Hugh Ross and Genetics, Featuring a Gruesome Habit (Don't Read This When You Eat!)

Neanderthal : Neanderthal Pre-or Post-Flood? · If Neanderthals were Carnivores, were they Post-Flood? · "what biblical, young earth creationists have always maintained" · Is there an Urban Legend that Grendel and His Mother were Dinosaurs Among Creationists? · Neanderthals - Related to Michael Oard's and Anne Habermehl's Work (post-Flood Boundary and Babel Builders) · Hugh Ross and Genetics, Featuring a Gruesome Habit (Don't Read This When You Eat!)

Hugh Ross seems to think that a lack of Neanderthal Y chromosomes and Neanderthal mitochondrial DNA proves that we are all unrelated to Neanderthals.

I am for instance "hearing" this speech, or rather seeing it subtitled:

What is a Neanderthal - Hugh Ross
Abrahamic Faith | 17.I.2017
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Z1RSofbLt4

Not so.

If a Neanderthal man has a daughter with a Homo Sapiens woman, that daughter will have NEITHER Neanderthal Y Chromosome, since females don't have that, NOR a Neanderthal mitochondrial DNA, since she inherits the mitochondria from her Sapiens mother.

I think a woman of that or similar description would be a neat option for one of the wives of Noah's three sons.*

Note, there are other parts of Neanderthal genome which are shared by some men today and not others. Also, Neanderthals have a clearly human version of the FOXP2 gene which apes have not. This shows, on the common Christian view that all men descend from Adam, that Neanderthals were men, Adamites. They had the fundamental capacity for speech and they have descendendants among men.

Noah and his wife could not have been either Neanderthals or even hybrid Neanderthal / Sapiens. Had they been that, all men now would have Neanderthal heritage more or less equally. Red hair and white skin was a thing among Neanderthals, but not the earliest known Sapiens. And I include carbon dated ones, where the relative chronology is fairly well proven.

On the other hand, Noah's daughters in law could have involved one more Neanderthal like than the others, either through the process just outlined, or because of the pre-Flood race known as Antecessor or the pre-Flood race known as Homo Heidelbergensis, both of which seem to count - among Evolutionists - as common ancestors to "Neanderthal and man".

Now, in the same video, Hugh Ross is about to claim, as can be seen from the pictures, taken from the "Them and Us" site, that Neanderthals were monsters, preying on us. (In fact, now, I have "heard" the video, he did not, he only took the pictures from that site.) This is in fact possible. Cannibalism could be one of the unwise traits of giants.

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

This means, Neanderthals could be simply Nephelim. If so, I don't think Noah's daughters in law would very readily include a very Nephelim tainted person.

If so, it is more probable that the Neanderthal like genes come from pre-Flood either Heidelbergians or Antecessors, the race from which then the Neanderthals, if Nephelim, came.

On the other hand, there is some indication Neanderthals as such were not necessarily Nephelim. While Neanderthals in Belgium were living off Woolly Rhino and human meat, Neanderthals in Spain were, as men were supposed to be up to Genesis 9, vegetarians. This is known from their tooth enamel.

This, or the possibility that the daughter of a Nephelim was, herself, not too tainted, could speak for those parts of DNA actually being from Neanderthals, as such, not just from potentially similar genes on Antecessor labelled race or Heidelberg labelled race.

Now, Hugh Ross claims there were always few Neanderthals. I am checking the reasoning of a secular source:

Now, Briggs and his colleagues have used a new method that targets the genetic material of interest, analyzing so-called mitochondrial DNA from the fossils of six Neanderthals, who lived between 38,000 and 70,000 years ago. That genetic material comes from females and so can be used to trace maternal lineages.

To get a sense of the genetic diversity, and ultimately population size, the team compared the Neanderthal sequences with one another. Then, the researchers looked at such genetic information from 50 living humans from around the world, asking, "how different are their genes from one another?"

(Diversity of genes can provide indirect evidence for the number of breeding individuals, because with more people mating more genes are thrown into the mix, and vice versa.)

The Neanderthals had about three times less genetic diversity than the modern humans. Briggs suggests the entire population could be roughly estimated by doubling the number of females, which they set at no higher than 3,500.

From : Neanderthals Were Few and Poised for Extinction
By Jeanna Bryner, Live Science Managing Editor | July 16, 2009 10:02am ET
https://www.livescience.com/5570-neanderthals-poised-extinction.html

Note, for one, this result by Briggs from 2009 is contradicted by Pääbo** from later on, who did more sequencing on Neanderthals.

But "3 times less genetic diversity than modern humans" would be readily explainable if they were simply one race.

Take 50 Europoid or 50 Black or 50 Yellow persons, and they will also have about 3 times less genetic diversity than the human race as a whole, as it is post-Flood.

Again, Briggs is projecting the diversity onto a timescale of "between 38,000 and 70,000 years ago". It seems, "32,000 years ago", as they say, Sapiens was not very racially diversified.

Back to "where one could possibly consider Nephelim to have been" ... I just said, if Neanderthals were Nephelim, then perhaps the Neanderthal shared genes come from Antecessor, instead. On the other hand, I also said, in Spain the Neanderthals were vegetarian, as pre-Flood men were supposed to be, while, I just checked, the Homo Antecessor in Spain, those at Atapuerca, were in fact cannibals.

En el artículo, titulado 'Modeling Trophic resource availability for de first human settlers of Europe: The case of Atapuerca TD-6' ('Modelo trófico de disponibilidad de recursos para los primeros pobladores humanos de Europa: El caso del nivel TD-6 en Atapuerca') concluyen que el entorno era muy rico en recursos, por lo que el canibalismo no se debía a periodos de hambruna.

From : El canibalismo del 'Homo Antecessor' no se debía a épocas de hambruna
Efe | Burgos | Actualizado miércoles 03/04/2013 20:03 horas
http://www.elmundo.es/elmundo/2013/04/03/castillayleon/1365012206.html

This would of course mean, "Antecessor" is even more suspect than Neanderthals of being Nephelim - or simply very fallen men.

On the other hand, this one could favour Hugh Ross' assessment:

El hombre de Atapuerca practicaba el mismo canibalismo que los chimpancés
Nuño Domínguez 04/09/2012
http://esmateria.com/2012/09/04/el-hombre-de-atapuerca-practicaba-el-mismo-canibalismo-que-los-chimpances/

Citing:

Intergroup cannibalism in the European Early Pleistocene: The range expansion and imbalance of power hypotheses
Palmira Saladié Rosa Huguet Antonio Rodríguez-Hidalgo Isabel Cáceres Montserrat Esteban-Nadal Juan Luis Arsuaga José María Bermúdez de Castro Eudald Carbonell
Journal of Human Evolution Volume 63, Issue 5, November 2012, Pages 682-695
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0047248412001406

Key words:

However, the age distribution of the cannibalized hominins in the TD6 assemblage is not consistent with that from other cases of exo-cannibalism by human/hominin groups. Instead, it is similar to the age profiles seen in cannibalism associated with intergroup aggression in chimpanzees. For this reason, we use an analogy with chimpanzees to propose that the TD6 hominins mounted low-risk attacks on members of other groups to defend access to resources within their own territories and to try and expand their territories at the expense of neighboring groups.

I am also reading here evidence on cannibalism having occurred also among Neanderthals in Spain. It seems then, I was arguing too much pre-Flood virtue from tooth enamel.

The thing is, on a quick skimming through, the cannibalism actually seems to go beyond what a parallel with chimpanzees can explain, even if similar in terms of victims. This means, it is very likely to relate to:

Genesis 6:[5] And God seeing that the wickedness of men was great on the earth, and that all the thought of their heart was bent upon evil at all times, (a verse after one having mentioned giants).

It seems that the Heidelbergians of Terra Amata were not tied to cannibalism. The one link showing Terra Amata and cannibalism together was a google book, the title being Prehistoric Art in Europe, by Nancy K. Sandars*** - and she talks of the concepts in two different paragraphs on page 35. She notes, even Homo habilis was right handed as a tool maker. Chimps are ambidextrous. Why? Well, the right hand is tied to the left brain hemisphere, which in man (but not chimps, obviously) is related to speech.

Note, Homo Antecessor is only known from Atapuerca, while Homo Heidelbergensis is known from several places, and some place Antecessor here.

Note also that morphologically, Heidelbergians like the Steinheim skull were at least as close if not closer to Neanderthals as to post-Flood Sapiens.

This means, they are about equally suspect of being Nephelim. Actually, since the Steinheim skull was found after the National Socialists took over, God could have shown a pre-Flood Nephelim to the emerging State horror, so as to hold up a kind of mirror.

Even if, however, neither a Neanderthal nor a Heidelbergian is in our direct ancestry, someone sharing traits with the former or with some of them is. That being so, Adam was more probably either Sapiens or very close to pure such, since there were only 10 generations spanning both Adam and Noah (in a time during which other lineages could have had time to diverge considerably more) and since Noah was pure from the Nephelim taint. So, if we are "Sapiens" race, so was Noah, if Noah was, so was, or was close enough, Adam. Only, some of us are closer to Neanderthals than others.

Sorry if I made this too rambling, I woke up early this morning.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
St. Scholastica°
10.II.2018

* I therefore differ from Sarfati who thinks Neanderthals - pure, not Sapiens mixed - were a post-Flood race. Or he thought so in 2006. ** My countryman, if you want to suspect bias, maybe there is. *** Yale University Press, 1968 and second edition 1985.

° Apud montem Cassinum sanctae Scholasticae Virginis, sororis sancti Benedicti Abbatis, qui ejus animam, instar columbae, migrantem e corpore in caelum ascendere vidit.

Creation Ministries International are peer reviewed ... a bit too much

Alas, this does not merely mean they have the same advantages as the Evolutionist peer reviewed media (National Geographic, Nature, science et vie ...) such as those advantages might be, but also some of its faults.

There is on that site a rhetoric about the real lesson of Galileo affair being that the Church should not be too bound up with the scientific consensus.

First of all, a scientific consensus is only bad if it is wrong. A scientific consensus about 2+2=4 is something mathematicians should cherish. A scientific consensus about man having 23 chromosome pairs with two chromosomes in each (I have also come across what seems to be a terminology with 23 chromosomes, two chromatides in each, but it is less usual), and sex being determined by the sex chromosomes, for female in case of XX, male in case of XY, such a consensus should be cherished by geneticists.

Second, this is not at all true. That is not what the Galileo process was ultimately about. Nor even how ecclesiastic procedrues started.

Third, in defense of this, they use what amounts to at least some degree of dishonesty - just as an evolutionist site would against a cretionist argument.

Here is the story:

I read this:

Do I have to believe in a historical Genesis to be saved?
by Shaun Doyle
http://creation.com/genesis-gospel

I agree, generally speaking. I want to add a remark and do add it:

About what I feel about Geocentrism - not believing it is inconsistency, it has led people away from the faith to approve too devoutly of Galileo (who had at least at times a Bible view in which God would not reveal scientific truth in the Bible) or of Isaac Newton (who was an occultist). But non-Geocentrics are often also Christians. Even Catholics.

As I am a Catholic, the last short sentence should not be expanded as "even Catholics are also Christians", but as "non-Geocentrics are often also even Catholic Christians".

Now, there is this thing about comments on that site, they have to be approved in advance. Mine was not. I get this mail:

Dear Hans-Georg Lundahl,
Thank you for your comment (see below) about the article on creation.com titled Do I have to believe in a historical Genesis to be saved?.

Please see Galileo, Geocentrism, and Joshua’s Long Day Questions and Answers.

Kind regards,
Shaun Doyle
Creation Ministries International

Your original comment: etc [which I copied above.]

I click the link given and chose this essay:

Geocentrism and Creation
by Danny Faulkner
http://creation.com/geocentrism-and-creation

Now, Danny Faulkner is in a way the man to write such an essay. He stood up against Hugh Ross about the Distant Starlight Problem. And he did not use Geocentrism as a solution. I do.*

If Earth is the immobile center of the Universe, the annual movement of proxima Centauri is a movement really in the star rather than apparently in the star and really in our base. But if so we have no triangle with one known side and two known angles. And therefore not any evidence for the first set of stellar distances, the one on which all the others are based. And we can therefore not have any evidence for such and such a star being 13.5 billion lightyears away either. Which means that my basic answer to Hugh Ross is less convoluted than Danny Faulkner's. That does not mean Danny Faulkner did not have any arguments I did not have. I cherish his argument about comets. But he neglects the most basic defense against the distant starlight problem.

I will add that I once did believe that starlight was created in transit. Even if a star was so far away that what light shone immediately from it on day four has not reached us yet but we are still seeing light that was created along the ray between it and us, that is no problem to me. But if a star explodes before our eyes, and it is so far away it must have exploded before it was created, that makes God a liar for creating the starlight in transit from a star which can never have existed. Note, the implication is not "after what we see, God is a liar if we see it and universe is young", but "after what we see, God is a liar if he created a spectacle of what never existed". So, there is a real problem with distant starlight - if it is all that distant.

And Geocentrism says stars need not be at all as distant as that. Because Geocentrism does not accept the phenomenon best observed in proxima Centauri as parallactic and this implies that there is no triangulation basis for saying it is about four light years away.

Danny Faulkner must have been aware of this solution, since he is an astronomer, and I am not. Still, he does not take it. So, in a sence, he is the man to write an essay like that. Now, to the essay he wrote, I will not cite and refute every sentence in detail, but concentrate on a few crucial matters.

However, the Church did support the wrong side of a scientific issue four centuries ago. That issue was the question of whether the Sun went around the Earth (geocentrism) or if the Earth went around the Sun (heliocentrism, which could be called geokineticism since the Sun is not regarded as the centre of the universe either, as discussed below). Being based upon real history, creationists in theory could be accused of repeating this mistake by rejecting evolution.

As he is a Protestant, and as the Galileo affair was a Catholic affair, I wonder what exactly he means by saying the Church supported the wrong side. As a Catholic, I identify the Church of Christ, as such, as visible ("a city on a mountain cannot be hidden") and as "pillar and foundation of truth", with the Roman Catholic Church - or, at broadest, adding the Orthodox Church as well. There may be souls outside that Communion, which rightly should be inside it. C. S. Lewis may have been such a soul. Danny Faulkner and Jonathan Sarfati may today be such souls - and in their case it is not too late to become Catholics. But since Danny Faulkner cited the Belgic Catechism, he is obviously a Protestant and as such he does not make that identification of where the Church is. And though both Luther and Calvin rejected Copernicus and Kepler, neither did so "ex cathedra" or even "ex officio judicis" (whichever dignity a Catholic might give to the decision against Galileo in 1633). Calvin "condemned" Kepler in one sense and condemned Servet in quite another sense. Kepler was perhaps condemned in a Catechism or Summa by Calvin and Copernicus only in the Tischreden of Luther. It was Catholicism - or at least its officials at the time - which condemned Giordano Bruno as Calvin condemned Servet, it was Catholicism which condemned two theses that Galileo had supported and which as to his person was content with him giving an abjuration of those two - but put him in a house arrest. So, I have some difficulty in seeing how Danny Faulkner can say "the Church" did support the wrong side. Unlike me, he is not habitually identifying the Catholic Church as historical entity, called Papist by its denigrators of the time, with the Church that is the bride of Christ.

But let us go to the important points. Biblical and Scientific.

I first note that Danny Faulkner did not adress the fact that Joshua when working a miracle - not a writer when explaining to people with little scientific instruction, but a man performing a miracle when adressing the entities involved in it - told precisely Sun and Moon rather than Earth to stop moving.

But let us adress what Danny does adress:

Bouw quotes part of Psalm 93:1 from the KJV, ‘… the world also is stablished, that it cannot be moved’. [...] This is fallacious. The Hebrew word for ‘moved’ (mowt) is in the niphal stem, which often refers to the passive voice, as indeed it does here. This is reflected in the English translations—to be moved or not to be moved suggests the action of an external or causative agent to bring about change in position, but does not exclude the possibility of motion apart from an external agent.

OK, Danny. I am no Hebraist, I trust you on what niphal means in Hebrew grammar.** The earth cannot be moved by any outside agency, but it can and does move itself ... so you mean the earth is a living creature with a will? I suppose you do not pray to Gaia (as I for my part do not pray to the angels holding the Sun and alpha Centauri, I unite myself in prayer with them whenever I attend Mass and hear the preface "una cum angelis atque archangelis ... cum cherubim quoque et seraphim ..." and intellectually think these angels belong to a choir above archangels but below cherubim), but do you think "she is complaining" about things? Would the evils be overpopulation or abortion in that case?

Or do you think the Earth is orbitting the Sun by a balance of two forces working out that way: inertial movement after previous motion on the one hand, gravitational pull from the Sun on the other?

Hold it ... gravitational pull would be an outside agency! Earth would be moved - passive, niphal.

In Newton's view (but not in Aristotle's) if the Earth was moving at same speed in same direction through space, it would be as firmly established and not moved (in the niphal meaning pure passive) as if staying in one single spot. But in Newton's physics the change of diraction and certain changes of speed would be accelerations and due to - outside agency.

In Galileo's view, earth could have a circular motion around the sun, a motion which never stopped because there was no friction ... but in Newton's physics, circular movements are never the mere continuation of a previous movement.

In Newtonian physics and astronomy, there would indeed by an outside agency moving the earth through gravitation, and that outside agency would be the mass of the Sun.

It is important to note that the same Hebrew word for ‘moved’ (môwt) in the same niphal stem is used in Psalm 16:8, ‘I shall not be moved’. Presumably even Bouw wouldn’t accuse God of poor communication if he didn’t believe that the Bible taught that the Psalmist was rooted to one spot! Rather, the passage teaches that he would not stray from the path that God had set for him.

What is said about earth not being moved is said literally in the one psalm. What is said about David in psalm 15 not being moved is said metaphorically in the other psalm. Introducing the word "path" in the interpretation of that other psalm is changing the metaphor. The metaphor chosen is precisely the metaphor of being rooted in one spot, only that spot is not a locality, but the truth of God. Exactly as in Matthew 16 Peter is made into "this rock" (which is of course not moved from the true doctrine of faith and morals).

In Psalm 15 and Matthew 16 there is no path at all in the metaphor chosen. Rock and not moved are synonymous. That is why I cannot believe a true successor of St Peter truly speaking ex cathedra could do anything except expose the true doctrine of faith and morals once given.

Next to history.

Bouw claims that heliocentrism has led to all sorts of moral degeneracy. The example he discusses is astrology. This is a bizarre assertion, given that astrology flourished for millennia before the heliocentric theory became popular, and seems to have decreased where heliocentrism has flourished. Ironically, the dominant geocentric theory of history, the Ptolemaic system, was devised primarily as a tool to calculate planetary positions in the past and future as an aid for astrological prognostications.

Bouw got it a bit backwards, true. It was when astrology was reflourishing that Copernicus and Kepler and Newton were seen as an improvement on Ptolemy for that precise purpose.

astrology [...] seems to have decreased where heliocentrism has flourished.

Not nearly as much as it had decreased in the West between St Augustine and the wave of Averroism in Sorbonne, against which St Thomas Aquinas and Bishop Tempier fought.

Kepler comes under great criticism by the geocentrists because of the great role that he played in the acceptance of the heliocentric model. Some of this criticism is quite strained. He is blasted for having dabbled in astrology, although it was common and, as shown, hardly confined to heliocentrists.

Kepler and Geocentrics were both categories of astronomers often enough astrologers. I do not think that Clavius the Jesuit and friend of St Robert Bellarmine was an astrologer, though. But the point is, it is heliocentrism rather than geocentrism which is rooted in astrology. Precisely as Catholics and Protestants have both persecuted, but Catholics start with 280 years of being persecuted, Protestants start persecuting pretty immediately at the Reformation. St Peter did not treat Jews loyal to Kaiaphas as Luther and Knox treated Catholics loyal to Papacy. St Peter did not reposition the Arc of the Covenant, as Luther and Zwingli repositioned altars and tabernacles. So, of Catholics and Calvinists, it is Calvinists that start with brutality, not Catholics. And likewise it is Heliocentrics that start with astrology, not Geocentrics. Kepler and Newton were occultists. Copernicus may have done no horoscopes himself, but he was popularised by people doing such.

I do not need Tycho Brahe to have lived a good life to accept his corrections of Ptolemy and his faithfulness to a stationary earth. St Robert Bellarmine lived a good life and he accepted Tycho Brahe's astronomy.

Another example of Bouw’s poor logic is the observation that ‘… the first heliocentrists were pagans who did not hold the Bible in high esteem’. While this statement is technically true, it plants a very false and misleading impression. Such a statement plants in the minds of many people that the near converse is true, that is, that the first geocentrists were not pagans and held the Bible in high esteem.

Aristarchus the Pythagorean was indeed a Pagan and may have held the even then extant books of the Old Testament in no esteem at all. He may have not even have known about them. But he was also a Pythagorean who held divination in very high esteem. Ptolemy was not the first Geocentric, Aristotle was so before him.

Now, let us get to Galileo.

While he did not invent the telescope, Galileo was apparently the first to put the telescope to use observing celestial objects. He found a number of things in the sky that ran counter to what the church, parroting ancient Greek ideas, said. Examples are the craters on the moon and spots on the Sun. Greek philosophers had reasoned that the moon and Sun, as celestial objects, had to be perfect. As such, they ought to have been free from blemishes such as craters and spots.

The Church as such did in fact not say these things. The proof is that Galileo was not condemned for even one of the things he saw in the telescope. The two sentences condemned in 1633 resume as non-movement and centrality of sun, movement and non-centraily of earth. The four moons of Jupiter are not among the condemned items. The craters on the Moon were not so either. The spots on the Sun were not so either. As to Galileo's claim the Milky Way was made up of small stars, Clavius confirmed that there were many stars not seen by the naked eye in it, but refused to decide whether this is so for all the matter of the Milky Way or whether there is also some kind of other matter involved - cloudy or dusty or whatever. This claim was not on the list of condemnations either. A list of two items is very short and it is pretty easy to verify that this other thing is not in it.

In fact, Danny Faulkner is parrotting prevalent ideas of how the Church was Aristotelian in those days. He did not get this conclusion from studying the texts of the historic period we are talking about. Except, possibly, those of Galileo himself.

One was the discovery of four satellites, or moons, that orbit Jupiter. Galileo used this to counter the objection to heliocentrism that the moon would be left behind if the Earth moved. It is obvious that Jupiter moves, and it is also obvious that its motion does not leave behind the satellites of Jupiter. Bouw is correct that this is an argument by analogy, but one cannot so easily dismiss this argument. The critics of heliocentrism must explain how the motions of Jupiter and its moons and the Earth and its moon are different.

God put us on Earth, not on Jupiter. It is on Earth and not on Jupiter that millions and billions of human eyes and inner ears testify at least prima facie for a stability of the big thing on which they are posed. It is on Earth and not on Jupiter that millions and billions of eyes testify to the movement (daily first of all, but at a closer look also periodical) of the big things in the sky we are not posed on. That is the main difference, epistemologically speaking.

I wonder if Danny Faulkner meant any hint of uniformitarian duty of physically explaining the difference. But if so, he is introducing a premiss which was possibly irrelevant at the time and which even now is more closely associated with Atheism than with Christianity - the assumption that the movements involved are automatic and mechanic, like things falling to the ground or like water falling and falling gallon after gallon over a waterfall, rather than voluntary like dancers holding lamps in their hands.

And stars having voluntary movers is supported by the Bible - unless one wants to say the texts are more closely supporting the actual personal life of the stars themselves. Ramandu and Coriakin, like in Voyage of the Dawn Treader or Oyerasu like in Out of the Silent Planet, but not functioning as overseers of life on planets, rather as movers (and therefore Earth has no Oyarsa, and Satan is not Oyarsa of Earth, unlike that Space Trilogy). There is a very clear text in Baruch 3, speaking about Wisdom, my added emphasis:

[31] There is none that is able to know her ways, nor that can search out her paths: [32] But he that knoweth all things, knoweth her, and hath found her out with his understanding: he that prepared the earth for evermore, and filled it with cattle and fourfooted beasts: [33] He that sendeth forth light, and it goeth: and hath called it, and it obeyeth him with trembling. [34] And the stars have given light in their watches, and rejoiced: [35] They were called, and they said: Here we are: and with cheerfulness they have shined forth to him that made them.

[36] This is our God, and there shall no other be accounted of in comparison of him. [37] He found out all the way of knowledge, and gave it to Jacob his servant, and to Israel his beloved. [38] Afterwards he was seen upon earth, and conversed with men.

The last verse is of course the reason we do not see Baruch in the Jewish canon of OT, as well as the reason why this chapter is read on Holy Saturday in the Catholic Liturgy.

But even in texts accepted by Jews and thus also by Protestants like Faulkner we find this idea:

[7] When the morning stars praised me together, and all the sons of God made a joyful melody?

That is from Job 38. If you wish for modern fantasy literature parallels, I think Ainulindale is as much a reflection on this verse as Akallebêth on a verse from Matthew 24.

Or this one:

[58] O ye angels of the Lord, bless the Lord: praise and exalt him above all for ever. [59] O ye heavens, bless the Lord: praise and exalt him above all for ever. [60] O all ye waters that are above the heavens, bless the Lord; praise and exalt him above all for ever.

[61] O all ye powers of the Lord, bless the Lord: praise and exalt him above all for ever. [62] O ye sun and moon, bless the Lord: praise and exalt him above all for ever. [63] O ye stars of heaven, bless the Lord: praise and exalt him above all for ever. [64] O every shower and dew, bless ye the Lord: praise and exalt him above all for ever. [65] O all ye spirits of God, bless the Lord: praise and exalt him above all for ever.

Daniel 3. Note that of all the list only Earth is not adressed in a vocative or a second person imperative:

[73] O ye lightnings and clouds, bless the Lord: praise and exalt him above all for ever. [74] O let the earth bless the Lord: let it praise and exalt him above all for ever. [75] O ye mountains and hills, bless the Lord: praise and exalt him above all for ever.

[76] O all ye things that spring up in the earth, bless the Lord: praise and exalt him above all for ever. [77] O ye fountains, bless the Lord: praise and exalt him above all for ever. [78] O ye seas and rivers, bless the Lord: praise and exalt him above all for ever.

Do lightnings happen as acts of spirits? God speaking in Job seems to think so too:

[38:35] Canst thou send lightnings, and will they go, and will they return and say to thee: Here we are?

So, no, there is no purely mechanistic view of heavenly movements that obliges Christians. Therefore Danny Faulkner is wrong to say "[t]he critics of heliocentrism must explain how the motions of Jupiter and its moons and the Earth and its moon are different" if thereby he means giving different purely non-voluntary mechanisms.

But to return to Daniel, earth is not seen as able to herself hear the words "bless and exalt him forever".

What was it again in Psalm 92 [1 b]?

For he hath established the world which shall not be moved.

Danny explains, I cite again:

Bouw quotes part of Psalm 93:1 from the KJV, ‘… the world also is stablished, that it cannot be moved’. [...] This is fallacious. The Hebrew word for ‘moved’ (mowt) is in the niphal stem, which often refers to the passive voice, as indeed it does here. This is reflected in the English translations—to be moved or not to be moved suggests the action of an external or causative agent to bring about change in position, but does not exclude the possibility of motion apart from an external agent.

But in Daniel 3 it seems earth as such cannot do things on its own:

[74] O let the earth bless the Lord: let it praise and exalt him above all for ever.

All other creatures enumerated are adressed as if capable of hearing the words of the three young men in the furnace - which is at least true of the guardian angels. Earth seems to have none. Hills do. Cattle do (think of the donkey of Balaam).

If Jupiter and its four moons (and those discovered after Galileo) have such, they can very clearly have Jupiter moving around Sun, its Moons moving about itself for purely æsthetic reasons - as part of the praise they are doing to their maker. That is the physical reason why Earth is different from Jupiter.

It cannot be moved from spot because it has no angelic mover.

Moon has one, Jupiter has one, each of its moons has one, earth no.

Let us contrast earth and heaven now, back to Psalm 92:

[2] Thy throne is prepared from of old: thou art from everlasting.

It is not said of God's throne that it cannot be moved. Heaven is prepared but not made unable to be moved from by outside agencies. And the mover of Heaven's daily motion is God. How I know Heaven is meant in this verse, and not Earth? Well, we have the passage "swear not be Heaven, it is the throne of God, nor by Earth, it is his footstool". And the God-man who said that was of course familiar with His human ancestor King David's psalm. Earth's immobility is in the psalm put into parallel with God's beauty, just as the throne's preparation is put into parallel with God's strength:

[1 a] The Lord hath reigned, he is clothed with beauty: the Lord is clothed with strength, and hath girded himself.

The throne of God - i e Heaven - is daily moving around us because God is strong. The daily movement of Heaven has for immediate physical causation the strength of God. God girds himself when moving Heaven, because in moving Heaven he serves our needs of day and night and our need for knowing him as the mover of day and night. Precisely as in human form he girded himself when about to serve the Apostles with a foot bath.

However, Bouw misses one of the most important points of Galileo on this. The geocentric model of Galileo’s day was that all celestial objects orbited the Earth. Here Galileo had found four celestial objects that did not directly orbit the Earth, but instead orbited something else. The geocentrists were not willing to give up an inch on this, because their already overly complicated Ptolemaic model had already endured a tremendous amount of tinkering. They feared that surrendering this would lead to the discovery of other objects that did not orbit the earth, which would further chip away the geocentric model.

Here Faulkner is again conflating Geocentrism with the Ptolemaic model. He is also conflating Ptolemaic model with the stance of Galileo's "enemies" - which include Christians like St Robert Bellarmine. And again, in 1633, his second trial, he was not harrassed about the moons of Jupiter.

If this discovery does not strengthen the Ptolemaic model it certainly strengthens the Tychonian one against it. Which was known and supported by St Robert Bellarmine in the first trial.

Bouw completely misconstrues Galileo’s third evidence for heliocentrism, the phases of Venus. The full set of Venereal phases can happen only if Venus passes both in front of and behind the Sun as seen from Earth (Figure 1, left). The Ptolemaic model placed Venus orbiting the Earth closer than the Sun, but always near to the Sun as constrained by observations, but that would preclude gibbous phases from being seen since that would require the Earth to be roughly between the Sun and Venus. On the other hand, moving Venus’ orbit beyond that of the Sun would allow gibbous phases, but would not permit crescent phases to be seen.

This is of course a clear evidence against Ptolemy, but it does not cut the issue between Heliocentrism and Tychonian astronomy.

The truth of the matter is that the Tychonian model was a far less significant contender than either the heliocentric or the Ptolemaic theories than modern geocentrists would have us believe.

It was important enough for St Robert Bellarmine to consider it.

But it is true that it was not known outside astronomical circles, mostly, and also that it was not satisfactory to their sense of "system", mostly.

It is even true that Copernicus and Ptolemy were for the most people concerned "the only serious contenders." If Tychonianism had been more important, socially speaking, Heliocentrism might not have won the day.

The reason is that the Tychonian model was a sort of halfway house for geocentrists. Geocentrists could hold on to a stationary Earth while discarding virtually everything else that was in the Ptolemaic model. Like so many other compromises, the Tychonian model failed to satisfy many on either side.

We might happen to think Ptolemaic model wrong but Geocentrism as such - the obverse of the condemnations of 1633 - right.

[Bouw] insists that heliocentrists of four centuries ago did not offer real proofs and further claims that they improperly attempted to shift the burden of proof to the status quo.

I agree they have offered no real proof - except such as is so only due to atheistic methodology. If astronomers can dismiss my explanations as "irrational appeals to magic" (as they have done) that is because they do science in a paradigm where God and angels are not considered as causes of physical phenomena on a regular basis.

The currently presumed proofs for earth's rotation can be explained as æther following Heaven's rotation. The proof by direct observation (from Moon) can as easily be explained as the Moon moving with observers around a non-moving and non-rotating earth.

The proof from annual aberration can be angels dancing with the stars. The proof from parallax (which also involves us with the Distant Starlight Problem) can also be angels dancing with the stars. Movements which are explained by exotic appeals to gravity distorting the light rays can be angels dancing with stars and planets. Movements or variations which are explained as star covered periodically by an exo-planet can be angels dancing with their stars or doing something with them.

That is, in the absence of a real challenge to the status quo, the status quo should prevail. Bouw claims that that status quo was geocentrism, so his favoured geocentric model, the Tychonian system, should prevail. This is preposterous. The Tychonian system was not the status quo then; the Ptolemaic model was.

I do not know exactly what Bouw meant by status quo. I do know what I mean by prima facie evidence. In absence of real challenge to it, it should prevail. Now, earth may seem flat prima facie viewed, but there is a real challenge to it. Earth also seems non-moving to two of our senses, prima facie. Since there is no real challenge to that, it should prevail. Semen prima facie seems to be a liquid and as such life giving. There is a real challenge to that from the microscope: what gives life is not the liquid per se, but small solid bodies swimming around in it, carrying about half the genome of the potential parent. And so on for any other scientific question as long as we deal with questions of fact rather than with questions about what paradigm to adopt.

And Geocentrism is a question of fact, not just a deduction or item of Ptolemaic system and separated from that also a deduction or item of Tychonian one. It is a question of fact which is prior to either system. Aristotle refuted Aristarchus before Ptolemy did.

[W]hile [Bouw] correctly notes that the failure to detect stellar parallax was an argument against the heliocentric model, he quickly concludes that this was circumstantial evidence for geocentrism (or as he prefers, the Tychonian model).

It was circumstantial evidence for Geocentrism and used as such in the first process of Galileo. And the first process was not vindicating the entire system of Ptolemy : it was not vindicating Ptolemy at all, except in so far as he was a Geocentric, and it was not attacking but actively using Tycho. Who indeed had argued that absence of parallax was evidence against Heliocentrism.

Galileo was answering that parallax would be detected with better telescopes if such could be had.

But let us note what parallax they were talking about. Least uncautiously (as I did myself for long) we conclude the "parallax" discovered in 1838 is evidence for Heliocentrism.

Of course the heliocentric model can explain the lack of trigonometric parallax if the stars are at incredible distances. This turned out to be the case, and there is compelling evidence that even the nearest stars are more than 200,000 times farther from us than the Sun is. If lack of parallax was evidence against heliocentrism and for geocentrism, then one would expect that when parallax was finally detected in the 1830s, trigonometric parallax would be taken as evidence against geocentrism and for heliocentrism.

I am not defending Bouw, I am defending St Robert's position.

If stars - not counting Sun and planets - are the rim of the visible Universe, then the parallax would be pretty uniform for each direction. In Autumn we are on the Pisces side of the Sun just as the Virgo is on the Sun side away from us. Pisces and all other stars in that direction would then have greater angular distances if we were the ones moving. In Spring, we are on the Virgo side of the Sun and Pisces on the Sun side away from us. Virgo and all stars in that direction would be observed with greater angular distances if we were the ones moving.

It would be either us moving around the Sun or the Fixed Stars moving around us with the Sun if that was what we observed. In Aristotle the latter would be excluded, since one does not speak of containing places moving around what they contain, but of things moving in the place that contains them.

Only this is not the parallax we get in 1838. What we get one which shows either - if we are supposed to move - that stars have very different distances from us, or, if we do not move, that if they move with the Sun, they are not doing so at same distance from it and at same time in same extent as it. And if we accept that angels can dance with their stars (those that have stars, that is), to honour their maker, just as that of the Sun stopped to honour Joshua and went back to honour Hezekias and went dark to honour the namesake of one and legal descendant of the other, then we can conclude, that stars are moved by their angels for æsthetic reasons, one of them being to dance in time with the Sun.

However, this is not Bouw’s conclusion. Instead, Bouw modifies the Tychonian model so that the Sun in its annual motion drags along the distant stars.

In Faulkner's text "this" means parallax being observed proving Heliocentrism. But of course Bouw's conclusion is not what I offered as commenty below that either. And in Bouw's model, which in this respect I do certainly not share, the "parallax" would be trigonometric exactly as on Heliocentric standard assumptions and so it would also land us with Distant Starlight Problem. Since the distance between star at two positions would equal distance of sun at two positions. But if 1838 what was discovered was not parallactic as far as observation goes but a proper movement of stars (moved by their angels, dancing in time with the sun), there is nothing trigonometric about parallax and it gives no basis for distant starlight problem either.

And therefore Geocentrism - though not exactly the model of Bouw as far as parallax is concerned - is a solution to the distant starlight problem. And a simpler one than the ones offered by Danny Faulkner in his debate against Hugh Ross.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Nanterre University Library
Octave of All Saints
8-XI-2013

*Video here:

GeneralHanSolo : Hugh Ross vs Danny Faulkner - How Old Is The Universe?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GaiAomEVpKY

My comments with debates (you remember when youtube allowed one to do real debates in comboxes?) here:

Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : ... on Angels and Men in Hugh Ross Context
http://assortedretorts.blogspot.com/2013/08/on-angels-and-men-in-hugh-ross-context.html

**Maybe I should not have:

The Niphal stem usually denotes the passive or the reflexive voice. However, some verbs, such as nacham (meaning “to repent” in the Niphal), may be better translated with the active voice.

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

In Swedish repent is actually reflexive - ångra sig. But true enough, verbs are not always same diathesis in different languages.

So, the passage would be meaning (if you analyse instead of translating fluently) "shall neither be moved by outside agency nor move itself" - literally in Psalm 92, metaphorically in Psalm 15.

The verb of moving when referring to "state of being in movement" rather than "action of putting sth else in state of being in movement" would in Latin be passive (moveri, the psalm has "non com-movebitur"), while French has the active form "bouger". In Swedish and German it is reflexive for being in movement: "röra sig", "sich bewegen".

Ice Cores with Lava Dust (a k a Tephra Layers)

Hugh Ross series:

1) Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : ... on Angels and Men in Hugh Ross Context , 2) Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : ... on Hugh Ross' take on Day Four, 3) Creation vs. Evolution : Ice Cores with Lava Dust (a k a Tephra Layers), 4 ... on Moses, Church Fathers, Oxygen and Hydrogen (featuring Kent Hovind and Hugh Ross, separate videos)

Hugh Ross mentioned ice cores with lava dust.

Supposedly ice cores in Northern Greenland cannot have as many layers as those in Southern Greenland.

As to that, climate has shifted in Southern Greenland, which was in early 1400's inhabited by Norsemen who were using agriculture and who were the Northernmost diocese in Communion with Rome back then. They did pay the Peter's Penny. Since then Southern Greenalnd is far less inhabitable - and possibly what Northern or possibly just what Midmost Greenland was like back then. And if so, Northern Greenland back then, including periods from which we do have ice cores (accessed or not) was like Midmost or even Southern Greenland is now. Which means the supposition that layers are different and annual up there is a bit suspect, to say the least.

Also, they can be dated by lava dust from volcanic eruptions - the ice layers between lava layer for Vesuvius 70 A.D. and Krakatoa 1883 A.D. match up with the 1813 years between these two events. And in total there are eight lava layers.

But here we might caution a bit that Vesuvius and Krakatoa are not the only ones in last two thousand years, we do not know if the two layers identified as from Krakatoa and Vesuvius are not in fact both more recent and closer, like Stromboli 1930 and Krakatoa.

We might wonder even further due to the fact that Krakatoa had another eruption earlier. French Wiki cites a page that no longer exists:

Sa géographie a été bouleversée au moins à deux reprises, au cours des deux grandes éruptions des années 416 ou 535³ et 1883⁴.

And note three gives a link with title:

(en) Ken Wohletz, Were the dark ages triggered by volcano - Related climate changes in the 6th century? (If so, was Krakatau volcano the culprit?) [archive], Los Alamos National Laboratory

Here is the cache: [archive], but the paper itself is gone:

Not Found

The requested URL /ees11/geophysics/geody/Wohletz/Krakatau.htm was not found on this server.

Why is it gone?

Thing is written sources about eruption give year so and so on that calendar "misaligned with AD 416" and the ice core dates give AD 535. Ken Wohletz overruled 416 in favour of 535, relying on tephra layers in ice cores ... if historic research overruled that guess? Well, that might be one reason why the paper is gone.

Now, Hugh Ross mentioned one other calibration of ice cores, namely carbon dating. And this also as used for calibrating that method by the ice cores.

Now, here I am a disbeliever, simply. Lava per itself does not contain organic material. I do not know if it contains trapped carbon dioxide from the air. That would be a possibility. I try a search and find this:

A 22,000 ¹⁴C year BP sediment and pollen record of climate change from Laguna Miscanti (23°S), northern Chile
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921818100000631

22,000 ¹⁴C year BP? Sounds like one Creationist estimate of "carbon dates" for the flood according to one article:

Radiocarbon in dino bones
International conference result censored
by Carl Wieland
http://creation.com/c14-dinos

But as to linking ¹⁴C with lava layers in the ice cores?

The Greenland Ice Core Chronology 2005, 15–42 ka. [quoting from pp. 6 f.]
http://www.iceandclimate.nbi.ku.dk/publications/papers/pdfs/240.pdf

Identified volcanic tephra layers in ice cores provide a very important link to other paleoclimatic archives and facilitate the validation of ice core chronologies. If tephra layers have been radiometrically dated by means other than ¹⁴C they can be used to validate the ice core chronology, whereas an additional ¹⁴C dating links the ice core chronology to the ¹⁴C calibration curve. In the time interval 10–42 ka b2k, three tephra layers with known source and independent age determination have been identified in Greenland ice cores. Two of those are the Saksunarvatn ash layer (early Preboreal) and the Vedde ash layer (Z1, late Younger Dryas), which both demonstrate an excellent agreement between IntCal04 (Reimer et al., 2004) and GICC05 around the last termination as discussed in Rasmussen et al. (2006c). The third tephra layer is the Fugloyarbanki tephra, recently identified in the NorthGRIP ice core at 1848m depth and about 1 ka after the onset of GI-3 (Davies et al., in preparation). The GICC05 age of the Fugloyarbanki tephra layer is 26 740+/-390 yr b2k. This tephra layer has been identified and dated in several marine cores from the North Atlantic with ages in the range 22.85–23.3 14Cka BP and an average of 23.1 ¹⁴Cka BP (Rasmussen et al., 2003). A reservoir age of 400 yr has been applied to these ages (T.L. Rasmussen, 2006, pers. comm.). This age goes slightly beyond the IntCal04 calibration curve but is covered by the calibration proposed by Fairbanks et al.(2005). In Fig. 6 it is seen that the Fugloyarbanki tephra data point falls more than 0.5 ka away from the ¹⁴C calibration curve, therefore suggesting that either 1) the GICC05 age is too young, 2) the ¹⁴C calibration is too old, or 3) the applied marine reservoir age correction is too small. A direct and absolute dating of this and other tephra layers from terrestrial sources is required to eliminate the latter possible source of error.

Two problem's with Hugh Ross' claim: the tephra layers here talked about are from eruptions before historical dating, and they are not confirmed by ¹⁴C, but confirming it, and being confirmed in their turn by radiometric datings of the kinds creationists usually consider useless. A far cry from identifying Vesuvius and Krakatoa and linking that with ¹⁴C dating to confirm it. Also the correlation between different dating methods is clearly not perfect.

The funders of this project are the Carlsberg foundation. Now, the Carlsberg breweries have taken over the Swedish Pripps breweries, and then closed down one factory, with 200 Swedish brewers out of work. I am not keen on having confidence in that particular brewery. They have a clear agenda of making much money and as clear an agenda of making culture speak in their favour. If you have visited the Glyptoteket you may see what I mean. And this second thing is not quite achievable if the researchers give conclusions differring too widely from the opinion of the very brainwashed evolutionist and old earth Nordic peoples (we have very oppressive school systems, though Denmark gives better freedom for homeschooling than Sweden). While we are at beer, if you are in Denmark, there is Faxe Fadøl and smaller breweries.

Hugh Ross also mentioned that lives have been lost while doing the research for ice cores. This is very possibly a sinful waste of human lives, or even a kind of Pagan human sacrifice. It is possibly a reason to admire the ones risking their lives, but not a reason not to distrust any of the research. I was proning the moontruthers' scepticism about moon landing 1969 a few years ago and got one reaction from an Indian lady who felt I was being unjust to the Indians who had been killed in the space shuttle. But what if that Indian was fooled into it by some superior not risking his life? And risking a fast brutal death is not quite like risking martyrdom either when it comes to determining honest belief.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
BpI, Georges Pompidou
Vigil of St Bartholomew
23-VIII-2013

PS, Hugh Ross on word "min" as in "kind" with reference to Leviticus 19:19 ... he is saying that "min" in Genesis cannot mean things like genus or families because in Leviticus it means things like species or subspecies ... it is not as if "min" could have only exactly one well defined meaning. If he is open to yôm having different meanings why not min? It is even applied to human beings, like "minim" as in Jewish heretics or schismatics, where it is clearly something other than in either Genesis or Leviticus. But he is a Calvinist (correct me if I'm wrong, but you cited the Belgic Catechism!) and may be taking the Bible as a law book ... and what if producing mules were not the exact thing prohibited in Leviticus 19:19 but rather totally infertile unions? I mean, Jews can read "boil not the calf in the milk of the cow that bare it" and concoct a system of two kitchens, two sets of plates and knives and forks and spoons, and a minimum of two hours between a dairy meal and a meat meal. Not making a separate refutation article on that one though.

Carnivores in Eden?

Series:

Did animals die before the Fall? If yes, can dinos be very, very old?
Animal Death could be Consequence of the Fall (Patristic support and scientific consideration)
Carnivores in Eden?

I am obviously speaking of the dogs and cats as belonging to the class carnivores, not as absolutely sure they were actually eating meat.

Church Fathers have differed on this one. St Augustine and Venerable Bede both held herbivores were actually getting fed to carnivores by sovereign decision of Adam.

As Benno Zuiddam very amicably pointed out to me, others before them disagreed. Defending either scenario - carnivores actually eating meat or not yet eating meat - is thus possible for a Christian.

Now, I will caution two things about this:

• if death occurred in beasts before Adam sinned, as per carnivores eating herbivores, it does not mean other beasts were dying as well or that there were any sick herbivores that needed mercy killing - and absolutely not that Darwinian evolution "guided by God" used deaths of less adapted forms to purify adapted ones, so that Adam would have come from less adapted hominids gradually evolving towards him by deaths of those less like him;
• if no death in beasts (at least what Hebrews would call nephesh creatures) occurred, this does not mean that the carnivores were automatically anatomically herbivores until drastic evolution changed them.

Let me elaborate on this point, and on another one also related to evolution as observed after the fall.

Hugh Ross is very right that God provides, and that this is stated in Psalm 103.

Therefore the direct driving force of selection is not chance death or struggle for survival, but the Providence of God.

The other point is this: an anatomical omnivore can be individually herbivore.

But a herbivore can loose its capacity to digest herbs. In a pure herbivore this leads to extinction, as celiacy would lead to starvation if man could digest nothing other than wheat. But in an omnivore this leads only to specialisation as a carnivore. And this would not be added information, it would merely be degenerative evolution.

Two nourishment related mechanisms may have been destroyed in man - perhaps at the fall or perhaps when God shortened human life span from 1000 to 120 years. We have an appendix, which may have been an appendix of a full caecum, as found in apes. But in us it is not. We have a sequence related to production of vitamin C within the body that is not functional - that lacks DNA "letters" to do that.

Now, dogs and cats could have lost caecum too, between fall and flood. Guineapigs have according to that appearance lost the vitamin C sequence functionality too (as have, I think apes).

One other point about evolution: for a mutation to spread, a small population is ideal, it does not have to get by many barriers before getting dominant or exclusive in them. After flood or even in breeds leading up to the arc this may explain quick evolution. In human varities enumerated by Linnaeus, europaeus, asiaticus, africanus, americanus, monstruosus, I only attribute monstruosus (extreme giants or dwarfs and possibly centaurs and fauns) to direct nephelim traits, while the four normal "races" would all have resulted in part by quick evolution in small groups. Actually it may be that American Natives are a mixture of West Europeans and Mongolian type Asiatics.

Whether it comes to skin colour in men or to exclusive carnivorousness in beasts, this is not at variance with Hugh Ross' mathematical model for evolution (which works well enough for bacteria, as he said) since the result to be explained is not advantageous mutations breaking through among ten thousand disadvantageous ones, but only the sometimes clearly degenerative mutations to actually break through - even by deteriorating a species.

Now, if Adam had not sinned, why would there have been carnivores around even though not eating meat in actual fact?

Well, as Christians know Satan hates us. He did creep into a snake to seduce, but he could theoretically have crept into something like a T Rex (unless these are genetically manipulated organisms, created by sinful tampering with genetics) or a bear and attacked Adam with direct physical violence. I think the snake was chosen because carnivores were part of a bodyguard for Adam. Let us say a big lizard, carnivorous like others, had attacked Adam under the influence of Satan. Let us say a Brontosaurus had killed it (thus expelling Satan from his tool as well) - there would have been a pile of unsavoury carcass around, and carnivores would already have been able to deal with it by scavenging on it. If a T Rex had killed a Brnto before getting killed there would be two carcasses. And even now, dog teeth are not just useful for chewing their meat food, but also for holding on to the limbs of malefactors, as guards know.

But without such an eventuality (and presumably there was none, since Satan chose the snaky approach, which he might not have done if there had been no carnivores around Adam), maybe they were symbiotic with ruminants. A sheep eats grass, it digests in one stomach, it pukes it up to chew again before digesting in the next stomach (which might be an argument why centaurs are less believable than fauns and dogheaded men even after Nephelim taint came into humanity) ... I am not sure lambs need feed on that, but if they do that would have been an occasion for a lion literally to lie down beside that lamb and get fed too, although an adult lion.

And after the fall, they still had the physical equipment to feed that way, if this theory goes anywhere, but after Adam's sin, peace was gone between lion and lamb, and the carnivorous capacity was used for simple feeding purposes - and the other feeding capacity may have been lost through degenerative evolution.

Bears are still able to eat berries and honey.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
BpI, Georges Pompidou
Vigil of St Bartholomew
23-VIII-2013

I wonder if the three sixes in the number of this post are a kind of warning? If so, I am forwarding the fact.

It might be because I used material about "homo americanus" from a video showing only stone age people in both Europe and America (but Ojibwa Indians have genetic markers in common with Western Europe, that was not mere speculation on part of those). Or it might be the prayers of some followers of Eugene Rose who in religion was Fr Seraphim Rose and who strongly disagreed with St Augustine and St Bede. Or again Orthodox opponents to him - I was neohimerite for some time. Or ...

Or I might have been culpable or badly influenced in not voicing my suspicion that T Rex might be a genetically modified ostrich rather than lizard. Some "dinosaurs" are of lizard type in hips and some are of bird type in hips. T Rex belongs to the bird type of hips dinosaurs.

Or culpable or badly influenced in not mentioning that Psalm 103 supports Geocentrism. Was probably so used in Galileo process.