichthyosaur, it lived in water.

This any creationist as much as any evolutionist will admit.

Brachypterygius extremus (which is one of them) has an age and distribution of :

Horizon:

Kimmeridge Clay (Kimmeridgian, Upper Jurassic)

Locality:

Smallmouth Sands, Dorset, UK; Wiltshire and Cambridgeshire, UK; Volga and Saratov regions, Russia; Madagascar.

And sure enough, the page for Madagascar is - no, wait, it is simply listing genus. I'll look at the page to see if some other species is also from Madagascar.

Brachypterygius mordax - no.

Brachypterygius cantabrigiensis - no.

So, it is actually just Brachypterygius extremus which is from Madagascar too.

This means, some place on Madagascar is labelled as Kimmeridgian, Upper Jurassic and you found Brachypterygius extremus there.

All the other creatures listed for Madagascar are - it would seem - land animals.

Rahonavis ostromi

- Horizon:

Upper Cretaceous (?Campanian) Maevarano Formation

Type Locality:

Mahajanga Basin, northwestern Madagascar

Question part 1 : was the Brachopterygius found below any Rahonavis ostromi or was the Rahonavis ostromi found above any Brachopterygius?

Any Cretaceous is supposed to be more recent than Upper Jurassic.

Majungasaurus crenatissimus:

Horizon:

Anembalemba Member, the uppermost white sandstone stratum of the Maevarano Formation, Upper Cretaceous (Maastrichtian)

Locality:

Mahajanga, Madagascar

OK, found along the Rahonavis. Not sure how close or how far.

Question part 2 : was the Brachopterygius found under any Majungasaurus? Or was the Majungasaurus found above any Brachopterygius?

Question part 3 : if you plot the space between Rahonavis and Majungasaurus on a map, or between more than one of each (Majungasaurus has more than one cranium, so more than one specimen) (Rahonavis was just one skeleton), was there any Brachopterygius found in between these, either physically lower in the ground, or in such a place as to indicate present surface was physically lower?

The questions 2 and 3 multiply if you add the several specimens of Masiakasaurus knopfleri (UA 8680, FMNH PR 2108–2182, UA 8681–8696) (Locality: Mahajanga Basin, near the village of Berivotra, northwestern Madagascar), and of the somewhat fewer Behemoths of Rapetosaurus krausei label. (We deal with : UA 8698 as holotype and then the referred specimina FMNH PR 2184-2192, 2194, 2196, 2197, 2209, 2210, UCB 92829). (Mahajanga basin, northwestern Madagascar.)

They multiply just a bit more, if you add Simosuchus clarki (Crocodylomorpha Notosuchia Chimaerasuchidae) and Araripesuchus tsangatsangana (Crocodylomorpha Notosuchia), who, poor crocs, have no separate pages (let's suppose they could shed crocodile tears for that!).

But all so far, except the Brachypterygius, are from Maevarano Formation, Mahajanga, Madagascar, Upper Cretaceous (Maastrichtian).

We also have four types of Eosuchia - sounds like crocs, early or dawning crocs - from Madagascar, Upper Permian (Wuchiapingian), outside and inside Lower Sakamena Formation. As well as from Middle Sakamena Formation, Madagascar, Lower Triassic (Induan). At least three places or "layers" with crocs.

Now, recall, these are supposed to be earlier than Upper Jurassic.

Question part 4 : is Brachopterygius found above any of these or is any of these found below a Brachopterygius? Is there a place between either where it is physically closer to present ground level or as close to present ground level in which there is a clear physical indication of this having been closer to surfaces since then eroded?

Middle Jurassic is also supposed to be earlier than Upper Jurassic. So where does Isalo III Formation, Madagascar, Middle Jurassic (Bathonian) get us?

We have an Archosaur and two Sauropoda (Behemoths, on Kent Hovind's view). Razanandrongobe sakalavae (Archosauria), Archaeodontosaurus descouensi (Sauropoda), Lapparentosaurus madagascariensis (Sauropoda Macronaria Brachiosauridae).

Question part 5 : is Brachopterygius found above any of these at least three specimina?

Because, if all parts of the question can be summed up as "no", I think where Brachopterygius was found was pre-Flood sea, where the other creatures were found was pre-Flood land.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
Octave of Holy Innocents
4.I.2018

I have been Asked if Kent Hovind didn't have Talmudic Positions?

I have been Asked if Kent Hovind didn't have Talmudic Positions? · What I Owe and Don't Owe Kent Hovind

I'll actually give you one (I am not sure he is aware of the Talmudic connection himself) off hand. He and Talmudic Jews (or at least one tract in the Talmud) seem to agree Christians should not be given wine.

However, it is more crypto-Talmudic, hidden to himself probably too, than openly Talmudic. Because he and the Talmud differ in why.

Talmud says "because they commit idolatry with it" - probably referring to the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass which they as well as some Protestants (possibly including Hovind) consider as an act of idolatry, while his own words are "there is a curse on those who give wine to someone", forgetting to mention that this curse only applies if the intent is seeing one's brother (not enemy) drunk and have fun at him (not with him, drinking oneself).

But if you mean he has a Talmudic position in saying the Flood was really global, there are two answers.

• the "Talmudic position" par excellence, which neither I nor Kent Hovind share is that the Flood was nearly global, with Holy Land excepted, just like there was an exception to the sea for the Israelites through the Red Sea;
• the Talmud certainly says somewhere (I haven't studied it, but the opposite would surprise me greatly) that God created Heaven and Earth. Now, to a man like Dominic Venner this makes it a Talmudic or Jewish error : and to him Christianity itself is a Jewish error. But to a Christian, it cannot be a Talmudic error to believe God created Heaven and Earth, because that is in the First Article of the Creed (Apostolic or Nicene). The point is not to contradict the Talmud on everything it says, but to contradict it where it is wrong (like when saying Christians should not be given wine or commit idolatry with wine), and to identify this by its contradicting traditional Christian sources (like a comment on V commandment forbidding drunkenness, but not moderate drinking - drunkenness is still a sin, even if shared drunkenness is not under the curse Kent Hovind spoke about, or like a tradition saying Holy Mass is the supreme sacrifice now present on Earth to the True God as He wants it).

So, if by Talmudic positions of Kent Hovind some guy at St Nicolas du Chardonnet was referring to his being Young Earth Creationist, that guy should quit reading Dominic Venner and start reading Catechism of Pope St Pius X (which is explicitly Young Earth Creationist and which at least is compatible with Geocentrism).

To those unfamiliar with French conditions : Dominic Venner is a recently suicided, self killed, essayist, on the right wing but also on the antichristian wing of the right wing, the re-paganisers. He committed his suicide in Notre Dame, and did this as a protest against mainstream Catholics promoting immigration. In Notre Dame and elsewhere Catholics have been praying for his soul.

I find it very bad that Femen has committed a sacrilegious act in Notre Dame. But it did not involve suicide, so each of them are still able to repent. I find it very bad style when certain right wing Christians are all flustered with indignation over the sacrilege of Femen, but very ready to excuse the even worse sacrilege of Dominic Venner and adhere to his positions.

To those unfamiliar with both French and Fraternity of St Pius X conditions : St Nicolas du Chardonnet is the main poster child church for the Fraternity of St Pius X in France, since they took over the Church using some force against a mainstream Catholic curate. They and mainstream Catholics are divided over who was committing a sacrilege, he for saying Novus Ordo mass or they for removing him. They are right wing, and some of them seem to have great sympathy for Dominic Venner. But I think it would be healthiest for their souls if they read - some of them - less Dominic Venner and more of the patron Saint of their fraternity : Pope St Pius X.

To any Young Earth Creationist ear, the decisions of the Pontifical Bible commission from his time (he died when World War I broke out) are music.

Latin text		My own translation.
I. Utrum varia systemata exegetica, quae ad excludendum sensum litteralem historicum trium priorum capitum libri Geneseos excogitata et scientiae fuco propugnata sunt, solido fundamento fulciantur?		Whether the various exegetical systems, which have been thought out to exclude the literal historic sense of the three first chapters of Genesis and have been promoted with the pretense of science, are supported by any solid fundament?
Resp. Negative.		Nope.
II. Utrum non obstantibus indole et forma historica libri Geneseos, peculiari trium priorum capitum inter se et cum sequentibus capitibus nexu, multiplici testimonio Scripturarum tum veteris tum novi Testamenti, unanimi fere sanctorum Patrum sententia ac traditionali sensu, quem, ab israelitico etiam populo transmissum, semper tenuit Ecclesia, doceri possit, praeditta tria capita Geneseos continere non rerum vere gestarum narrationes, quae scilicet obiectivae realitati et historicae veritati respondeant; sed vel fabulosa ex veterum populorum mythologiis et cosmogoniis deprompta et ab auctore sacro, expurgato quovis polytheismi errore, dottrinae monotheisticae accommodata; vel allegorias et symbola, fundamento obiectivae realitatis destituta, sub historiae specie ad religiosas et philosophicas veritates incultandas proposita; vel tandem legendas ex parte historicas et ex parte fictitias ad animorum instructionem et aedificationem libere compositas?		Whether, not withstanding the genius of form of the Genesis book being historic, the particular three first chapters among themselves and connected to following chapters, [notwithstanding] multiple testimony from Scripture of both old and new Testament, the near unanimous sentence and traditional sense of the holy Fathers, which transmitted also by the Israelite people, the Church has always held, it can be taught that the forementioned three chapters of Genesis contain not narrations of things really come to pass, which therefore respond to objective reality and historic truth; but either a fable fetched from mythologies and cosmogonies of ancient peoples and by the sacred author, after he expurgated all error of polytheism, accomadated to the monotheistic doctrine; or allegories and symbols devoid of fundament in objective reality, under guise of history proposed to inculcate religious and philosophical truths; or at last to be read partly historic and partly fictions composed freely for edification and instruction of souls?
Resp. Negative ad utramque partem.		Nope and nope.
[They forgot the third part, probably too tired of the first two!]
III. Utrum speciatim sensus litteralis historicus vocari in dubium possit, ubi agitur de factis in eisdem capitibus enarratis, quae christianae religionis fundamenta attingunt: uti sunt, inter caetera, rerum universarum creatio a Deo facta in initio temporis; peculiaris creatio hominis; formatio primae mulieris ex primo homine; generis humani unitas; originalis protoparentum felicitas in statu iustitiae, integritatis et immortalitatis; praeceptum a Deo homini datum ad eius obedientiam probandam; divini praecepti, diabolo sub serpentis specie suasore, transgressio; protoparentum deiectio ab illo primaevo innocentiae statu; nec non Reparatoris futuri promissio?		Whether especially one can call in doubt the historical literal sense, where it is a question of facts in these chapters which concern the foundations of the Christian religion: such as are, among others, the universal creation of all things done by God in the beginning of time; the special creation of man; the formation of first women from first man; the unity of the human kind; the original felicity of the first parents in the state of justice, integrity and immortality; the precent given by God to man to probe his obedience; the transgression of the divine precent, with the devil persuading in the guise of a serpent; the dejection of the first parents from that primeval state of innocence; not to mention the promise of the One coming to Repair?
Resp. Negative.		Nope.
IV. Utrum in interpretandis illis horum capitum locis, quos Patres et Doctores diverso modo intellexerunt, quin certi quippiam definitique tradiderint, liceat, salvo Ecclesiae iudicio servataque fidei analogia, eam quam quisque prudenter probaverit, sequi tuerique sententiam?		Whether in interpreting those passages of these chapters, which the Fathers and Doctors have understood differently, and not transmitted anything of certain and definite, it is licit, saving the judgement of the Church and keeping the analogy of faith, each follow and keep the sentence which he prudently has probed?
Resp. Affirmative.		Yep.
[Great example : same day in Genesis 2:17 : you are free to say they began to die same day, they died from grace same day or they physically died "same day" as in same thousand years. All of which are true, but you can prefer which you like as the immediate meaning of the warning.]
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?		Whether each and all, namely both words and phrases, which in these foresaid chapters occur, always and necessarily must be accepted in the proper sense, so that it is never licit to step away from it, even when expressions themselves appear manifestly improper, either metaphoric or anthropomorphic, taken over, and either reason forbids to hold or necessity forces to dismiss the proper sense?
Resp. Negative.		Nope.
[You are not forced to say that "day" is literally one 24 hour day both in Genesis 1 and in Genesis 2:4, and some might find it unduly anthropomorphic to think God appeared in Eden in a theophany and gave Adam life via a kind of CPR, which I do not find impossible.]
VI. Utrum, praesupposito litterali et historico sensu, nonnullorum locorum eorumdem capitum interpretatio allegorica et prophetica, praefulgente sanctorum Patrum et Ecclesiae ipsius exemplo, adhiberi sapienter et utiliter possit?		Whether, presupposing the literal and historic sense, of more than one place in the chapters, the allegoric and prophetic interpretation, foreshing the example of the holy Fathers and of Church herself, can be used wisely and usefully?
Resp. Affirmative.		Yep.
VII. Utrum, cum in conscribendo primo Geneseos capite non fuerit sacri auctoris mens intimam adspettabilium rerum constitutionem ordinemque creationis completum scientifico more docere; sed potius suae genti tradere notitiam popularem, prout communis sermo per ea ferebat tempora, sensibus et captui hominum accommodatam, sit in horum interpretatione adamussim semperque investiganda scientifici sermonis proprietas?		Whether, given that in writing the first chapter of Genesis it was not the intention of the sacred author to teach the intimate constitution and order of the visible things of creation in a scientific manner; but rather to give his people a popular notion, as through these times the common speech imported, accomodated to the senses and to the understanding of men, it is in interpreting of these always and scrupulously to investigate about the propriety of scientific terminology?
Resp. Negative.		Nope.
VIII. Utrum in illa sex dierum denominatione atque distinctione, de quibus in Geneseos capite primo, sumi possit vox Yom (dies), sive sensu proprio pro die naturali, sive sensu improprio pro quodam temporis spatio, deque huiusmodi quaestione libere inter exegetas disceptare liceat?		Whether in that denomination and distinction of the six days, of which in Genesis chapter one, the word Yom (day) can be taken, either in proper sense for a natural day, or in improper sense, for some space of time, and that there is allowable for exegetes freely to differ about suchlike question?
Resp. Affirmative.		Yep.

The Latin version, which I quoted by copypaste and linked to, was signed by the consulters Fulcranus Vigouroux, P.S.S. and Laurentius Janssens, O.S.B. on the 30th June 1909. O.S.B. means Lawrence Janssens was a Benedictine monk, and - I looked it up - the letters P. S. S. mean that Fulcran Vigouroux was a Sulpician Father (an order with a connection to the Church Saint Sulpice in precisely Paris!)

So, I would greatly advice parishioners of St. Nicolas du Chardonnet (where I was a parishioner when both they and I accepted "Benedict XVI" as Pope, a man who contradicted above) to not consider Kent Hovind as being Talmudic in the very act of being Young Earth Creationist. Or for that matter, to consider him as the one and sole example of Young Earth Creationism in the English language sphere.

Today one Australian pioneer is celebrating his look back on his carreer or beginning of it:

Creation pioneer looks back
Editors for Creation magazine interview our magazine's founder, Dr Carl Wieland
http://creation.com/carl-wieland-creation-pioneer

While Kent Hovind is a great speaker and debater and a good amateur scientist, and one very well known Creationist to those outside the movement, I would say communities like Creation Ministries International and Institute of Creation Research are more consultable on given questions about how the account not just of first 3, but of all first 11 chapters is inerrant and that both historically and scientifically (though not flawlessly worded in scientific terminology).

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
Seven Martyr Brothers
Sons of St. Felicitas*
10.VII.2017

* Romae passio sanctorum septem Martyrum fratrum, filiorum sanctae Felicitatis Martyris, id est Januarii, Felicis, Philippi, Silvani, Alexandri, Vitalis et Martialis, tempore Antonini Imperatoris, sub Praefecto Urbis Publio. Ex ipsis vero Januarius, post virgarum verbera et carceris macerationem, plumbatis occisus; Felix et Philippus fustibus mactati; Silvanus praecipitio interemptus; Alexander, Vitalis et Martialis capitali sententia puniti sunt.

A difference of style

I suppose some guys have heard Evolutionists say things like "if we didn't evolve from monkeys, why do we have a tail bone?"

Now, there is one answer, but Kent Hovind and Keaton Halley handle it in stylistically different ways.

Kent Hovind

(from memory):

If you think you don't need your tail bone, I'll pay for you to have it removed.

[+ a few hints about what can happen if you do, involving, I think "I don't advise you to do so"]

Keaton Halley

(citing copypaste-wise)

Some evolutionists have pointed out that there are cases in which a damaged or diseased coccyx has been surgically removed, proving that the coccyx is not essential. But so what? Having a purpose and being essential are not the same thing. The fact that one can live with the loss of a pinky toe, for example, does not demonstrate that it has no function. For that matter, one can live without arms, legs, hair, teeth, and half of a brain—yet all of these parts are clearly operative in a normal, healthy body. If they are missing, either other body parts must compensate, or the body will suffer from the loss.

The same is true regarding the coccyx. This is obvious from the fact that removal of the coccyx means severing those muscles, tendons, and ligaments to which it is attached (and perhaps re-attaching them elsewhere). But personal testimonies are also available online that indicate recovery from a coccygectomy can be difficult—including pain when sitting or moving, not to mention bathroom complications.

[The last point was included in Kent Hovind's hints.]

Keaton Halley's article can be enjoyed in extenso, it is very informative as the sample can make you see, on todays blog post of CMI:

Tailbone “serves no purpose”?
by Keaton Halley Published: 27 April 2017 (GMT+10)
http://creation.com/tailbone

Caption : New York Museum of Natural History misleads the public

I am glad that ma, as med student and back then part time "intern" (if that is the term for a Medicinae Candidatus or Candidata who is working as physician under others at a hospital, before getting Legitimation or even Med. Dr.), was also a creationist, aware that tonsils and appendix are not useless junk.

This, the article linked to, at least for appendix:

Appendix shrieks ‘Creation’ (at least 18 times!)
by David Catchpoole Published: 2 April 2013 (GMT+10)
http://creation.com/appendix-shrieks-creation

Since not a physician myself, what about CMI getting one to write about tonsils?/HGL

PS, here is another goodie for those enjoying biological hard science and finding too little of that over here (except the repeated item of Chromosome Numbers, a k a Karyotypes):

The good, the bad and the evolutionary
Evolutionists designing (their arguments) badly
by Shaun Doyle, Published: 29 August 2007(GMT+10)
http://creation.com/the-good-the-bad-and-the-evolutionary

If you do a video on this one, how about getting a licence from Ennio Morricone for good sound track?/HGL

Isn't There a Geological Column in Laetoli, and Aren't the Footprints Proof of Human Ancestors?

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

I will quote Smithsonian Institution (.si.edu) and wikipedia on Laetoli:

Laetoli Footprint Trails
http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/behavior/laetoli-footprint-trails

Age:

About 3.6 million years old

Species:

Australopithecus afarensis

Site:

Laetoli, Tanzania

Quote from text:

The early humans that left these prints were bipedal and had big toes in line with the rest of their foot. This means that these early human feet were more human-like than ape-like, as apes have highly divergent big toes that help them climb and grasp materials like a thumb does. The footprints also show that the gait of these early humans was "heel-strike" (the heel of the foot hits first) followed by "toe-off" (the toes push off at the end of the stride)—the way modern humans walk.

The close spacing of the footprints are evidence that the people who left them had a short stride, and therefore probably had short legs. It is not until much later that early humans evolved longer legs, enabling them to walk farther, faster, and cover more territory each day.

Wikipedia : Laetoli
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laetoli

Two dating techniques were used to arrive at the approximate age of the beds that make up the ground layers at Laetoli: potassium-argon dating and stratigraphy. Based on these dating methods, the layers have been named and arranged in the following order (from deepest from the surface to closest to the surface): Lower Laetolil Beds, Upper Laetolil Beds, Lower Ndolanya Beds, Upper Ndolanya Beds, Ogol lavas, Naibadad Beds, Olpiro Beds, and Ngaloba Beds. The upper unit of the Laetolil Beds dated back 3.6 to 3.8 million years ago. The beds are dominantly tuffs and have a maximum thickness of 130 meters. No mammalian fauna were found in the lower unit of the Laetolil Beds, and no date could be assigned to this layer.

The Ndolanya Beds, which are located above the Laetolil Beds and underlie the Ogol lavas, are clearly divisible into upper and lower units separated by a widespread deposit of calcrete up to one meter thick. However, like the Lower Laetolil Beds, no date can be assigned to the Ndolanya Beds. The Ogol lavas date back 2.4 million years. No fauna or artifacts are known from the Naibadad Beds, and they are correlated with a bed layer at Olduvai Gorge based on mineral content. Pleistocene fauna and Acheulean artifacts have been found in the Olpiro Beds. Based on a trachytic tuff which occurs within the beds, the Ngaloba Beds may therefore be dated between 120,000 to 150,000 years BP.

Resuming this top to bottom, as one digs down (qualification on this description, see below):

1) Ngaloba Beds,

"Based on a trachytic tuff which occurs within the beds," i e presumably Ngaloba, not Olpiro, "the Ngaloba Beds may therefore be dated between 120,000 to 150,000 years BP."

2) Olpiro Beds,

where Pleistocene fauna and Acheulean artifacts have been found. (Stratigraphy used)

3) Naibadad Beds,

No fauna or artifacts are known. Same mineral content as a bed layer at Olduvai Gorge.

4) Ogol lavas,

date back 2.4 million years (presumably potassium-argon = worthless).

5) Upper Ndolanya Beds,

No date.

6) Separation

a widespread deposit of calcrete up to one meter thick.

7) Lower Ndolanya Beds,

No date.

8) Upper Laetolil Beds,

The stratum of the footprints? Not directly said in wiki, but definitely in the other link "3.6 million years old". (stratigraphy)

9) Lower Laetolil Beds,

No date. "No mammalian fauna were found in the lower unit of the Laetolil Beds, and no date could be assigned to this layer."

Again, same levels, but now only with results/method or lack of result:

1) Ngaloba Beds,

potassium-argon. 150.000 - 120.000 BP

2) Olpiro Beds,

stratigraphy. Pleistocene.

3) Naibadad Beds,

no direct result.

4) Ogol lavas,

potassium-argon. 2.400.000 BP.

5) Upper Ndolanya Beds,

no direct result.

6) Separation

no direct result.

7) Lower Ndolanya Beds,

no direct result

8) Upper Laetoli Beds,

stratigraphy. Pliocene.

9) Lower Laetoli Beds,

no direct result.

Someone might ask me, "if potassium-argon is worthless, why is consistently the deeper layer dated with it older?"

I might retort, if palaeos find dates on samples that are older on higher layers than on lower, what do you think they do? They discard the aberrant dates (aberrant according to their theory there must have been much time between them), publish the acceptable ones. In a fine printed footnote they might acknowledge aberrant dates, if they hint at an acceptable (or even unknown) explanation for them. That is the way that community works. At least that is how Kent Hovind characterises them, and I have seen him challenged for making up references and then I have found he hasn't.

So, stratigraphy is not worthless perhaps if potassium-argon is ... what are the biostratigraphic units? Olpiro beds (level 2 from top) above Upper Laetoli beds (level 8 from top).

In Upper Laetoli beds you find footprints which could easily have come from a modern human, as Kent Hovind observed in a video, but must "in fact" have come from "a human ancestor" since found under a layer (worthlessly) dated 2.4 million years before present, i e before humans anatomically our own species are supposed to have developed.

If not found that way, the short legs would have been explained by one individual being a dwarf or a child.

I would date the Pliocene layer to the Flood of Noah. I would date the Pleistocene layer to post-Flood centuries of stone age technology. Not because Pleistocene is automatically younger than Pliocene, but because it is a higher and later biostratigraphical layer found in the same locality.

I am of course presuming the footprints of Upper Laetoli beds and the Acheulean axes from Olpiro beds and the seven non-bio-stratigraphic layers are all same locality, different depth. Otherwise, there is no reason why Olpiro beds couldnt also be from flood in a locality a bit beside the foot prints.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Bpi, Georges Pompidou
St Francis of Assisi
4-X-2014

EDIT: corrected Laetolil to Laetoli, a few places. Not sure after so long why the extra l was there. /HGL, 2.X.2016

EDIT: left it where uncorrected, since from a direct quote./HGL, 15.XII.2016

Would GKC have Agreed with MkSh that KH was a Bible Idolater?

1) Newspeak in Nineteen - Eighty ... er Sorry ... Ninety-Four, 2) Mark Shea Recommended David Palm Who Misconstrues Bible Commission of 1909, 3) Would GKC have Agreed with MkSh that KH was a Bible Idolater?, 4) Correspondence of Hans-Georg Lundahl : With Jonathan Sarfati PhD on Fall and Inquisition, 5) New blog on the kid : Quarterlife is a Bad Term, 5b) Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : Answering Bill Nye, the Science Guy on a few points, 5c) New blog on the kid : Phil Provaznik/Dalrymple on Potassium-Argon and on Principle, more on Fission Track and Isochrons (a debunking of...), 6) [Back to Creation vs. Evolution :] Scenario impossible, 7) Karl Keating Out of His Depth?, 8) Three Kinds of Proposition, 9) Is Flat Earth Belief Heretical?, 10) HGL's F.B. writings : Between Palm and Sungenis, 11a) HGL's F.B. writings : On Helios in Christian Geocentrism, 11b) Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : ... on Rivers Clapping Hands, Anaximander, Greek Philosophy at time of Ecclesiasticus ... , 12) Assorted retorts : ... on Geocentrism with Raymond Doetjes and "Imdor"

First of all, GKC = Gilbert Keith Chesterton, MkSh = Mark Shea, KH (in this essay) = Kent Hovind. Oh, KJV = King James Version, whereas DR = Douai-Reims. Also a Bible "version" but the one I use as my English Bible. And CSL = Clive Staples Lewis, of course. To the subject. I recall some examples of Chesterton and I will adress them.

Gilbert Keith Chesterton thought certain Bible Worshippers Superstitious and Idolatrous and said of them, whether they had in fact the hat off, certainly "had a tile loose". His example: certain men systematically refuse to use "you" when speaking to one man, saying instead "thou" as Shakespear or KJV Bible. Or DR, for that matter. Their reason? "Using the plural pronoun when adressing just one man is a lie" ...

KH is aware that grammar has changed and the distinction "thou, thee, thy" vs "ye, you, your" was archaic already when KJV (or DR) was being printed. Nowadays "you" not only means both "ye" and "you" but also "thou" and "thee" as well. Replacing "ye"/"you" with "you"/"youm" after "who"/"whom" has so far not occurred to the English speakers, but replacing "thou"/"ye" or "thee"/"you" with "you"/"you all" or "you"/"y'all" or "you"/"youse" has occurred to them. And I suspect that not just "you guys" is a modern "ye" but also "you man" a modern "thou". KH is certainly not open to GKC's ridicule on this one, he uses "you" correctly as in contemporary English and reserves "thou"/"ye" for reading from KJV (or Shakespear).

Next item on GKC's list. Taking off the hat to someone is an act of idolatry and therefore forbidden by "thou shalt not have any other gods before me ... and shalt not worship them" ... now, being polite is usually not an act of idolatry, the "worship" given to a man by bowing down or taking off the hat being merely dulia or hyp-O-dulia (not to be confused with hyp-ER-dulia given to the Blessed Virgin: hyper means over and hypo under). One can add on this question that bowing down to a man is NOT enumerated in express words in the law as constituting latria (and possibly even dulia was not permissible in the Old Testament), BUT Mordechai in the Book of Esther tells Haman he cannot bow down to him, since it would offend the law. I do not know if this was a tradition among Jews or if Parsism or a possibly pre-Zoroastrian Paganism was interpretating such - usually polite - bowing down as an act of Divine Worship. I do know that KH is not wearing a hat, and most people are not wearing a hat nowadays. The occasion for that test has fallen away.

But KH takes that Protestant Superstition (the age old common culture of Christendom being Pagan and including definite acts of idolatry prohibited to Real Christians) more seriously than many. When showing a certain photo, he begins with:

"This is not my wife" Then he pauses. "It is just a picture of her."

If he truly believes it to be idolatrous to refer honours or affections comparable to those given the real person to an object depicting them also, well, he is at least honest and courageous about it. I suppose quite a few Jews would be in a similar predicament and not all of them as honest and courageous as he. Of course some of them avoid photography all together.

He thus abuses himself about parts of Scripture, but less so than those who would say Scripture does not apply. However, he accepted a title "Doctor" which is pretty nearly synonymous to "Rabbi" ... not a thing I would grudge a man being in prison for "intellectual fraud", when the supposed fraud is very much not these things that Chesterton would have objected too. Or for "tax fraud," when the tax exemption in one charge was only "fraudulent" due to a supposed intellectual fraud.

[Long neglected rectification, here I link to Eric Hovind stating the facts:

Kent Hovind STILL In Prison - Son Speaks Out In Personal One-on-One with PPSIMMONS
ppsimmons
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2GADfTc_j9Y]

Now, would Chesterton have called his Creationism a fad?

Or would Chesterton perhaps have called Evolution a fad?

Because, sometimes faddists get their fads from other occasions than the Bible. Like dug out bones or dug forth cave man art. I could add, ultimately, since on one occasion he said it did not much matter if it was just a doctrine about origins of animal species but left man alone.

He would at least have agreed that from the Creation of the Human Soul onward the account in Genesis is historical. If he had looked into the question he might have found that this could not be unless the six days were at least close to literal truth rather than long ages ... as Kent Hovind found it out.

"From the beginning of creation, God created them male and female." (Mk 10:6)

Yes, KH has a clear point. Since GKC died in 1936 he could not have heard the new Christmas Proclamation from 1994 where the 5199 years are replaced with "unknown ages" ... and he never complained about the Church telling him a fixed and recent age for the world. The kind of mystique of vastness, whether of time or of space, that appealed so much to Teilhard de Chardin, never appealed to him. If a vast cosmos is worthier than a small one, obviously a big man like himself was worthier than a thin man as he had been in his youth as a painter ... which he fortunately knew was nonsense. He also knew academia was in the habit of producing lots of nonsense. Back in his day or a bit later Haldane was seriously suggesting a life force worship - which academicians would not suggest today. He called that Paganism or even Devil Worship (CSL considered it at least very close to such). He would perhaps have been rather surprised at the suggestion - which Mark Shea and David Palm seem to be making - that once that particular fad vanishes and academia seem to concentrate on facts, it suddenly becomes immune to fads.

Because, even when men outwardly concentrate on visible facts, or what seem such to them (by assuming certain calculations, such as age from C14 content or distance in space from angle of parallax per annum) they do so with hearts that remain spiritual. And which may even be imbued with a collective positive spirituality - however little it may be voiced in academic publications, or however merely negative it may be when reacting to a Christian comment.

And if such a spirituality is wrong, so will the conclusions be, at least some of those collectively accepted by that body of men.

He accepted in fact Catholicism because it was traditionalist, testing each modern fad by a test of its traditions, not as if this was enough to guarantee its truth, but because this was one necessary part of its remaining true if starting so. He did not consider a religion able to start as a Pagan or Heretical lie and end up as truth without any kind of conversion in between. And similarily, a religion which remains true up to a point in time may - as Catholic Churchmen under Henry VIII - turn their back on truth, for opportunity.

Now, when it comes to Ritual, I cannot see how Chesterton would have agreed to "let's become closer to Protestants" ideals. Actually, a perhaps rather simple view of veracity and saying the right thing, comparable to people refusing to give up "thou" when adressing a single person was behind reinforcing the Latin a bit before 800 into the old pronunciation, as kept alive in England where it was a learned tongue, when Latin and Vernacular started to be two different things on the Continent. And in England the celebration in Latin rather than Ænglisc or Pryddoneg (English or Welsh, supposing I got the second word right) was a bit like the concern of missionaries choosing KJV English rather than indigenous tongues as yet unexplored and unchartered, without either grammar or spelling or word book as yet fixed. You can sing a Christmas carol in which "hunters come with beaver pelts" rather than shepherds with sheepskins, but you cannot chant the Christmas Gospel that way. And tomorrow, in the Gospel if not in the carol, the three magi must be magi and come with precisely gold, frankincense and myrrh, however absent these may be - excepting gold - from a language like the English of St Augustine's day. So it must be read in a language which has all the right words with all the right meanings. And, as Chesterton pointed out, a living occidental language is as much in a flux as an Amerindian language or a pre-civilised, pre-Christian English - "the choice is not between a dead language and a live language, but between a dead language and a dying language" - as in a language continually killed by speakers misusing it.

But when it comes to the world view in general, rather than ritual, he would not have accepted Teilhard de Chardin for a moment. Let us give the word to Jonathan Sarfati, even Doctor, unless he objects to not literally and literalistically obeying the injunction not to call a man rabbi. In his view of the Fall, there is exactly one detail where he is wrong and where Chesterton and Tolkien and I agree he is wrong. It is about free will being real, but he thinks it is not real, after the Fall. Apart from that he is right. Suffering is one consequence of the fall and not a prequel to it. Let us also give the word to King Alfred, as imagined by Chesterton. Same story somewhat more poetically and without that error:

CMI : Why would a loving God allow death and suffering?
by Dr Jonathan Sarfati
Published: 2 January 2014
http://creation.com/why-death-suffering

And slowly his hands and thoughtfully Fell from the lifted lyre, And the owls moaned from the mighty trees Till Alfred caught it to his knees And smote it as in ire. He heaved the head of the harp on high And swept the framework barred, And his stroke had all the rattle and spark Of horses flying hard. "When God put man in a garden He girt him with a sword, And sent him forth a free knight That might betray his lord; "He brake Him and betrayed Him, And fast and far he fell, Till you and I may stretch our necks And burn our beards in hell. "But though I lie on the floor of the world, With the seven sins for rods, I would rather fall with Adam Than rise with all your gods. "What have the strong gods given? Where have the glad gods led? When Guthrum sits on a hero's throne And asks if he is dead? "Sirs, I am but a nameless man, A rhymester without home, Yet since I come of the Wessex clay And carry the cross of Rome, "I will even answer the mighty earl That asked of Wessex men Why they be meek and monkish folk, And bow to the White Lord's broken yoke; What sign have we save blood and smoke? Here is my answer then. "That on you is fallen the shadow, And not upon the Name; That though we scatter and though we fly, And you hang over us like the sky, You are more tired of victory, Than we are tired of shame. "That though you hunt the Christian man Like a hare on the hill-side, The hare has still more heart to run Than you have heart to ride. "That though all lances split on you, All swords be heaved in vain, We have more lust again to lose Than you to win again. "Your lord sits high in the saddle, A broken-hearted king, But our king Alfred, lost from fame, Fallen among foes or bonds of shame, In I know not what mean trade or name, Has still some song to sing; "Our monks go robed in rain and snow, But the heart of flame therein, But you go clothed in feasts and flames, When all is ice within; "Nor shall all iron dooms make dumb Men wondering ceaselessly, If it be not better to fast for joy Than feast for misery. "Nor monkish order only Slides down, as field to fen, All things achieved and chosen pass, As the White Horse fades in the grass, No work of Christian men. "Ere the sad gods that made your gods Saw their sad sunrise pass, The White Horse of the White Horse Vale, That you have left to darken and fail, Was cut out of the grass. "Therefore your end is on you, Is on you and your kings, Not for a fire in Ely fen, Not that your gods are nine or ten, But because it is only Christian men Guard even heathen things. "For our God hath blessed creation, Calling it good. I know What spirit with whom you blindly band Hath blessed destruction with his hand; Yet by God's death the stars shall stand And the small apples grow."

A Neanderthal man who was buried by his near and dear after being kept alive for years without having any teeth to chew with was clearly human, since his close ones were so. And since he lost teeth and died, he was clearly suffering consequences of the fall. I e, he was descended from Adam. And not dead 50.000 years ago or 43.000 years before Adam ate the forbidden fruit.

Now, Chesterton made a point. If a scroll belongs to a certain procession from the start, along with priests and statues and candles, you do not take the scroll in order to smash all the rest. KH would have answered that the Bible scroll was not from the start part of the Catholic Church, but that it persecuted it from 400 to 1400, and herein he would be wrong, even if subjectively answering Chesterton's point. But there is a parallel point to make.

If a procession has always been going to the East and suddenly starts going to the West, if it has always been using statues and someone starts scrapping them, if it has always had a cross and six candles on an altar facing East and someone starts fiddling both with candle numbers and altar direction, I think it is possible to use the scroll to correct that nonsense. And if the people of the particular procession have had the habit of taking the scroll as reliable history, it is arguably a corrective to people thinking they continue the procession while not believing it to be reliable history.

And if priests calling themselves Catholic call Creationism a Paganism - believe me, some do - they remind me of the Pagans who would not perpetuate the Pagan image of the White Horse. It is only Christian men who will keep even Pagan things, as King Alfred (or perhaps rather Chesterton through him) sung.

But the point remains also that to Chesterton the Garden of Eden was essential:

"When God put man in a garden He girt him with a sword, And sent him forth a free knight That might betray his lord;

As is also apparent from his view on the Morning of Easter Sunday:

On the third day the friends of Christ coming at daybreak to the place found the grave empty and the stone rolled away. In varying ways they realised the new wonder; but even they hardly realised that the world had died in the night. What they were looking at was the first day of a new creation, with a new heaven and a new earth; and in a semblance of the gardener God walked again in the garden, in the cool not of the evening but the dawn.

Chesterton quotes from The Ballad of the White Horse & Everlasting Man

And Neanderthal preceding Adam as "not yet the image and likeness of God" is quite as incompatible with free will as Sarfati's nod to Calvin. It is also quite as incompatible with the garden as the start ... with a God who loves gardens and doll houses.

Or even more so.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Bpi, Georges Pompidou
Twelfth Day of Christmas
5-I-2014

Kent Hovind - the first Truther

Forwarding a Finnish youtuber who appreciates him:

fyrstikken : The Kent Hovind - First Internet Truther
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dOOgcWkTb4A

Not meaning he does not sometimes get Theology and History of Middle Ages somewhat wrong. Wronger than I would patiently bear in certain others./HGL

I was wrong about T Rex!

Kent Hovind made a very good video as far as zoology goes, with a Bomber Beetle - also known as Bombardier Beetle (which is the name it has in wikipedia, and yes, there are other languages where it is called or they are called for instance Bombožygiai, Bombardérbiller, Coléoptère bombardier ...), meaning thereby to illustrate that firebreathing dragons are quite possible. And the T Rex seems to have had greater cavities in the head than the hollow headed dinosaur (forgetting its name). Even the theology was good as far as his personal illustration of what the words "cleanse me with hyssop" mean. Or his general point about the fear of the Lord. Some of his examples to that point were Puritan and wrong, but not too many./HGL

Trin80ty's bias, his ugly bias

Series on Chestertonian attitudes on Creationism (i e today's Chestertonians being clearly less favourable to Young Earth Creationism than GKC): 1) Mark Shea Basically Calls Creationists Protestants, 2 Mark Shea Responded, 3) And what of Mark Shea's Attitude to Marco Rubio?, 4) Answering Thomas Storck and Solving Problem (I Propose at least) Set by Humani Generis, 5) Trin80ty's bias, his ugly bias

Trin80ty (not a Chestertonian btw) has a video series "Kent Hovind is crazy".

One of these* - he has blocked me btw - he has Kent Hovind speaking on dinosaurs. Kent Hovind mentions a "real tendency" to each finder of a dinosaur bone to make it a "whole new species", so the finder can be famous. Trin80ty adds the text:

This ignorance and stupidity does not deserve a comment.

It seems Trin80ty sacralises science very much. But there is substance to what Kent Hovind says. Take a Brontosaurus - is that the only dino species of its kind? I think not. Or Tyrannosaurus Rex? Is that the same kind as Allosaurus or a different one? I would say the same.

Or again, in China they found a new species like T Rex but 100 times smaller (third root of hundred is between 4 and 5,** so it is between four or five times smaller than T Rex in all three dimensions of its volume). I would say it is the same kind as T Rex.

So would the people on Creation.com ... they would say the "new species" is really juvenile T Rex. I suspect the "juveniles" are the real species and T Rex and Allosaurus some creepy result of some genetic experiment conducted ... I used to say by Nodian scientists, but now my chief suspicion is Nephelim who "sinned against all living things in the heavens and earth and in the water"***. I even suspect all of these may be misshapen birds, like genetically manipulated ostriches. You see, one of the evolutionist arguments for birds having evolved from dinosaurs is that dinosaurian features are identic to fetal features of birds. There is also just two kinds of hips dinosaurs can have ... lizard hips, like the Brontosaurus, bird hips like the T Rex and the Allosaurus. You see my point? Bird hips but saurian features like teeth and solid bones might equal misbegotten birds.

But assuming T Rex (of which there are 30 fossiles, except if the Chinese smaller ones are juvenile T Rex') and Allosaurus are legitimate species rather than weird GMO's, they are very probably the same kind, and Kent Hovind has very probably hit the nail about why there are so many different dinosaur species in the catalogues.

Trin80ty would say, no doubt (except for his propensity to not comment at all, and then comment on that), something like "hold it, that is not how we were taught to do our research" ... he has a point, but who says Academicians' research and conclusions and stuff always follow the paradigm of good Academia? Who says their scientific paradigms follow the paradigm of good Academia? Even Trin80ty does not spell it out that specifically, he only wants to suggest something like it, by calling a direct assertion of the opposite - actually of the obvious truth - "this stupidity and ignorance" and claim it deserves no commenting on.

Now, there is a funny thing about Trin80ty's Kent Hovind series. It all begins (or most of the time) with quoting Kent Hovind's offer to use his material freely, and then goes on to state "do not take any legal advice from Kent Hovind" ... funny enough, he did that himself. The very one he quoted. He wants to have the cake and eat it. He wants Kent Hovind unable to stop him from using his material, but he wants no one else to use the material, he tells everyone else "do not take the advice I just took". In legal terms it is not an advice, it is a creative commons licence. And if Trin80ty is free to use it, so is anyone else. I would rather tell you not to take legal advice from Trin80ty.

Who shows all of his bias in a text comment saying:

Creationism is not part of the real debate. Science looks at evidence not wild, unprovable supernatural claims.

A supernatural claim is not by definition unprovable. A natural or naturalistic claim may very well be unprovable if it is too long ago or too far away or too hidden, so not all natural claims are provable or disprovable : neither are all supernatural claims unprovable, some are provable or disprovable. Claiming anything supernatural is unprovable (i e neither provable if true nor disprovable if false) is a kind of easy bailout for an atheist. That way he gets away without looking at the evidence - or at least without giving any comment that is to the point. Such a bailout is not ad rem, and calling Kent's astute observation on Academia as it is actually done stupidity and ignorance is not ad rem either. This is not an essay about proving any particular supernatural claim, it is just about proving this particular naturalistic claim not to the point, biassed, and an easy bailout.

Gilbert Keith Chesterton would have said the same thing.

I have another axe to grind than that with Trin80ty, and that is with todays semi-chestertonians. I suspect part of their rationale to be the same as that of Kent Hovind's adversary Trin80ty in the following video:

Kent Hovind is Crazy #12: Making Money
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pklj2rnSFBg

In the ingress, Trin80ty puts the text:

Example #12 : Life's purpose as making money
From Kent Hovind's uncopyrighted video:
"How to make money and spend it God's way"

Immediately afterwards we have Kent Hovind denying this, saying he wants students to get busy in ways that will pay off in a clearly non-monetary way - namely in eternity. He does however say that God is richer than we are and can provide for us. Which is completely true. In Alexander Ramati's book The Assisi Underground (nowadays it may be easier to get the film on video) there is a joke about three things "even God doesn't know": "What a Jesuit really thinks, how many nuns there are in Rome, and where the Franciscans get all their money from". So, in that respect, he agrees with Saint Francis. He is also saying that instead of saving up for a new jacket, serve the Lord and He will give you at least a used one when He thinks you can use it - which He knows better than you.

Now, summing this up as "serve the Lord for money's sake" is idiotic. And this is the idiocy Trin80ty commits:

Now you see the motivations behind Hovind's ministry. He doesn't promote education to these children. He doesn't promote being a doctor who helps people or being a scientist who finds cures for diseases.

Hovind is interested in getting something.

Curing diseases for free is certainly a work that will bring eternal rewards to a Christian doctor. Sts Cosmas and Damien were martyred by their colleagues - because they refused to take money for the cures. This was in a time when doctors were greedy. To hear Trin80ty's complaint about Hovind, either one might suppose he thinks it the teachers' duty to teach their pupils to make another life of Sts Cosmas and Damien (which is not what I find in doctors these days, and teachers are not dealing exclusively with future doctors either), or that Kent Hovind had given either advice or example of providing nothing (not even a cure against evolutionism) for free to anyone. If you remember the initial statement of the videos being uncopyrighted, you can see well that that is not quite the case.

Yet Trin80ty will gladly encourage his students (supposing he is a teacher) to think about gain in terms about serving humanity (notice how humanity takes the place of God in people who think that way, I do not claim to exactly quote Trin80ty verbatim, but I would not be surprised), and then to be hypocritical about it as if they had no thoughts at all about personal gain and needed no advice about it either. As if gaining something at all were to the normal student an unwelcome if alas necessary byproduct of doing some good work in medicine. Oh, and also as if medicine were more important than being farmers and providing bread or than being mothers and fathers and providing new people. Medicine will not keep a man alive if he dies from starvation - God can, as He showed with Alexandrina da Costa (recent medical history by the way, documented by very hostile medical doctors who thought she must be faking and were cruel). Medicine will not make a man live for more than a thousand years - but God can as he showed when taking up Henoch and Eliah.

How was it Queen Victoria put it? "We are not impressed". Or Shania Twain "That don't impressin' me much". I think, if Kent had not been married to Jo (he loves to introduce her picture by saying "that is not my wife" - pause - "it's a picture of her") his ability to fix and polish cars might have impressed her a bit more than Trin80ty's criticism of him. Actually don't know, have to ask her yourself, if you know her.

He gave the students a bit of very useful advice, to look where certain things need fixing and knock saying "I noticed ... I might fix that for 10 bucks an hour" rather than "have you got any work to do? I take 10 bucks an hour" - and that is part of the culture of self sufficiency that is so right about US - but for fixing things on the roof, alas I have vertigo and I am quicker at noticing where someone's argument fails (which he will usually not pay me for, that is why I expose it to the rest of the world hoping someone will) than where someone's house needs something done. I could probably walk by a lawn of grass half a metre high and not think about offering to mowe it for at least half an hour. Besides, mowing grass tires me faster than finding faults in Trin80ty's arguments or even PZM's° - that is why I am an intellectual, possibly incurable such.°° But saying Hovind's advice is not very much help for me is not saying it is not sound in itself.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
BpI, Georges Pompidou
Sunday and Our Lady of
the Seven Sorrows
15-IX-2013

PS, one can add that as all Protestants (or most anyway) Kent Hovind has a lack of grasp on distinction between monks and ordinary faithful. He is obviously not a Franciscan as St Francis, but closer to - if he were a Catholic - a Franciscan Tertiary like Christopher Columbus or St Louis IX. As you may see if you go to my haikus (see note°° below) I am not a monk myself./HGL

*Kent Hovind is Crazy #13: Legality of Creationism in Public School
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aYSi6qiVkG4

**Cube of 4 is 64, cube of 5 is 125, 100 is between 64 and 125, so its cubit root is between their cubic roots. Actually 4.6415888 ... now that I have the luxury of seeing it in a calculator.

*** Quoting Book of Henoch from memory.

° Letter to Nature on Karyotype Evolution in Mammals
(dated 7-XI-2011 and still no answers forthcoming, except for Patrik Lindenfors' thoughtless support for PZM's explanation)
http://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2011/11/letter-to-nature-on-karyotype-evolution.html

°° haiku : Paresseux? Beaucoup.
(content warning is about the next and one of the previous and against small children or school children reading those, and it is in French, anyway)
http://hglhaiku.blogspot.com/2008/05/paresseux-beaucoup.html

St Augustine gives an inch and some take an ell

Series: 1) Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere 2) somewhere else : Bible and Church Questions 3) Creation vs. Evolution : Why I have a Personal Grudge against Kenotic Heresy 4) item : St Augustine gives an inch and some take an ell 5) Φιλολoγικά/Philologica : When St Augustine makes a fault, it is not all that faulty

Where did St Augustine write about Genesis? There may be a passage in Confessions. There certainly are parts in City of God and in Questions about the Heptateuch (Pentateuch, Joshua and Judges). There may be parts of Revisions. There is De Genesi ad Literam in twelve books, De Genesi ad Literam one incomplete book and De Genesi ad Literam against the Manichees. There may of course also be passages in Letters. And in each case of the three works named De Genesi ad Literam, the title so far means "on Genesis [taken] at the letter", and in each case this refers to the fact that it also has spiritual senses - like Eve taken from a rib of Adam while he slept denoting Church taken from the opened side of Jesus Christ while he hung dead on the Cross. Now, thing is, Kent Hovind said that evolutionists contradict Jesus and Saint Paul. In both cases there are people who try to get around this using Saint Augustine. And in both cases I would say that if St Augustine gives an inch, they take an ell. If you know a certain proverb, I would say that gives them, but not St Augustine a certain similarity to the Devil. Jesus said: From the beginning of Creation God created them man and woman.* Now, if someone playing around with St Augustine likes, he can say: "sure, in the beginning of creation, the way St Augustine speaks of the six days, God created all there is in its roots, and then after that there were billions of years until Adam was actually formed in time and matter and Eve too, but they had already been formed in their causes billions of years before that. That does not make Jesus a liar." Hold it a minute! This is in De Genesi ad Literam book five and onwards at least into book six. St Augustine did say the six days and the seventh days were essentially atemporal. He also says that taking them as temporal, as six and the seventh time 24 hours lapse is, if not quite adepquate, at least good enough for beginners. He does most certainly not say that the kind of indeterminate lapse of material and temoral time between Adam's individual body being created and him getting married to Eve could amount to billions of years. Still less that God would successively have created world after world without man and all different from ours and from each other before landing on the one with man. On the contrary, his basis for taking the six days and seventh days as other than normal days is Genesis 2:4-5. That passage contains "day" in the singular.** OK, says St Augustine, then there were not six different days, only one day. Repeated six times. And that means it was not temporal. It also says of this day "before any herbs were germing".**

*Gospel According to Saint Mark : Chapter 10 : [6] But from the beginning of the creation, God made them male and female. [7] For this cause a man shall leave his father and mother; and shall cleave to his wife. [It is pretty cool the verse containing these words is 10:6, while Gospel has all in all 16 chapters.] **Book Of Genesis : Chapter 2 : [4] These are the generations of the heaven and the earth, when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the heaven and the earth: [5] And every plant of the field before it sprung up in the earth, and every herb of the ground before it grew: for the Lord God had not rained upon the earth; and there was not a man to till the earth. ***Ecclesiasticus Chapter 18 : [1] He that liveth for ever created all things together. God only shall be justified, and he remaineth an invincible king for ever. °Epistle Of Saint Paul To The Romans : Chapter 5 : [12] Wherefore as by one man sin entered into this world, and by sin death; and so death passed upon all men, in whom all have sinned. [Here 5:12 makes a sum of 17. These verses "sixteen going on seventeen" do not need someone "older and wiser" telling them what to say, and St Augustine does not pretend to be so either.] °°The City of God (Book I) Chapter 9.— Of the Reasons for Administering Correction to Bad and Good Together. What, then, have the Christians suffered in that calamitous period, which would not profit every one who duly and faithfully considered the following circumstances? First of all, they must humbly consider those very sins which have provoked God to fill the world with such terrible disasters; for although they be far from the excesses of wicked, immoral, and ungodly men, yet they do not judge themselves so clean removed from all faults as to be too good to suffer for these even temporal ills. ... If any one forbears to reprove and find fault with those who are doing wrong, because he seeks a more seasonable opportunity, or because he fears they may be made worse by his rebuke, or that other weak persons may be disheartened from endeavoring to lead a good and pious life, and may be driven from the faith; this man's omission seems to be occasioned not by covetousness, but by a charitable consideration. But what is blame-worthy is, that they who themselves revolt from the conduct of the wicked, and live in quite another fashion, yet spare those faults in other men which they ought to reprehend and wean them from; and spare them because they fear to give offense, lest they should injure their interests in those things which good men may innocently and legitimately use—though they use them more greedily than becomes persons who are strangers in this world, and profess the hope of a heavenly country. For not only the weaker brethren who enjoy married life, and have children (or desire to have them), ...

OK, says St Augustine, who had had a Platonic education before becoming Christian, this means what God created in the six days were not yet any individual items of anything. Growth still had to happen. Biological process did not start till after the six days. But he gives a parallel passage*** to support this reading of Genesis 2:4-5.** This parallel passage*** says God created everything at once. It is pretty obviously in visible or at least apparent contradiction with Cuvierism, with the idea now proposed by Hugh Ross, the idea of God first creating one world like fauna and flora and climate and all, then the next, then the next and each successive one containing traces of the earlier ones. If St Augustine was by any chance wrong, then "day" in Genesis 2:4-5** would be using the word yôm in a looser sense, like "occasion". And the parallel passage*** would be using "at once" in a somewhat looser sense too. As, obvious to us now, opposed exactly to Cuvierism or successive stages of creation evolving on top of each other. As opposed to creating trilobites on one occasion, then waiting for millions of years, then creating dinosaurs on another occasion, and again waiting millions of years, then creating Australopithecus on one occasion and waiting a million of years to see how he was doing, then creating Adam and Eve. With death in between all those occasions, which brings us to the next point. But first one pause on the topic of six days. Even if St Augustine was exactly right about atemporality of six days, as St Thomas Aquinas points out, this does not exclude that the first seven days of actual material time mature all the items created "in their causes" in the atemporal six days" as well as the rest in a temporal so to speak repetation or rehearsal of the atemporal six days. St Paul said: By the sin of one man, death came into the world.° Same kind of guy would say: "sure, death as a punishment for humans came with the fall, but since St Augustine says animals would have died even before that, we can accept evolution." Right, he said that carnivores were carnivores and would have eaten by killing even if Adam had not sinned. Note that his argument is a very total fixism and non-evolution of the carnivorous species. If a lion was exactly a lion as we know them, and if a wolf was exactly a wolf as we know them, or even a cat and a dog exactly a cat and a dog, as we know them, and if each species of finches of the Galapagos islands was created seperately on the fifth day and had a separate couple of ancestors on the Arc of Noah, then St Augustine has proven there were animals eaten before Adam sinned. And animals eaten obviously means animals dying. But in that other scenario that evolutionists give, animal death is not limited to some deaths to feed some animals, it is actually made the chief instrument for weeding out the varieties not wanted for "next step in evolution". St Augustine weakens "by the sin of one man, death entered the world" but he never reverses it to - as do the evolutionists - "by death man entered into the world". And maybe for a very good reason. You see, St Augustine was a convert from Manichean heresies. To them, to the heretics adherring to them, man precisely as a biological being is a product of a kind of spiritual death or fall. The souls that stayed quite alive never made it to be men, they remained body-less spirit children of the purely spiritual "God". Man as living on earth is the product of such beings getting trapped by the "other god" of death and materiality. So, to a Manichean as much as to an Evolutionist it would seem true enough to say "by death, man entered into the world". But St Augustine had washed off that shit from his mind, when he asked St Ambrose for baptism. As an ex-Palmarian, I know what it means to stake the view of creation on St Augustine. The Papacy or Antipapacy at Palmar de Troya has issued a creed in which a recent creation, but that one "in one moment" is raised to status of dogma of the creed. The people who just barely avoid contradicting Our Lord Jesus Christ and St Paul by taking an ell where St Augustine gives an inch, to me they are very clearly sham Augustinians on that precise point. So, I have taken my distance from Palmar de Troya, even before I left Sweden. When I did, I started reaffirming literality of six days as most probable since supported by most Church Fathers. Some people similarily - like Palmar de Troya - place St Augustine over the other Church Fathers - for sake of whose authority St Thomas Aquinas insisted on the possibility of harmonising by a rehearsal of the heptapartite initial not yet successive moment of Creation with subsequent heptapartite week in time of maturing with miraculous rapidity what had been created "in its seeds" or "in its causes" in the "one moment week". They similarily place St Augustine over the other Church Fathers, but only when it suits them. That is where they are not like Palmar de Troya, which refrains from going beyond St Augustine away from other Church Fathers on this one. Dom Gérard Calvet, who was founder and first abbot of Le Barroux, Sainte Madeleine Monastery (one kilometre or so above Le Barroux village and castle), clearly had read the fifth book of the twelve book work on Genesis. He finds the prologue of St John's Gospel make better sense that way. Any tree "was life" in God the Son from all eternity as knowledge about treeness is part of God's Wisdom and hence eternal life. Then - possibly - it was created in its treeness in the third recurrence of the one-moment day. A one moment in which God decided that trees should be among the infinite possibilities He knew that He also brought to actuality. Then individual trees were created up to present - very probably with the first ones created on the third lapse of 24 hours of actual time. Now, Dom Gérard Calvet did support this reading of St John's prologue. He was certainly a devout Catholic, a real friend of Our Lord Jesus Christ. He was also a friend of two people - Father Bryan Houghton, who described Evolutionism as rehashed Buddhism, but also Gustave Thibon, who thinks a certain evolution with its painfulness is an essential to the production of Christian saints, of hallowed souls. Now, I have not read much of Gustave Thibon, but I do fear he may have been a supporter of Thestic Evolution. Father Bryan Houghton clearly was not. The Pseudo-Jesuit Pierre Theilhard de Chardin (a favourite intellectual enemy of Father Bryan Houghton), as we all know, was a supporter thereof. Whether Dom Gérard was a Theistic Evolutionist or not, I leave, for the present to God's privy. If he was, "he was wrong on that one" - amicus Gerhardus, magis amica veritas. But I thought it worth mentioning the fact that people who have read St Augustine with even less attention than I used yesterday - including those who have read only selected quotes - may feel able to plead not guilty to the charge that evolutionism makes Our Lord Jesus Christ and St Paul look wrong or misinforming. They should not need to immediately take heat as heretics from people who may be orthodox on Genesis but wrong on even more important matters. However, I should not neglect to inform these evolutionists who think they are no heretics, who think they respect scrupulously the words of Christ through the Catholic interpretation of St Augsutine, that the same St Augustine might have a point about why the Church is on the brink of being submitted to persecution by certain powers. City of God. Got it? Now look up Book I. Got that one too?°° Now, there is a chapter called chapter IX. I am one of the guys that St Augustine calls weak. I still hope to have children. I do not like the prospect of my family getting persecuted - whenever I shall get it. But I do say what I think about Evolutionism. Or about Heliocentric false philosophies too. Some guys are what St Augustine calls strong. They are monks or bishops, like Dom Gérard or Monsignor Lefèbvre were in their mortal life. And some of them are still a bit queezy about correcting the evil mighty ones. Read through that chapter and see what such behaviour brings in terms of misfortunes that the good share with the bad when living together in a society. Hans-Georg Lundahl BpI, Georges Pompidou Sunday after St Lawrence and before Assumption of the BVM 11-VIII-2013

A little PS: This link is These links are too good to miss, while we talk about dates:

Creation Ministries International: How do you date a New Zealand volcano? by Robert Doolan http://creation.com/how-do-you-date-a-new-zealand-volcano

CMI : The way it really is: little-known facts about radiometric dating Long-age geologists will not accept a radiometric date unless it matches their pre-existing expectations. by Tas Walker http://creation.com/the-way-it-really-is-little-known-facts-about-radiometric-dating

Can Evolutionists be a Laughing Stock?

Series:

1) Creation vs. Evolution : Can Evolutionists be a Laughing Stock?
2) Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : ... on Age of Earth video's by Kent Hovind
3) Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : ... on Chaplains vs Councellors and on Creation vs Evolution (feat. Kent Hovind)
4) Φιλολoγικά/Philologica : Hovind's Dissertation Not as Bad as its Critics on Rational Wiki Think
5) Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : ... on Hovind - Ross Debate, for Four Videos
6) Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : ... on History being Kent Hovind's Weaker Subject
7) Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : ... on Kent Hovind's supposed failure in Carbon Dating Subject

I just saw a video which complained that creationists were too funny and killing poor atheists by provoking laughter.

Same video professed it was impossible to make evolution look funny.

Now, here I am watching Kent Hovind. He had moments of making evolutionist atheism look funny. Looking at such a video, I think an atheist would either snicker - or be angry.

Now Kent Hovind is serving prison. Maybe he was kind of funny. Check him out.

He can of course have been set up because he attacked the public school system. As do I. As do I.

We have both served in such.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
BpI Georges Pompidou
St Alphonsus Maria Liguori
2-VIII-2013

Turtle's and X-rays:

That poor turtle!” the netizen wrote. “It had to absorb all those X-rays!”

source

Now, absorbing X-rays is not very healthy, but turtles are thickskinned and absorb less than others.

Mussels - other long lived species - also have a shell and are furthermore protected by water. Trees are longlived and have bark.

As I said elsewhere, I do not believe the Hovind theory, since I believe the "water above the firmament" is a permanent part of creation and refers to all water molecules, maybe even all hydrogen molecules you can find all over space. Came down during flood, then back up, part of it.

But he is right that there were less X-rays or other cosmic radiation reaching earth before the Flood, that much I consider a safe guess.

My turn on that is that God asked the stars "time to turn on some more radiation, men have been living too long and getting too bad, as you could see. If times are shortened some of them even might be saved" and stars answered "OK, you are our creator and theirs, you know what you are doing". (Confer Canonic Book of aruch, chapter 3:34-35)

Now, I found his defense of the water canopy theory, and I will quote from it what I find relevant to mine, with my answers. And maybe later restudy it:

2 Peter 3 : Open letter to Brother Tom Ish- Editor of Creation Illustrated

"Genesis 1:1 in the Jewish Torah (OT) says, 'In the beginning God created the heaven...' Hmmm? Heaven is in the singular and has been for 3,400 years in Jewish literature as well as the thousands of copies scattered around the world."

Sorry, but ha-shamayim is in Hebrew plural. Whether you translate the word as heaven or as heavens in English - you did not cite the Hebrew - the Hebrew word is plural.

"The FIRST 'bible' I can find that uses 'heavens' plural in 1:1 is the 1553 Spanish 'Inquisition Approved Old Testament' -'En Principio crio el dio alos cielos y ala tierra.' Plural. Catholic Spanish Inquisition... Hmmm? Satan plans lo-o-o-o-ong term!"

Sorry again, but Spanish Inquisition at that time included lots of converted Jews who really knew Hebrew.

[Besides, if you accept the Sanhedrin approved Masoretic version, approved by the inheritors of the Sanhedrin that condemned Jesus or at least the Sanhedrin at Jamnia, that seems to have condemned Christians, it seems a bit fuinny to object to a "Sanhedrin" of a Christian type when it is on top of that clearly not withholding the Bible from the people. At least not from stable and pious ones.]

"KH- Ps. 148:4 says 'the waters THAT BE above the heavens.' Based on that verse I believe the entire universe we see is inside a water canopy right now. That would not negate the idea that there was also one over the first heaven as we will cover in part 3. The birds fly in the firmament (KJB). That means it is the air not the stretching. I do agree the heavens have been or are being stretched. The Bible says they are at least 11 times."

Ah, that was the psalm I was looking for!

That is why I believe the waters above the firmament are still or again at least in part there.

I wonder if the verses about having been stretched mean that God is making the Universe bigger - which could explain why year is now more than 364 days (confer Book of Henoch) - or that it is not hanging loose and limp as something "not stretched" would.

Now, if the waters are "above the heavens" they are therefore also above the firmament.

That is my main reason against the Hovind theory./HGL

Yeah, sth else I would not laugh at at all:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nP4dp-VxNvQ

AronRa gets something right I suppose ...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f5kckGxwJr4

Dawkins once said - in a book I cannot find, but I think it was The Greatest Show on Earth, because that I did read about half of, when once I was guest of its possessor, whom I left the day after, since he was more interested in hashish than in food, fine for him, but not quite my style - that the fossiles are not actually needed. They are a plus, but Evolution is (if I recall this correctly) sufficiently proven by phylogony. Or phylogeny. Or whatever.

Evolution does not need the Taung skull and Evolution does not need the Piltdown man. Evolutionists usually do not use the Piltdown man any more. It was either discovered or fabricated by one Jesuit Father Pierre Theilhard de Chardin, whose spirituality was closer to New Age than to St Ignatius of Loyola. Funnily enough, when they speak of it, they use it as evidence not that Evolutionists are fraudsters, but that clerics are. But, after all, whether he was himself the fraudster or his nonclerical and equally Evolutionists friend in that dig was the fraudster, that cleric was very clearly an Evolutionist. His spirituality is since then flooding the Catholic Church in France, so that you need one of the guys who celebrate Latin Mass or even who call the last Popes since 1958 or 1978 frauds in order to get a Catholic priest in France who does not want to positively foist evolution on a Catholic convert from Protestantism.* Because, to them, Kent Hovind and Jonathan Sarfati were the guys that Trent Council condemned, and insisting on Seven Sacraments or Sacrifice of the Mass, or Special Priesthood, or 73 books (as opposed to 66), are merely minor points compared with accepting evolution, as accepted by modern "Church Fathers" like Theilhard de Chardin or Abbé Pierre. Neither of whom has the credentials of a Church Father**, since neither of them is a canonised saint.

But, still, to mainline Evolutionists (as opposed to clerical ones), Theilhard de Chardin's Piltown Man fossile is a fraud and a clerical fraud. Never mind that it is an Evolutionist fraud as well.

Is that stopping either Evolutionist clerics or Evolutionist atheists? No.

So, not saying Ica stones are a fraud, not saying sandal footprints beside dinosaur footprints are a fraud, but simply admitting they could be each or both be frauds, that does not make Young Earth Creationism any less credible to me. Nor does it make Evolutionism any more credible.

AronRa and myself up to age 9 have pretty similar intellectual histories. 11 is the age he found Creationism and did not accept it. 12 is the age I read Edgar Andrews' From Nothing to Nature (in the Swedish translation "Ur Intet") and accepted it.

AronRa is actually - or was then - wrong about Native Americans not wearing sandals but only moccasins. First of all, if he goes down to Perú, native Americans do wear sandals. Moccasins are as far as I know a North American, possibly or probably pre-Columbian invention. Second of all, supposing this was pre-Flood, we need not suppose the clothing styles of later Native Americans were inherited from back then. Later Native Americans, on any Creationist recconing, have branched out from Mount Ararat, like the rest of present humanity. And third, he was right about something. A human footprint plus a dinosaur footprint need not be considered Adam's just because they were pre-Flood.

But that also cuts both ways. Like dating methods - something which Edgar Andrews discussed in more detail than the footprints, though they were in that edition of his book** (I don't know if they are in second edition or not) - they just might not be any more accurate than the "dating" of those footprints to back 6000 years ago and thus to Adam himself.

But thank you so much for vindicating St George by pointing out how much some depicted dragons look like varanas. It is funny to consider this compared to people who want to say St George and the Dragon legend developed from Apollo Sauroctonus or from Perseus or something.

Now, unfortunately you do follow these people in accepting Job as "the oldest" book of the Bible. Now, if Moses wrote Job, it is contemporary, roughly speaking, to the Pentateuch. There are however people who place the Pentateuch way later saying it developed from Zoroastric Monotheism.

Now, Genesis being one of the "books of Moses" (excluding Job) does not mean all its content is contemporary with the Exodus. Moses did use older documentation. You see, when it comes to Theogony, or Qur'an or Book of Mormon, you have some human author who only follows a supernatural inspiration. When it comes to Genesis, all there is of that is the work of the Six Days, up to creation of Adam. From then on, or let us add the creation of Eve, since Adam was asleep then, and maybe a few more passages, Genesis is recorded history.

Origin of the Species is not.

Speaking of History and record: Centaurs seem to have been recorded a few years before the War of Troy, and they were seen again in Egypt in the time of Sts Paul the First Hermit and Anthony the Great. You said yourself that evolution offers no explanation for them. So, what is your conclusion on that?

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Bibliothèque Mouffetard
St Joseph's day
19-III-2013

*This complaint is not as if I were against Latin Mass, but because FSSPX and Sedevacantists are minoritarian here.

**Speaking of faking evidence, I seem to have written "the credentials of a Church Fathers" which is ungrammatical and "in that edition of his books" which is wrong since there was only one I was speaking of. But my grammar is usually very good. How come? Slip of the "pen" (or keyboard)? Had one or two or three or four other such "slips of the pen" which usually do not happen to me, but corrected them before it became apparent. This one slipped my vigilance. I can think of some explanations: post-hypnotic suggestions, kabbalah (my bonnet was "lost" or stolen yesterday plus one Roumanian guy I met yesterday may have "reestablished" my communion with Iasy so as to make his bishop able to excommunicate me). Or, less spectacular: I may have had some medication administered to me without knowing it (some Communists prefer thinking of YECs as Mental Cases than as frauds, and there are Communists in Paris), or simply some admin fidgeting with my screen sicne he can watch it from his. Either case of all these, someone is trying to fake, before me, evidence that I am mad and need "medication" - the kind which makes slips of the keyboard more frequent since concentration less possible. Now, "in that edition of his books" is a fault in English which a Frenchman would commit more readily than anyone speaking a Germanic language or even Spanish. You see, I pronounce the plural s. Seems this fault was planted by someone less able than myself to figure out what faults I could commit when writing English after all.