Longevity Charts as per LXX

Longevity Charts as per LXX · LXX without II Cainan

Note first:

I take the chronology of LXX from:

CMI : Some remarks preliminary to a biblical chronology
by Pete Williams
http://creation.com/some-remarks-preliminary-to-a-biblical-chronology

This includes the problem, according to his choice of LXX version, that Methuselah "dies after Flood".

Probably this is a faulty reading, but this is the one I access now. And probably it may be not identical to the reading before St Jerome, when he calculated the chronology we read at Christmas vigil in the Catholic Church.

However, it may serve as to indicate who knew whom. First is a chart for pre-Flood overlapping lifespans:

	A.	S.	E.	C.	M.	J.	E.	M.	L.	N.	SHJ
Adam 0 - 930	=	+	+	+	+	-	-	-	-	-	-
Seth 230 - 1142	+	=	+	+	+	+	+	-	-	-	-
Enosh 435 - 1340	+	+	=	+	+	+	+	+	-	-	-
Cainan 625 - 1535	+	+	+	=	+	+	+	+	+	-	-
Mahalaleel 795 - 1690	+	+	+	+	=	+	+	+	+	+	-
Jared 960 - 1922	-	+	+	+	+	=	+	+	+	+	-
Enoch 1122 - 1487	-	+	+	+	+	+	=	+	+	-	-
Methuselah 1287 - 2256	-	-	+	+	+	+	+	=	+	+	+
Lamech 1454 - 2207	-	-	-	+	+	+	+	+	=	+	+
Noah 1642 - 2592 (after Flood)	-	-	-	-	+	+	-	+	+	=	+
S,H,J 2142 - after Flood	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	+	+	+	=

Adam had opportunity to teach Seth, Enosh, Kenan (the first Cainan being really Kenan), and Mahalaleel about the sixth day of Creation in its details (Genesis 2), about Flood, and about the story of Cain and Abel. During these centuries he had ample opportunity to correct any misunderstandings that might have arisen. He also had ample opportunity to perfect his method of formulating the events in a short and easy to memorise way, supposing, for argument's sake, they did not yet write before the Flood.

Griots of Africa and Serbian Guslars have certainly memorised with perfect accuracy songs far longer than the relevant chapters of Genesis. Therefore, even if writing were a post-Flood invention, we can be sure that the transmission even orally has kept original content intact.

Here will be a chart for post-Flood co-longevity, up to Abraham:

	N.	Sh.	A.	C.	Sh.	E.	P.	R.	S.	N.	T.	A.
Noah 600 B.F. - 350 A.F.	=	+	+	(+)	+	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Shem 100 B.F. - 500 A.F.	+	=	+	(+)	+	+	-	-	-	-	-	-
Arphaxad 0 - 565	+	+	=	(+)	+	+	+	-	-	-	-	-
Cainan 135 - 595	+	+	+	(=)	+	+	+	-	-	-	-	-
Shelah 265 - 725	+	+	+	(+)	=	+	+	+	-	-	-	-
Eber 395 - 899	-	+	+	(+)	+	=	+	+	+	-	-	-
Peleg 529 - 868	-	-	+	(+)	+	+	=	+	+	-	-	-
Reu 659 - 998	-	-	-	-	+	+	+	=	+	+	-	-
Serug 791 - 1121	-	-	-	-	-	+	+	+	=	+	+	+
Nahor 921 - 1129	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	+	+	=	+	+
Terah 1000 - 1205	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	+	+	=	+
Abraham 1070 – 1245	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	+	+	+	=

Obviously, this is NOT the text St Jerome had, since in his text less than 1070 years pass between Flood and birth of Abraham.

This would rather be a text like those behind Byzantine chronologies where Christ is not born 5199 but 5500 after Creation. While speaking of this, I am not sure if St Jerome used LXX all way through or if he looked at his own translation or if he looked at Josephus, but mainly he used LXX.

Post-Flood Cainan (Cain-am, this time, not Kenan) has overlapping lifespans in parentheses, since he is not a trustworthy link of tradition, he was omitted from at least what is now Masoretic text, precisely because he was unjust, he coveted pre-Flood magic lore (I think the source for this is ultimately Book of Jasher, which I have not read myself, and immediately one of those researching in it).

The point remains, sufficient lifespans even just in the direct line (and here omitting uncles and granduncles and such) were there to guarantee a very thorough apprenticeship in Hebrew lore (or what became such) to ensure an even humanly speaking near certainty of good transmission.

Note that 1070 is 128 years more than the Chronology of Roman Martyrology for time between Flood and Birth of Abraham.

Here I have underlined the "time of Peleg", or "days of Peleg" in which it is presumed that Tower of Babel had the ending of its building in a confusion of tongues. It is obviously not there in Roman Martyrology, partly because Bible (in all versions) lacks a precise year, partly because even if there had been such, the Tower of Babel and Confusion of Tongues is hardly a very good epoch to start counting down to the Birth of Christ from. We are, you see, talking of the Roman Martyrology for December 25th, the first feast of which is of course Christmas, celebrating the Birth of Christ in Bethlehem.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Mouffetard Library
(since earlier renamed)
St Charles Borromeo
4-XI-2015

CMI Provided some Lifespans of the Past

1) Φιλολoγικά/Philologica : "in a time when most people died at an average age of 35" ; 2) What others have to say about Life Expectancy through history - and my take on that ; 3) Longevity in Selected Ancestry and Inlaws of Eleanor of Montfort ; 4) Tudor Times Demographical Stats ; 5) How Many Hours are we Talking About, and How Heavy? ; 6) New blog on the kid : When "Answers" Paint Middle Ages Black ; 7) Creation vs. Evolution : CMI Provided some Lifespans of the Past ; 8)Other list from CMI of lifespans ; 9) Φιλολoγικά/Philologica : Medieval and Early Modern Lifespans, Again: Berkeleys and Related ; 10) Story of a Cardinal's Title with Pre-Industrial Demographics

Scientists of the past believed in a Creator
http://creation.com/creation-scientists#pastsci

Omitting introductory texts on Medieval, and presentatory text on each.

• John Philoponus (c. 490 – c. 570) 1
• Bede, ‘The Venerable’ (672/673 – 26 May 735) 2
• Robert Grosseteste (1175–1253) 3
• Johannes de Sacrobosco (c. 1195 – c. 1256) 4
• Albertus Magnus (c. 1200–1280) 5
• Roger Bacon (c. 1214 – 1292) 6
• John Peckham (c. 1230 – 1292, Archbishop of Canterbury) 7
• Thomas Bradwardine (c. 1290 – 26 August 1349) 8
• Jean (John) Buridan (c. 1300 – after 1358) 9
• John of Dumbleton (ca.1310 – ca. 1349) 10
• William of Heytesbury (c. 1313–1372/1373) 11
• Richard Swineshead (fl. c. 1340–1354) not counted since only a floruit
• Nicole Oresme (c. 1320 – 1382, bishop) 12
• Nicholas of Cusa (1401–1464, Cardinal) 13

39 58 59 60 61 62 62 62 63 78 78 80 80

Age minimal : 39, maximal : 80.
Median : 62
Lower quartile : 60
Higher quartile : 78

Two of the items died in 1349, a plague year, of which the one on age minimal.

Omitting presentatory texts on each of Renaissance and Age of Newton scientists.

• Francis Bacon (1561–1626) 1
• Galileo Galilei (1564–1642) 2
• Johann Kepler (1571–1630) 3
• Athanasius Kircher (1601–1680) 4
• John Wilkins (1614–1672) 5
• Walter Charleton (1619–1707) 6
• Blaise Pascal (1623–1662) 7
• Sir William Petty (1623 –1687) 8
• Robert Boyle (1627–1691) 9
• John Ray (1627–1705) 10
• Isaac Barrow (1630–1677) 11
• Nicolas Steno (1631–1686) 12
• Thomas Burnet (1635–1715) 13
• Increase Mather (1639–1723) 14
• Nehemiah Grew (1641–1712) 15

39 47 54 58 59 64 64 65 71 78 79 80 80 84 88

Age minimal : 39, maximal : 88
Median : 65
Lower quartile : 58/59
Higher quartile : 79/80

• Isaac Newton (1642–1727) 1
• Gottfried Wilhelm Leibnitz (1646–1716) 2
• John Flamsteed (1646–1719) 3
• William Derham (1657–1735) 4
• Cotton Mather (1662–1727) 5
• John Harris (1666–1719) 6
• John Woodward (1665–1728) 7
• William Whiston (1667–1752) 8
• John Hutchinson (1674–1737) 9
• Jonathan Edwards (1703–1758) 10
• Carolus Linnaeus (1707–1778) 11
• Jean Deluc (1727–1817) 12
• Richard Kirwan (1733–1812) 13
• William Herschel (1738–1822) 14
• James Parkinson (1755–1824) 15
• John Dalton (1766–1844) 16
• John Kidd, M.D. (1775–1851) 17

53 55 63 63 65 69 70 71 73 76 78 78 79 84 85 85 90

Age minimal : 53, age maximal : 90
Median : 73
Lower quartile : 65
Higher quartile : 84

Omitting Just before Darwin, as this starts out to be within Industrial Revolution era, though some of previous also come to contemorary with these. And omitting the following ones.

So, minimal ages go 39, 39, 53. Rise 14 years. Maximal ages go 80, 88, 90. Rise 10 years. Median ages go 62, 65, 73. Rise 11 years. Lower quartiles go 60, 58/59, 65. A dip of 1/2 years before a rise of 6/7 years, a total rise of 5 years. Higher quartiles go 78, 79/80, 84. A rise of 6 years.

I think pre-industrial and medieval conditions were, materially speaking, though inferior to those of "age of Newton" at least not so bad. Which once again has been demonstrated by these stats.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
St Bridget of Sweden, Widow
8-X-2015

CMI and Reformers, *sigh*

1) Creation vs. Evolution : CMI and Reformers, *sigh* , 2) Great Bishop of Geneva! : 2 Timothy 3:16, 3) HGL's F.B. writings : With Matt Singleton on LXX/"Apocrypha" and on liquor in moderation, 4) Great Bishop of Geneva! : In defense of Jay Dyer's Objections from Back Then

CMI : Refuting Compromise
by Dr Jonathan Sarfati
http://creation.com/refuting-compromise-refutation-of-hugh-ross-introductory-chapter-and-reviews

Avoid those who cause divisions?

Romans 16:17 says, ‘Now I beseech you, brethren, mark those who cause divisions and offenses … and avoid them,’ and some have used this against YECs. But they fail to cite the clause in this passage which defines what Paul meant by causing divisions (διχοστασία dichostasia) and offenses (σκάνδαλον skandalon)—it is bringing teachings ‘contrary to the doctrine which you have learned.’ As we show, it is those who compromise on a straightforward reading of Genesis that are bringing doctrines contrary to those the Apostles taught, and that the church has understood through most of its 2,000-year history. It’s interesting, too, that the Reformers, like Martin Luther, who reasserted the authority of scripture and salvation by grace through faith alone, were also accused of being ‘divisive.’

I agree that changers of doctrine are those who really cause division. Let us break this down a bit.

But they fail to cite the clause in this passage which defines what Paul meant by causing divisions (διχοστασία dichostasia) and offenses (σκάνδαλον skandalon)—it is bringing teachings ‘contrary to the doctrine which you have learned.’ As we show, it is those who compromise on a straightforward reading of Genesis that are bringing doctrines contrary to those the Apostles taught, and that the church has understood through most of its 2,000-year history.

Exactly so.

It’s interesting, too, that the Reformers, like Martin Luther, who reasserted the authority of scripture and salvation by grace through faith alone, were also accused of being ‘divisive.’

And very rightly so.

The authority of Scripture was NOT being disputed or even diluted by the Catholic Church.

Genesis as written, chapters 1, 2, 3, was certainly being popularised by the Catholic Church, Rijmbijbel in Flemish and mystery plays in English, diocese of York, made sure no one was ignorant of either these or of the Flood.

So, as to "authority of Scripture" Luther had nothing to reassert, since nothing had been lost.

As for "salvation by grace", that is also a RC doctrine. Our works do not merit Heaven until they are made in the state of grace. And this goes per se even for almsworks.

But "through faith alone," yes, here Luther was actually asserting sth which Catholics were NOT asserting.

And the word "alone" was by him added to Romans 3:28.

Here is a correct text and a Catholic comment:

For we account a man to be justified by faith, without the works of the law.

By faith: The faith, to which the apostle here attributes man's justification, is not a presumptuous assurance of our being justified; but a firm and lively belief of all that God has revealed or promised. Heb. 11. A faith working through charity in Jesus Christ. Gal. 5. 6. In short, a faith which takes in hope, love, repentance, and the use of the sacraments. And the works which he here excludes, are only the works of the law: that is, such as are done by the law of nature, or that of Moses, antecedent to the faith of Christ: but by no means, such as follow faith, and proceed from it.

Sochorek : Martin Luther: Sendbrief vom Dolmetschen
http://www.sochorek.cz/archiv/werke/luther.htm

And here are the words of Martin Luther:

Erstlich warum ich »An die Römer« im dritten Kapitel (28) die Worte Sankt Pauli: »Arbitramur hominem iustificari ex fide absque operibus« also verdeutscht habe: »Wir halten, daß der Mensch gerecht werde ohn des Gesetzes Werke, allein durch den Glauben« – und daneben anzeigt, wie die Papisten sich über die Maßen ereifern, weil im Text Pauli nicht stehet das Wort »sola« (allein) und man dürfe solchen Zusatz bei Gottes Worten von mir nicht dulden usw.

Note that he cuts short the Latin quote at "absque operibus". Here is the Vulgate:

Arbitramur enim justificari hominem per fidem sine operibus legis.

Absque/sine are synonyms, practically, esp. in Medieval Latin. But "absque operibus" and "sine operibus legis" ...

Here we see how Luther was allergic to any suggestion that the works that St Paul was excluding were very specifically "works of the law". He was not excluding works of grace, like obedience or conversion. Very unlike what Luther taught. He wanted to exclude ALL works from being salvific. As Bossuet very rightly argued, if Luther admitted one could be sure one was believing by saying "I believe", how could he have missed that one could equally be sure one was repenting by saying "I repent"? Yet Luther was telling people they should not bother to make sure their repentance was real.

This if the theological flaw of Protestant creationists. They admire Luther. Note that Evangelical movement is pretty different. Praying this is nearly making sure one is truly repentant:

"Our Father in Heaven
I recognize that I am a sinner... and am worthy of the fires of Hell. Father, I believe that Jesus is Your Son, that He died for all of our sins, and that You brought Him back to life again. I pray, Father... send Jesus into my heart--right now. Send Jesus to cleanse me of my sins and to make me right in Thine eyes.

...this I pray, in Jesus' precious name... Amen."

The words "to cleanse me" and the words "to make me right" clearly imply that one wishes to change in order to henceforth please God.

One can argue that one is here not expressing the pain of contrition, or the preference to die over committing just one mortal sin. I am not saying (I leave that to others as for general advice and to God as to how He judges each person) that this is sufficient. I am saying that this is a good deal more than Luther required. Especially as the follow up text is "If you sincerely prayed that prayer, ..." whereas Luther had said basically "don't bother to check if you were sincere". Namely when it came to repentance.

As for Luther's Sendbrief, he also admitted without qualms that he had changed the wording of Luke 1:28.

His attitude is basically "I know what the Bible meant, and I translate accordingly". I. e. not according to the actual words.

But this blog is not against the Reformers, I have another one for that, and this message only is here, because I found what I object to on CMI. Here is the other blog:

Great Bishop of Geneva!
http://greatbishopofgeneva.blogspot.com

And, obviously, it is Catholic Apologetics against Protestantism, as were some of the shorter writings of the Bishop of Geneva, St Francis of Sales, himself.

The problem to note here, by saying things like that, on a creationist site, some of the more hotheaded Catholics may start to imagine creationism itself is Protestant. Not so. St. Francis of Sales was quite as much a creationist as the Beza he tried to convert and the Calvin who had usurped his predecessor's authority in Geneva.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre University Library
St Placidus and Companions
martyred by a Pirate at Messina*
5-X-2015

* Messanae, in Sicilia, natalis sanctorum Martyrum Placidi Monachi, e beati Benedicti Abbatis discipulis, et ejus fratrum Eutychii et Victorini, ac sororis eorum Flaviae Virginis, itemque Donati, Firmati Diaconi, Fausti et aliorum triginta Monachorum, qui omnes a Manucha pirata, pro Christi fide, necati sunt.

The French Have Not Heard about the Solution for C14 Dates

I mean, the very common Creationist solution.

So, here is, in French, an essay for them:

New blog on the kid : Datation de Carbone 14, comment ça carre avec la Chronologie Biblique
http://nov9blogg9.blogspot.com/2015/10/datation-de-carbone-14-comment-ca-carre.html

Note, in France this question is so unknown, that both very commonplace observations which I would not dream of making a whole blog post of in English do deserve such in French, also, for same reason, I put them on my main blog./HGL

Sandwalk blogger does not get what "observed" means?

Hint, it does not mean "deduced". It does not even mean "deduced beyond reasonable doubt". It does not even mean "deduced with mathematical certainty amounting to that of 2+2=4".

Other hint: observed means seen, heard, smelled, tasted, felt-by-touch.

Now, let us go to the relevant quote. A creationist has, as usual, claimed that "macroevolution has not been observed". Here is his quote from creationist and his answer:

Kirk Durston

The definition of macroevolution is surprisingly non-precise for a scientific discipline. Macroevolution can be defined as evolution above the species level, or evolution on a "grand scale," or microevolution + 3.8 billion years. It has never been observed, but a theoretical example is the evolution from a chordate eel-like creature to a human being. Many people who embrace Darwinian evolution confidently state that evolution is a proven fact. They say this on the basis of thousands of papers discussing microevolution. Herein lies the second mistake ... the assumption that because variation/microevolution is such an overwhelmingly proven fact that, therefore, macroevolution must be as well.

Larry Moran/Sandwalk

I have my own explanation of Macroevolution but Durston's description is good enough for now.

A good example of macroevolution is the evolution of modern humans and chimpanzees from a common ancestor that lived about five million years ago. This example has been well established by multiple lines of evidence including fossils, comparative morphology, and molecular data. It is a fact. It is as much of a fact as most things in science.

We do not assume that chimps and human share a common ancestor just because microevolution is a fact. We have evidence. It is foolish to deny the overwhelming scientific evidence that humans and chimpanzees evolved from a common ancestor.

I think, after all, he does know what "observed" means.

Because he totally avoids the issue about macroevolution not having been observed. Kirk gave him sth else to answer and he answered that instead.

Kirk did also say of macroevolution "overwhelmingly proven", which Larry does answer. But here the "overwhelmingly proven" is not same kind of "overwhelmingly", and his answer about man and chimp evolving from a common ancestor being "overwhelmingly proven" (in a much less strict sense) is an allegation which does not get into what these "overwhelming proofs" are.

Microevolution has been observed over connected generations of observers. Cauliflower and brussel sprouts have a common ancestor. Breeders and plant growers have been preserving new varieties as they come up and even directed the criteria from which they come up.

Even in cases where not all of the process is available as observations, any more, certain deductions make more sense than others. Collies descending from wolves or from some common ancestor with wolves does make more sense than man and chimp descending from same ancestor - due to problem of when the soul with its rational faculties came in, as well as human feet shape. But wolves and collies having had a common ancestor in Eden or on the Ark is a deduction, not an observation. So is chimps and man descending from ramapithecus (8 mill. years ago? 20 mill. years ago? - unreliable K-Ar dating either way).

Now, supposing for a little moment Larry Moran were right. It would at least kill the "genetical clock" since chimps are so much closer to ramapithecus than men are. For this to work, mutations would have needed to go faster on human side than on chimp side, and that means "genetic clock" is useless, there is no set pace of genetic change.

But either way, first of all man and chimp descending from ramapithecus is not observed, and second, for its being overwhelmingly proven, we only have Larry's word and none of the overwhelming proof.

I don't call that "debating" - at least not "debating well".

And before he gets to answer "every stage of the development was observed by ramapitheci, by chimps, by human ancestors and by early men", that would of course be true if the deduction were a valid one, but these observations are none of them, if they even happened, observations of the process as a whole and also each step was on this view pretty soon lost from tradition. It is not as if we had the gardeners' version of the brussel sprout coming from the green cawl brassica.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
Vigil of the Birthday
of the Blessed Virgin Mary
7-IX-2015

Stone Age Noah?

I was just following a redirect from CMI to :

ABC : A grandmother confronts creationist beliefs in her family
Sunday 22 July 2012 9:45AM / Transcript
http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/ockhamsrazor/a-grandmother-confronts-creationist-beliefs-in-her-family/4138478#transcript

And here is some rub I think this granny got wrong:

How many humans were on board, any children or slaves? ‘There were eight as the bible states’. How did Noah fit everything? Were there cages, could birds fly about? Did creatures fight or try to eat one another? ‘Everything fitted somehow. The ark was very big’. How big? I did the maths myself. It was huge, up to 1.2 hectares of floor space in three decks and it was roofed. I asked how Stone Age Noah could build it. No iron, no bronze, no horses, no wheels. They didn’t know but thought he could manage.

Stone Age Noah?

According to lots of articles on CMI, as well as Kent Hovind, Stone Age was post-Flood. It started with technological loss, perhaps not in the minds, but in the available possibilities. "After the Flood, they found themselves in a Gilligan's Island situation" (KH).

No iron, no bronze?

Wait a second:

Genesis 4: [18] And Henoch begot Irad, and Irad begot Maviael, and Maviael begot Mathusael, and Mathusael begot Lamech: [19] Who took two wives: the name of the one was Ada, and the name of the other Sella. [20] And Ada brought forth Jabel: who was the father of such as dwell in tents, and of herdsmen. [21] And his brother' s name was Jubal; he was the father of them that play upon the harp and the organs. [22] Sella also brought forth Tubalcain, who was a hammerer and artificer in every work of brass and iron. And the sister of Tubalcain was Noema.

Now, there are fewer generations in the Cain genealogy up to Tubalcain than in the Seth genealogy next chapter up to Noah and the Flood. This means Tubalcain - a hammerer and artificer in every work of brass and iron - was already around by the time Noah started the Ark.

No horses?

I don't know if horses were tamed or not before the Flood, but I do know that there were horses (or possibly "horse-donkeys", not mules but common ancestors) on the Ark. And if after the Flood it took some time taming horses again - or simply the horsetamers were lost out of sight for the centuries archaeologists identify as stone age millennia - that would be why stone age people had no horses tame along them, even if they had been tamed pre-Flood.

No wheels?

Probably did have those. When Americas were settled, wheels were known in the Old World, and it seems figurines with wheels served as toys have been found in Americas (pre-Columbian sites) too.

Her next question is about the feasibility study that Woodmmorappe has made already, I am not doubling it here.

Merely saying the Oceans are a lot deeper now than during the Flood.

Back to history.

The last question took the form of a history lesson mentioning Magellan, Wallace and Mendel’s garden peas. If Darwin had not published about evolution someone else would have. Knowledge had reached that stage. Now more is known about so much: fossils, DNA, radiometric dating, astronomy, genetics. We live in the best time ever for access to information. I asked if they are willing to consider results of research. Four said ‘yes’ – perhaps they will.

Magellan, Wallace, Mendel's peas ... Magellan had proven the Earth was round. This is not an obstacle to Young Earth Creationism. Magellan was a Geocentric and a Young Earth Creationist.

Wallace? As misled by evolutionist and old age ideas (both were already around, he nad Darwin just shifted the mechanism), as Darwin himself was.

Mendel's peas? Well, they prove there are chromosomes. Genes are not just an infinitely variable number of genes, one more or one less, no big deal. They come in packages known as chromsomes, and these are a small finite number which does not easily vary, and especially does not easily vary upwards. See my:

[Creation vs. Evolution/this blog :] Letter to Nature on Karyotype Evolution in Mammals
http://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2011/11/letter-to-nature-on-karyotype-evolution.html

Fossils came from mainly the Flood.

DNA changes do not develop new chromosomes and do also not develop new organs. They sometimes delete organs. The blind fish that live in caves without daylight probably developed from seeing fish - it does not work the other way round. Though perhaps reconstituting seeing fish from diverse strains of blind which had lost different gene functionalities might be an option.

Radiometric dating - the most used methods are K-Ar (Potassium-Argon), which was proven worthless (Mount St Helens), and C14 the useful calibration of which depends on how long C14 has had the same concentration in atmosphere.

Astronomy? Heliocentrism with stars or objects 13.5 billion light years distant and Distant Star Light Problem do pose a problem for Young Earth - unless you are Geocentric, which is an option.

Triviū, Quadriviū, 7 cætera : Distant Starlight Problem - Answered by Geocentrism
http://triv7quadriv.blogspot.com/2012/11/distant-starlight-problem-answered-by.html

Welcome to the Geocentric Wikia
http://geocentric.wikia.com/wiki/Geocentric_Wikia

By the way, a Round Earth, while not an obstacle to YEC, is certainly one problem for a limited Flood. Not for limited floods occurring, but for such a one to cover the highest mountains. Also, a limited Flood is not a solution for food supply if they were one year on the Ark.

Genetics - well, yes, what about it? Perhaps things like "genetic clock"? I already answered Mendel and DNA, what is left of the subject? Genetic closk is the idea that "genetic change has been observed to have a constant rate" and therefore the real and undisputed cases of common ancestry would take too long. No, not quite so. The genetic clock depends in part on how far back in time the geneticists place the common ancestor.

One thing is certain, when a granny has a bee in her bonnet, she can be ornery. Especially if getting endorsement against her Christian family members from things like ABC or doctors or whatever.

Back to building of the Ark (process feasability, not feasability of product as Ark).

Genesis 5 : [31] And all the days of Lamech came to seven hundred and seventy-seven years, and he died. And Noe, when he was five hundred years old, begot Sem, Cham, and Japheth.

Genesis 6 : [8] But Noe found grace before the Lord. [9] These are the generations of Noe: Noe was a just and perfect man in his generations, he walked with God. [10] And he begot three sons, Sem, Cham, and Japheth. [11] And the earth was corrupted before God, and was filled with iniquity. [12] And when God had seen that the earth was corrupted (for all flesh had corrupted its way upon the earth,) [13] He said to Noe: The end of all flesh is come before me, the earth is filled with iniquity through them, and I will destroy them with the earth. [14] Make thee an ark ...

Genesis 7 : [1] And the Lord said to him: Go in thou and all thy house into the ark: for thee I have seen just before me in this generation. ... [5] And Noe did all things which the Lord had commanded him. [6] And he was six hundred years old, when the waters of the flood overflowed the earth.

Noah was five hundred years old when begetting Sem, Cham and Japheth. Noah was ordered to build the Ark after begetting Sem, Cham and Japheth. And Noah was six hundred years old when the Ark was ready to be stepped in to. He had about a hundred years to build it. Sem, Cham and Japheth grew up as Ark builders. Even without tame horses, even without wheels, there would have been plenty of time to get it ready. However, cranes, pullies and ramps, I think Noah did use, even if Stone Age Men after his days didn't.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
Vigil of the Birthday
of the Blessed Virgin Mary
7-IX-2015

Charity Appeal : Bonaventura on God and Creation

BONAVENTURE CHALLENGE
https://franciscan-archive.org/bonaventure-challenge.html

The Franciscan Archive has undertaken the Apostolate of publishing in English translation the great Franciscan summa of theology, known as St. Bonaventure’s Commentaries on the Four Books of Master Peter Lombard. Written from 1250-1252 A. D., at the University of Paris, this outstanding work of theology has been hailed by numerous Popes, Saints and theologians, for the brilliance of its insight and fidelity to the Catholic Faith.

Four books of Peter Lombard or four books of Sentences. Book one on God as Holy Trinity.

(D e M y s t e r i o T r i n i t a t i s)

Book two, more specifically on Creation. It's Latin title is :

D e r e r u m c r e a t i o n e
e t f o r m a t i o n e c o r p o r a l i u m
e t s p i r i t u a l i u m e t a l i i s
p l u r i b u s e i s p e r t i n e n t i b u s

(On the creation and formation of bodily and spiritual things and of much more pertaining to them.)

Then there are also:

Book 3 D e I n c a r n a t i o n e V e r b i (On the Incarnation of the Word)
Book 4 D e D o c t r i n a S i g n o r u m ("On the doctrine of Signs" - including presumably both on Bible and on Sacraments).

Now, for the moment it is book two they are publishing in English:

The First Tome contained the Seraphic Doctor’s treatise on the Most Holy Trinity.

To publish the Second Volume, which will expound St. Bonaventure’s theology on Creation, Save Old St. Mary’s Inc. is issuing this challenge to the lovers of Saints Francis and Bonaventure throughout the world, to raise the estimated $40,000.00 USD necessary.

In other words, Peter Lombard wrote a work in four books. St Bonaventura wrote comments on each part of each book. What I was quoting the titles from is a Latin website with just the work of Peter Lombard. What the Franciscans are translating includes the comments of St Bonaventura too.

You can of course buy the first volume already as well as sending them a donation for translating volume two.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
St Bartholomew Apostle
24-VIII-2015

PS, if you know Latin, here is at least Lombardus:

B I B L I O T H E C A A U G U S T A N A :
Petrus Lombardus :
S e n t e n t i a r u m l i b r i I V
http://www.hs-augsburg.de/~harsch/Chronologia/Lspost12/PetrusLombardus/pet_s000.html

PPS, in this link some parts have only headings and link to no chapter texts. I see Distinctio I and Distinctio VII in book two have, but those between and some after (have not gone far) lack such./HGL