"They even have little papers they sign that say they must fit everything into the Bible."

I suppose Shane Wilson was referring, when it came to CMI, to their Statement of Faith. She referred to it in a polemical way, but that doesn't mean such a thing does not exist.

Not sure if I already commented on theirs, here it is cited and commented again:

STATEMENT OF FAITH [omitting a link] (A) PRIORITIES The scientific aspects of creation are important, but are secondary in importance to the proclamation of the Gospel of Jesus Christ as Sovereign, Creator, Redeemer and Judge. The doctrines of Creator and Creation cannot ultimately be divorced from the Gospel of Jesus Christ. (B) BASICS The 66 books of the Bible are the written Word of God. The Bible is divinely inspired and inerrant throughout. Its assertions are factually true in all the original autographs. It is the supreme authority, not only in all matters of faith and conduct, but in everything it teaches. Its authority is not limited to spiritual, religious or redemptive themes but includes its assertions in such fields as history and science. The final guide to the interpretation of Scripture is Scripture itself. The account of origins presented in Genesis is a simple but factual presentation of actual events and therefore provides a reliable framework for scientific research into the question of the origin and history of life, mankind, the Earth and the universe. The various original life forms (kinds), including mankind, were made by direct creative acts of God. The living descendants of any of the original kinds (apart from man) may represent more than one species today, reflecting the genetic potential within the original kind. Only limited biological changes (including mutational deterioration) have occurred naturally within each kind since Creation. The great Flood of Genesis was an actual historic event, worldwide (global) in its extent and effect. The special creation of Adam (the first man) and Eve (the first woman), and their subsequent fall into sin, is the basis for the necessity of salvation for mankind. Death (both physical and spiritual) and bloodshed entered into this world subsequent to, and as a direct consequence of, man’s sin. (C) THEOLOGY The Godhead is triune: one God, three Persons—God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. All mankind are sinners, inherently from Adam and individually (by choice) and are therefore subject to God’s wrath and condemnation. Freedom from the penalty and power of sin is available to man only through the sacrificial death and shed blood of Jesus Christ, and His complete and bodily Resurrection from the dead. The Holy Spirit enables the sinner to repent and believe in Jesus Christ. The Holy Spirit lives and works in each believer to produce the fruits of righteousness. Salvation is a gift received by faith alone in Christ alone and expressed in the individual’s repentance, recognition of the death of Christ as full payment for sin, and acceptance of the risen Christ as Saviour, Lord and God. All things necessary for our salvation are set down in Scripture. Jesus Christ was conceived by the Holy Spirit and born of the virgin Mary. Jesus Christ rose bodily from the dead, ascended to Heaven, is currently seated at the right hand of God the Father, and shall return in like manner to this Earth as Judge of the living and the dead. Satan is the personal spiritual adversary of both God and man. Those who do not believe in Christ are subject to everlasting conscious punishment, but believers enjoy eternal life with God. (D) GENERAL The following are held by members of the Boards (Directors) of Creation Ministries International to be either consistent with Scripture or implied by Scripture: Scripture teaches a recent origin for man and the whole creation. The days in Genesis do not correspond to geologic ages, but are six [6] consecutive twenty-four [24] hour days of Creation. The Noachian Flood was a significant geological event and much (but not all) fossiliferous sediment originated at that time. The ‘gap’ theory has no basis in Scripture. Nor has the day-age idea (so-called ‘progressive creation’), or the Framework Hypothesis or theistic evolution. The view, commonly used to evade the implications or the authority of Biblical teaching, that knowledge and/or truth may be divided into ‘secular’ and ‘religious’, is rejected. Facts are always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information. By definition, therefore, no interpretation of facts in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record.

And here are my comments on it, not any signature.

(A)

PRIORITIES

1

The scientific aspects of creation are important, but are secondary in importance to the proclamation of the Gospel of Jesus Christ as Sovereign, Creator, Redeemer and Judge.

2

The doctrines of Creator and Creation cannot ultimately be divorced from the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

HGL comments

Both are reasonable priorities per se. This does not mean they need to be reasonably applied to everyone. Someone can have the talent for being a creationist writer but for instance not the integrity or strength or spirit of sacrifice necessary to be really proclaiming the Gospel of Christ as a bishop, priest or deacon ordained by the Church which Christ founded.

G. K. Chesterton wrote some fine pieces of creationism - or at least one, where he identified the problem of irreducible complexity, in its most basic form.

But if you had asked him to abstain from wine as relatively more than his usual as priests do (except when he was dieting) or to abstain absolutely from sex and marriage, well, he would have said "no way!"

I do not believe it is quite correct to describe as a ministry in the full sense any activity by a layman which is not endorsed by his ecclesiastical superiors, except perhaps charismatic one man ministries, like prophets.

I know CMI don't claim to be a charismatic one, neither do I. Therefore I do NOT claim to be exercising a ministry.

You compare me with how Chesterton was equipped for being a writer, not with how St Paul told St Timothy a bishop needed to be equipped for being a bishop.

(B)

BASICS

HGL comments

Some of these are basically wrong on some level.

1

The 66 books of the Bible are the written Word of God. The Bible is divinely inspired and inerrant throughout. Its assertions are factually true in all the original autographs. It is the supreme authority, not only in all matters of faith and conduct, but in everything it teaches. Its authority is not limited to spiritual, religious or redemptive themes but includes its assertions in such fields as history and science.

HGL comments

The 66 books of the Bible are the written Word of God. Make that 73 (72, or 73 if you count Baruch separately). Catholic Church, not Jewish Synagogue is final authority on what books are in the Bible.

It is the supreme authority, add here : under God and with Tradition, in all etc.

2

The final guide to the interpretation of Scripture is Scripture itself.

HGL comments

Then it uses that guiding role in pointing to another intepreter. CHURCH.

2 Thessalonians 2:14, 1 Timothy 3:15, Luke 10:16, Matthew 28:16-20

One having traditions not written out explicitly in the Bible, and a clergy and a perpetuity since the time of the apostles.

3

The account of origins presented in Genesis is a simple but factual presentation of actual events and therefore provides a reliable framework for scientific research into the question of the origin and history of life, mankind, the Earth and the universe.

HGL comments

No problem with this one. Unless you add "only", which CMI didn't do, typological reference to Christ, Eucharist, Church, Blessed Virgin Mary are not excluded.

Or unless you understand "simple" as "always most straightforward possible, never showing any sophistication allowing Easter eggs". I think Tower of Bable narrative shows admirable reticence about what I suspect was a proto-version of Cape Canaveral (confer Göbekli Tepe which actually look a little like launching ramps).

4

The various original life forms (kinds), including mankind, were made by direct creative acts of God. The living descendants of any of the original kinds (apart from man) may represent more than one species today, reflecting the genetic potential within the original kind. Only limited biological changes (including mutational deterioration) have occurred naturally within each kind since Creation.

HGL comments

No problem with this one.

Wonder if fauns and centaurs are splice hybrids between men and beasts, since they seem to have existed (Ephron may have been a faun, St Anthony the Great saw one of both).

But if this is true, this change is not natural, it came at a price, and if God has shown mercy on some of the results, that doesn't mean hybridisation is right.

But that is not a problem with this one, since it states "have occurred naturally".

5

The great Flood of Genesis was an actual historic event, worldwide (global) in its extent and effect.

HGL comments

Yes.

Recently a Jewish legend of Holy Land having been miraculously excepted from Flood was probably debunked by the finding of an Elasmosaurus fossil there.

6

The special creation of Adam (the first man) and Eve (the first woman), and their subsequent fall into sin, is the basis for the necessity of salvation for mankind.

HGL comments

Background, not so much "basis". They are forgetting a bit about the Protogospel in Genesis 3:14-15 as very much basis.

7

Death (both physical and spiritual) and bloodshed entered into this world subsequent to, and as a direct consequence of, man’s sin.

HGL comments

Yes. At the very least human death, but according to some Fathers and more probably also death of beasts.

(C)

THEOLOGY

HGL comments

Some is right, some is wrong. Some is incomplete.

1

The Godhead is triune: one God, three Persons—God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit.

HGL comments

Yes.

2

All mankind are sinners, inherently from Adam and individually (by choice) and are therefore subject to God’s wrath and condemnation.

HGL comments

Being a sinner and sinning in small things, being a sinner and being subject to the law of sin in the limbs in some, are two different things.

Sinners in the full sense - we are all born that, though the Blessed Virgin Mary and Christ were not even conceived that way and some more saints were delivered from that state before birth ARE subject to God's wrath and condemnation.

We are not all sinners in that sense.

A newly baptised child is no longer a sinner. A sinner who repents and makes a good confession is no longer a sinner after absolution.

We all sin in small things (except Christ and the Blessed Virgin), but venial sin does not constitute a state of sin, does not make one a sinner.

However, all except Adam and Eve before the Fall and especially except Christ and the Blessed Virgin begin as sinners and all who are saved were at some time drawn out of that horrible state. Except the Blessed Virgin who was instead preserved (also through the merits of Calvary) and including Adam and Eve (also through the merits of Calvary).



From Blog de Karla Rouillon krouillong : APRENDAMOS A CONFESARNOS
blog.pucp.edu.pe/blog/krouillong/2016/09/13/aprendamos-a-confesarnos/

If I don't endorse those priests in particular, but rather some like Pope Michael, that doesn't change that the advise given here is the same as he would give.

3

Freedom from the penalty and power of sin is available to man only through the sacrificial death and shed blood of Jesus Christ, and His complete and bodily Resurrection from the dead.

HGL comments

Which in turn are made available to us through the sacraments.

4

The Holy Spirit enables the sinner to repent and believe in Jesus Christ.

HGL comments

Yes.

5

The Holy Spirit lives and works in each believer to produce the fruits of righteousness.

HGL comments

In each believer who is in the state of grace and not in the state of original or mortal sin. The produced fruits also have to be willed finally by the man, "do not grieve the Holy Spirit".

6

Salvation is a gift received by faith alone in Christ alone and expressed in the individual’s repentance, recognition of the death of Christ as full payment for sin, and acceptance of the risen Christ as Saviour, Lord and God.

HGL comments

By faith, by the sacraments of faith - as to received. It is also needing an upkeep, which implies good works.

7

All things necessary for our salvation are set down in Scripture.

HGL comments

In Scripture and in traditions not written down, if given at Revelation (Christ's life, death, resurrection, appearing to Saints Paul and John, etc).

Some rather vital things, like certain sacraments, are more hinted than clearly written out in full detail in Holy Writte.

8

Jesus Christ was conceived by the Holy Spirit and born of the virgin Mary.

HGL comments

Yes.

9

Jesus Christ rose bodily from the dead, ascended to Heaven, is currently seated at the right hand of God the Father, and shall return in like manner to this Earth as Judge of the living and the dead.

HGL comments

Yes. Moreover, "is currently" and "shall" imply He has a body, same as when rising from the dead. He has not become a bodiless spirit being, nor is He living in a "pure spirit world", but in a material space where risen bodies from His believers have joined Him (as to the Blessed Virgin, possibly Saint John) or will join Him (at the general Resurrection).

In the time of Innocent III, it seems the first Protestants, namely Waldensians denied this, so when Innocent determined what they had to sign or pronounce if and when returning to the Church, was a creed with certain explicitations.

I will rise again in the same flesh which now I carry.

10

Satan is the personal spiritual adversary of both God and man.

HGL comments

Yes.

11

Those who do not believe in Christ are subject to everlasting conscious punishment, but believers enjoy eternal life with God.

HGL comments

Not all believers, only doers of the word. As to unbelievers, those who culpably reject Christ are most certainly bound for Hell.

(D)

GENERAL

The following are held by members of the Boards (Directors) of Creation Ministries International to be either consistent with Scripture or implied by Scripture:

HGL comments

I'm not part of that board or those boards, but we'll see if there is disagreemnt or not.

1

Scripture teaches a recent origin for man and the whole creation.

HGL comments

For man and at least all material creation.

Saint Jerome imagined angels might have been created eons before the rest of Creation, I will not go into that, but not call him heretical either. He's a Church Father.

2

The days in Genesis do not correspond to geologic ages, but are six [6] consecutive twenty-four [24] hour days of Creation.

HGL comments

Rather obviously, yes. Unless one should say days one and six were some shorter.

Since Earth is round, we presume the days and nights are those of Jerusalem time zone (where Christ was to die later).

For day one, light may have been created later than in the morning, like angle of light at 9am or midday. If light even had an angle before the Sun was created. But anyway, the day could have been starting sooner.

Day six would normally have gone one from morning which ended day five, to the evening and then on to Saturday morning. It is probable that instead day six was replaced by God's rest already Friday evening.

So, days 1 - 6 would not have been 6*24 h, but 6*24 - (3+12) or sth like that hours.

3

The Noachian Flood was a significant geological event and much (but not all) fossiliferous sediment originated at that time.

HGL comments

If gap theory is excluded in all forms, yes.

4

The ‘gap’ theory has no basis in Scripture. Nor has the day-age idea (so-called ‘progressive creation’), or the Framework Hypothesis or theistic evolution.

HGL comments

Tolkien's Silmarillion is obviously not for real, but it reveals his struggle with conjugating a real belief in every stated word of Genesis (as he saw it) with the long age he thought necessary.

In that sense, apart from being a kind of novel, it is also embodying a theological hypothesis. Either something like gap or sth like day age (with Ungoliant biting the two trees as end of the "day 3" when trees were created, with Varda making (under God, obviously) moon and sun of its fruits as beginning of "day four", perhaps?) One I think is wrong, but one which is less absurd than considering Cro Magnon men 20 000 years ago as pre-human, not yet rational. He even goes to the length of dividing angelic beings between both sexes to give some reconciliation between supposed knowledge of pre human millennia and Mark 10:6.

Most other versions are probably heretical, that is contradict very directly some part of Scripture. His is at least not free from error. So good he didn't mean it as doctrine. It served as basis for some meditations on those matters and therefore helped at least me to Geocentrism and Creationism.

5

The view, commonly used to evade the implications or the authority of Biblical teaching, that knowledge and/or truth may be divided into ‘secular’ and ‘religious’, is rejected.

HGL comments

There is God revealed and therefore totally certain and manmade and therefore at least in further ramifications fallible knowledge, however one cannot speak of non-overlapping fields of information.

6

Facts are always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information. By definition, therefore, no interpretation of facts in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record.

HGL comments

It is the validity of God's word, not the weakness of man's which makes it true that no interpretation of facts in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record.

So, I suppose I could not be a CMI worker. But they do sometimes take freelance articles too, like from a South African Presbyterian on Patristics and death of subhuman animals./HGL

Oil Drillers See Several Sea Layers

I should have answered this one earlier.

Claim CD101:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD101.html

The geological column is a fiction, existing on paper only. The entire geological column does not exist anywhere on the earth.

Source

Huse, Scott, 1983. The Collapse of Evolution. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, p. 15.

Response:

• 1. The existence of the entire column at one spot is irrelevant. All of the parts of the geological column exist in many places, and there is more than enough overlap that the full column can be reconstructed from those parts.
  
  Breaks in the geological column at any spot are entirely consistent with an old earth history. The column is deposited only in sedimentary environments, where conditions favor the accumulation of sediments. Climatic and geological changes over time would be expected to change areas back and forth between sedimentary and erosional environments.
  
  
• 2. There are several places around the world where strata from all geological eras do exist at a single spot -- for example, the Bonaparte Basin of Australia (Trendall et al. 1990, 382, 396) and the Williston Basin of North Dakota (Morton 2001).

Links:

Matson, Dave E., 1994. How good are those young-earth arguments?
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/howgood-gc.html#G3

Morton, Glenn, 2001. The geologic column and its implications to the Flood.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/geocolumn/
or
http://home.entouch.net/dmd/geo.htm

References:

• 1. Morton, Glenn, 2001. (see above)
• 2. Trendall, A. F. et al., (ed.), 1990. Geology and Mineral Resources of Western Australia, Memoir 3. Geological Survey of Western Australia. State Printing Division, Perth.

Index to Creationist Claims, edited by Mark Isaak, Copyright © 2005

created 2001-3-31, modified 2004-9-8

Now, how should I respond to this? Bonaparte Basin, which in some debate I sloppily renamed Napoleon Basin ... (I am as much a pastry pontiff as ever Mark Shea, here is a Napoleon pastry, which may have led my associations astray):



Av User E23 on sv.wikipedia - E23, CC BY-SA 3.0, Länk

... as said, the Basin, named for Napoleon Bonaparte, but unlike the Swedish pastry after his last name, not his first, has an elasmosaurus above a trilobite.

Despite some coral between, which Tony Reed admitted at last could have arrived in bits and pieces and which I reasoned could also have been a place where the trilobites scurried under previous to Flood, I think the elasmosaur and the trilobite were contemporary, and that their placing has more to do with habitat level in sea while living than with respective "geological timescale".

Now, more on that when my debate with Tony Reed will have been edited to more argument by argument and less combox per combox.

However, the other one seems to have an "upper Ordovician Brachiopod" somewhat above a "lower Ordovician trilobite". Well, again we are dealing with sea critters, in Williston Basin too. And the Palaeocene leaves could be early post-Flood - or even pre-Flood, if triloobites and brachiopods, meaning mussles, were beside some wood.

I wonder how many oil drillers are NOT getting trilobites. If all oil wells are with trilobite content, petrol could be some aquatic beast's remnants, and therefore not necessarily from human or nephelim corpses. Even by a statistic chance.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
Feast of Holy Rosary
7.X.2016

Answering Rationalwiki on Genesis 5:1 to 6:4

Commented on :

Rationalwiki : Annotated Bible : Genesis Chapter 5
Boring Genealogies, part 1
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/RationalWiki:Annotated_Bible/Genesis#Genesis_Chapter_5_.28Boring_genealogies.2C_Part_1.29

Genesis 5:1 Notes

This starts the genealogy listed in the Bible, following the other religious figures. Note that the ages listed in the Bible imply that the individuals lives to around 800 years in a generation, compared to the modern life expectancies that aren't known to often exceed 120.

HGL

Mentions later that life spans are to be reduced to 120 (Catholic commentator saying if this reading is right, that was by degrees, not directly after Flood for all).

Genesis 5:2 Notes

Apparently they were all called Adam.

HGL

Sure. Adam as in Mister Adam. Then Eve is Mistress Adam.

Genesis 5:3 Notes

Adam was 130 years old when Seth was born.

HGL

Yes, that particular one.

Genesis 5:4 Notes

Yay, finally some girls are born. We're still left with the vexing problem of who were the mothers of all the children born prior to now.

HGL

Not very many mentioned as born prior to this. ALSO the verse gives us two informations, namely, A) "And the days of Adam after he had begotten Seth were eight hundred years:" AND B) "and he begat sons and daughters:"

It is not as if "after he had begotten Seth" was a qualification of BOTH informations.

Genesis 5:5 Notes

And all that nine hundred and thirty years he never manages to pass down the essentials of enjoying such longevity (Maybe the Global flood did destroy it).

The general argument from apologists is that prior to the flood humanity had much longer life spans. The idea that before the Fall we had longer lifespans is plausible (in context at least), but why the flood took this nifty attribute away is not at all apparent.

HGL

Check the text. Later.

Genesis 5:5 Notes

There is no known correlation between the human lifespan and being around a lot of rain or water (apart from falling in and drowning, which has a very strong correlation).

HGL

Indeed, so much that some have said that "120 years" refer to the remaining lifespan for all except Noah and his family.

Genesis 5:5 Notes

Some have argued that there was a mistranslation of the Hebrew and this number actually represents 930 lunar months, which puts Adam's age at a far more plausible 75 or so. Unfortunately there are references to other people siring children at the tender age of 35 (which in lunar month terms is only three years), so this argument is weak.

HGL

Very weak, indeed.

Genesis 5:5 Notes

The most plausible explanation is probably simple "superhero" status - throughout history and in to the present day there has been a tendency to drastically exaggerate the attributes of mythic figures, from Hercules to Superman.

HGL

Very unlike Superman, Hercules seems to have a tangible connexion to later history. Spartan royalty descend from his grandsons, and in exile they had founded Pergamon.

How many recently independent states or recently constructed cities (wasn't there one in Brazil?) count Superman as father of their founder?

But generally speaking, pre-Flood man has a kind of superhero status compared to those born after Flood. Especially LONG after Flood.

Genesis 5:5 Notes

Also in case you forgot, Adam was supposed to die after eating from the tree of Good and Evil. Some apologists have argued that he did receive the assigned punishment, because he would have lived forever if he had not eaten the fruit and remained in the Garden of Eden. However if that is so, what was the tree of "Eternal Life" (the other tree mentioned in Genesis 2:9) for?

HGL

He would have lived forever, since He would have eaten of that tree.

He also died "same day" he had eaten the forbidden fruit. Namely same thousand years, since he died at only 930. There is a Psalm verse appropriate for this one.

Genesis 5:6 Notes

It took Seth this long to get his wife pregnant with his first son, Enos. Suggested explanations:

• Seth receives really good abstinence education from God.
• Seth has really advanced contraceptive technologies but the global flood destroyed it.
• Seth is so unpopular with the ladies (which are probably his sisters or nieces anyway) that it take him this long to get a woman to like him enough to have sex with him.

Similar explanations apply for almost everyone in the lineage mentioned.

But if you're keeping track, Adam is 235 years old at this point.

HGL

Two explanations are not mentioned.

Enos is the seventh SON (after six sons and so many daughters) OR, pre-Flood people came into puberty much later than now.

Better ease for abstinence is also a very good point. If puberty was around the age of 100 years, why did Noah get his three sons at age 500?

Well, maybe he HAD to wait a few centuries with all iniquity going on. And in that case abstinence is an asset.

Btw, forget about HIS using contraceptive technologies (they existed and have existed to this day): they are a mark of iniquity and a Jewish legend about the pre-Flood world says there was a smaller Flood in which Mediterranean formed as punishment for THAT.

Whether it be true as fact, it is certainly true as morals. The godly lineage are not using such things and the Lambeth conference of 1930 is dead wrong in allowing that. Catholic Church has obviously condemned it.

Genesis 5:7 Notes

This is pretty much how the rest of Chapter Five is going to go. Feel free to skip to the end, everyone else does.

HGL

Er, no.

Not the apologist who notes that 800 years was a pretty common age before the Flood.

Not people keeping track on how many years after Creation of Adam people lived, and in what year Flood occurred or Christ was born (there are two / three versions of the text and St Jerome's chronology based on LXX has Flood come in 2200 - 2240? - after Creation).

Not Chuck Missler and Rob Skiba who make a translation of each name in this genealogy:

Hebrew		English
Adam		Man
Seth		Appointed
Enosh		Mortal
Kenan		Sorrow;
Mahalalel		The Blessed God
Jared		Shall come down
Enoch		Teaching
Methuselah		His death shall bring
Lamech		The Despairing
Noah		Rest, or comfort.

A Hidden Message: The Gospel in Genesis
by Chuck Missler
http://www.khouse.org/articles/1996/44/

And not people interested in Henoch ... oh, it appears that the commentator actually didn't do that, didn't skip to the end:

Genesis 5:23 Notes

Unlike other pre-flood individuals mentioned by name, Enoch lasted only 400 years compared to the parents (and thus, Jared must have watched his son die but at least have a grandson.)

HGL

Note commenter commented before reading next verse.

Genesis 5:24 Notes

Enoch did not die. The Lord took him. This implies that Enoch is still alive in Heaven with God, making him the oldest living person named in the Bible.

HGL

Yep, and he's probably getting back, see Apocalypse 11. Most Latin Church Catholics identify them with Henoch and Elijah.*

Genesis 5:27 Notes

Methuselah is, besides the possible exception of Enoch, the longest living human in the bible, although it isn't explained why God was so ok with him living so long. The general idea is that he died either the year of the flood or a little while before.

HGL

Why was God ok with it? Well, it's still within the 1000-year post-Fall limit of human life.

Genesis 5:29 Notes

the curse is probably a reference to 3:17. Noah's name apparently means or shares a root with the word for rest.[2] It seems to me that basically the parents are saying oh good a child let's put him to work so we don't have to work as hard. In an era before child labor laws more kids meant more farm labor.

HGL

And should mean so.

Actually, the child labour laws were meant as a defense against putting children in HIGHLY unsuitable places such as down coal mines or chimneys.

Genesis 5:31 Notes

At this point, 1057 years passed since the birth of Adam, or 127 years since his death. Combined with at least 600 years that Noah took before the great flood, it basically requires squeezing most modern human history all since 2400 BCE if you take a simple guess that the Earth is only ~6014 years old (the current year + 4000).

Also of note is the age of which Lamech died - 777 years. It is parallel with Genesis 4:24, where Lamech notes that Cain was avenged sevenfold, and Lamech seventy-seven fold. Despite them being two different people, that name has an odd affinity for the number seven, and indicates that that age of death in multi-generational pre-history was purposely chosen by the author.

HGL

There is LOTS of not just pre-history, but pre-Greek and pre-Roman history that can do some squeezing and still be meaningful. Suppose carbon 14 levels are rising fast during 100 years, that will stretch carbon datings into tens of thousands.

(Yes, I did the maths on this, also using a "carbon date calculator" no longer on line to verify how many extra years a remains of organic type gets for each level of carbon 14 below 100%**)

Age chosen by author, well, yes. God punned on the boasting of the Cainite Lamech when deciding the lifespan of a very different other Lamech, the Sethite one. Or perhaps 777 shall be seen as young, a short life span for pre-Flood conditions. The Cainite Lamech shown as punished through punishment by proxy.

And God is author of events before being author of text, through Moses and whoever his sources were.

Genesis 5:32 Notes

Noah, one of the prophets, never manages to tell his followers (which should also be his offsprings/wives given the Global Flood) how to live for five hundred years, or even half as long. The goat definitely ate the secret and whoever kept the goat patched up the scripture in Genesis 6:3.

For those interested, the genealogy continues at Genesis 9:28

HGL

Ah, thanks for mentioning the chronological relevance of genealogies!

Genesis 6:3 Notes

The age limit is 120 years, but Genesis 11:10 and beyond still shows people lasting longer than that. A short life for humans, except when plot demands otherwise. Also, much more closely and much more provably, Jeanne Calment died after the age of 122.

HGL

As said, if 120 years is the new age limit, either it was gradually, or God made it different for Hebrews up to the time of Moses, who died at 120 precisely. Jeanne Calment probably got two years extra for being a good Catholic.

Genesis 6:4 Notes

See PZ Myers Pharyngula threads re.: Giants and Dwarfs(sic)

Translations other than the KJV have this differently. But based on the King James Only view that's what we're talking about here. ("Nephilim" is claimed by others to mean "fallen" - whatever that may mean in context - and is left untranslated in new English translations.)

HGL

I'd have liked to go to PZM and refute him. BUT when clicking, I don't get to the post.

Has it disappeared?

Or was it meant to be a link to a more general search from start? One link gives this:

Pharyngula : If you doubt this is possible, how is it there are PYGMIES + DWARFS??
Posted by PZ Myers on August 9, 2006
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/08/09/if-you-doubt-this-is-possible/

His quote :

NOTE: If you doubt this is possible, how is it there are PYGMIES + DWARFS??

His answer :

Man, the existence of pygmies and dwarfs has nothing to do with whether men were 15 feet tall 6000 years ago, and I had to laugh out loud. It’s an incredibly useful phrase that’s going to come in handy.

Ever wonder how the hell a moron like George W. Bush got elected? “If you doubt this is possible, how is it there are PYGMIES + DWARFS??“

How can people be so gullible to believe the nonsense peddled by the Discovery Institute? “If you doubt this is possible, how is it there are PYGMIES + DWARFS??“

HGL

Sorrreee, but it seems PZM would have needed some more caffeine that day (I'll go down and take some myself, this beautiful day*** of Saint Teresita!).

How is it possible that PZM missed the implication : we are pygmies compared to Adam and Noah, and pygmies are pygmies compared to us who are already pygmies.

Apart from that, I think the nephelim were more gigantic than the rest. Though not as bad as in Book of Jasher or as in the non-Catholic books of Baruch (there is a Catholic book of Baruch and it mentions giants of old in a way clearly exluding Adam and Noah, but does not give any measure).

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
Rosarium BMV
7.X.2016

* All Catholics more or less agree Elijah is one of the two. There is less general agreement on the other one being Enoch.

** What Some of You are Thinking / Ce que certains de vous sont en train de penser
http://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2016/10/what-some-of-you-are-thinking-ce-que.html

*** By now it is already Rosary Feast, I took this post in a few steps before getting it done. Thérèse of Child Jesus, 3.X, Rosary of the Blessed Virgin, 7.X. A holy person and a holy practise, which won a victory over Turks in Lepanto, since the Pope prayed for Don John of Austria.

What Some of You are Thinking / Ce que certains de vous sont en train de penser

Creation vs. Evolution : 1) C14 Calibrations, comparing two preliminary ones, mine and Tas Walker's · 2) Radioactive Methods Revisited, Especially C-14 · 3) What Some of You are Thinking / Ce que certains de vous sont en train de penser · Great Bishop of Geneva! : 4) Carbon Dating of Turin Shroud and Hacking and Conventional vs Creationist Dating · Creation vs. Evolution : 5) A Fault in my Tables? A Plan for Improvement? · 6) Pre-Flood Biomass and More · 7) Advantages of a Shorter Carbon 14 Chronology · 8) Hasn't Carbon 14 been Confirmatively Calibrated for Ages Beyond Biblical Chronology? By Tree Rings? · HGL's F.B. writings : 9) Comparing with Gerardus D. Bouw Ph. D., Debating with Roger M Pearlman on Chronology · 10) Continuing with Pearlman, Especially on Göbekli Tepe and Dating of Ice Age

1) [Creation vs. Evolution :] What Some of You are Thinking / Ce que certains de vous sont en train de penser · 2) [New blog on the kid :] Jouons un peu avec 0,84 · 3) Posons environs 8 - 9% plus ou moins de Carbone 14 - ça donne combien d'années? · 4) Bonne Nouvelle!

At least I can guess some think that a small raise in Carbon 14 content cannot really make tens of thousands of years difference for the datings.		Au moins je devine que quelques-uns pensent qu'une minuscule hausse en carbone 14 n'a pas une chance de faire des dizaines de milliers d'années en différence pour les datation.
Well, it can. Compared to the present level, 1st halflife back is when there remain 50% of present state. 2 halflives back, in dating, there remain 25% - the difference is now smaller. 3 halflives back there remain 12.5 %, and the difference is smaller still. The less there is left, the less you need to take away or to add to make another halflife older or younger.		Oui, il y a bien une chance pour ça. Comparé au niveau d'à présent, la première demi-vie qu'on va en arrière est quand il y a 50% du taux d'à présent. 2 demi-vies en arrière, en datation, c'est quand il reste 25% - la différence est nettement moindre. 3 demi-vies en arrière, on retrouve 12,5 % et la différence est encore moindre. Moins il reste, moins on a besoin de retrancher ou d'ajouter pour vieillir ou de rajeunir une demi-vie.
Or some of you may have thought I must have used wrong correspondences between percentages of C14 when the things were alive and the years that were added. Well, on an occasion or two that lapsus may have happened. See the exclamation marks, where trends for added years are reversed twice.		Ou quelques-uns ont pu croire que j'ai dû avoir utilisé les mauvaises correspondances entre les pourcentages de carbon 14 (par rapport au niveau présent) quand les objets étaient en vie d'un côté et d'un autre le nombre d'années ajoutées. Bon, une fois ou deux, ce lapsus a pu se passer, voir les points d'exclamation, là où la tendance se renverse deux fois.
Either way I have taken the following correspondences from three tables, the Fibonacci one and two more, and somewhere something went wrong, but not much. Fortunately in the results I got, not the premisses, where a very small difference - as you can see, if in right end of spectrum - can make a huge difference in results.		Quelle que soit été votre pensée dessus, j'ai ici pris les correspondences de trois tables, dont celle de l'essai où Fibonacci avait joué un rôle majeur, et de deux autres, et quelque chose est allé à travers, mais pas beaucoup. Heureusement, ceci dans les résultats obtenus, et non pas dans les prémisses, là où une très petite différence - comme vous pouvez voir et s'il se trouve dans le bon bout du spectre - peut en donner une très grande dans les résultats.
Verify for yourselves, it would have been better if there had still been available the carbon 14 calculator, where you could just put in a percentage of remaining carbon 14 and you got an output in years of age, which you can easily translate to added years for original carbon 14 content, same thing, but as there isn't, and until something similar goes online again, make do with this table.		Vérifiez pour vous-même, ça aurait été mieux si on avait encore eu la calculatrice de carbone 14, où on pouvait entrer un pourcentage de carbone "restant" et obtenir un nombre d'années "de vieux", ce qui se laisse traduire directement en pourcentage de carbone du début et années ajoutées au delà de l'âge véritable.

3,90625 %		26 800 ans / years		67,924276 %		3200 ans / years
4,6875 %		25 300 ans / years		73,4152 %		2550 ans / years
7,6619 %		21 250 ans / years		73,71734 %		2500 ans / years
10,6130 %		18 550 ans / years		76,66562 %		2200 ans / years
11,4686 %		17 900 ans / years		79,41989698 %		1900 ans / years
13,5411 %		16 550 ans / years		80,3039 %		1800 ans / years
16,4464 %		14 900 ans / years !		85,0333 %		1350 ans / years
16,7849 %		16 765 ans / years !		85,903547 %		1250 ans / years
18,1438 %		14 100 ans / years		86,26541 %		1200 ans / years
24,7147 %		11 550 ans / years		90,559086 %		820 ans / years
28,10266 %		10 500 ans / years		90,82498977 %		800 ans / years
31,1829 %		9650 ans / years		91,58056 %		730 ans / years
37,5500895 %		8100 ans / years		94,86521 %		440 ans / years
38,6528 %		7850 ans / years		95,0788 %		420 ans / years
40,23593 %		7550 ans / years		95,9984858 %		340 ans / years
43,81775 %		6800 ans / years		96,89571 %		260 ans / years
48,447 %		6000 ans / years		98,14985 %		150 ans / years
49,987 %		5750 ans / years		98,6755 %		110 ans / years
56,06 %		4800 ans / years		98,92632 %		90 ans / years
57,49837 %		4600 ans / years		99,40408 %		50 ans / years
62,03925 %		3950 ans / years		99,70269 %		30 ans / years
62,75068 %		3850 ans / years		99,88185 %		10 ans / years
65,817145 %		3450 ans / years

Hans Georg Lundahl
Bibliothecâ Universitariâ
Nemetoduri
Sancti Brunonis sive
6.X.2016

Were Evolutionists More Willing to Debate in Early 80's?

Creation-Evolution Debates: Who's Winning Them Now?
Frederick Edwords, Quarter: Spring Page(s): 30–42 Year: 1982
in publication Creation Evolution Journal
https://ncse.com/cej/3/2/creation-evolution-debates-whos-winning-them-now

Here two cases are given with several arguments for each. I am only reviewing those now, before perhaps returning to the article after that.

Against debates:

• A debate implies a win-or-lose situation, which is not scientific.
• A debate misleads people into thinking that creation and evolution are somehow equal in standing, that the scientific community is equally divided on the issue, and that the whole matter is far from being resolved scientifically.
• Creationists wish to debate scientists, particularly well-known ones, in order to legitimize themselves and creationism in the eyes of the public. Thus the mere occurrence of such an event, regardless of the outcome, tends to make creationism seem more respectable.
• When creationists claim that a given debate is about science and not religion, they imply that creationism is science and not religion. For a scientist to debate them on those terms is to concede a major part of the creationist case before the debate has even begun.
• A debate suggests that the matter can easily be decided by the public within a couple of hours.
• Debating is a creationist idea, and scientists play by the creationists' standards and on their terms when they cooperate with this activity, thereby allowing themselves to be manipulated toward creationist ends. The very fact that creationists, campus fundamentalist groups, and, recently, Jerry Falwell have collectively committed millions of dollars to promoting such debates should sound a warning that they understand that they will benefit regardless of the debate's outcome.
• Public debates are actually political moves by creationists, not sincere efforts to argue or teach science. For, if creationists were really trying to be scientific, they would be stating their case before the scientific community instead of adopting a method common to charlatans, namely that of going to the public with claims of conspiracy and discrimination by the scientific community.
• Debates are often publicity stunts for the benefit of the sponsoring fundamentalist campus groups or for the purpose of spreading creationist ideas. Debates, therefore, have been major vehicles for the growth of the creationist movement.
• Debates are spectacles—not reasoned and fair examinations of both sides of the public controversy.
• Debates accomplish little for science, since the issue is largely a matter of faith for many, no matter how much science is discussed.
• Creationists often distort evidence in their debates and present persuasive but actually illogical and fallacious arguments. However, they do so in a manner that makes creationism appear plausible to a public poorly trained in the sciences. Yet, if the scientist points this out, the creationist charges him or her with insulting the audience and being patronizing. If creationists use distortions or falsehoods in their arguments, it is difficult to call them down for it without seeming discourteous or appearing to be engaging in ad hominem attacks on them. Yet, if one does not risk this, then such distortions or falsehoods will appear to be legitimate scientific arguments.
• Doing well in a debate often requires that one "beat creationists at their own game," which often means compromising either science or one's integrity.
• Preparation for such debates is time consuming and distracts greatly from more important scientific work.

For debates:

• Many valid arguments against debating are now invalid, because so many debates have already taken place. If debating was ill advised, it never should have been done in the first place. But to stop debating now is to imply to the public that the creationists have the better case. Therefore the only solution is to debate the creationists and consistently do well in such encounters.
• When creationists fail to find an opponent, this does not prevent the event from taking place. It merely means that the creationist will speak unopposed. In addition, the creationist will make much of the fact that his offers to debate were declined. This can have a negative effect on the public's view of science and scientists and can serve to validate creationist claims.
• Debates give science a free public platform, albeit diluted with the pseudoscience of creationism. As Milne declared after his first debate, "My audience was profoundly interested in the debate and more concerned and attentive throughout the entire three hours than was any fifty-minute class in all of my twelve years of teaching experience." Such debates, then, can become a valuable public-instruction tool when properly handled.
• The public is entitled to feedback from the scientific community on this issue. Often it is only something such as a debate that can get scientists to deal directly with the general public. It would be better if this were not so, but, so long as this is the case, debates will have positive value.
• Creationism will not go away by itself. It is a serious threat. Since winning debates has actually proved effective in slowing the creationist movement in some communities (examples will be provided later), it should be regarded as an effective tool for maintaining the integrity of science in the public schools.
• To object to debates, while favoring lobbying and testifying at public hearings before politicians, is inconsistent. Such lobbying, testifying, witnessing in court cases, and the like is nothing other than engaging in debate. Often television and radio programs won't feature just one side of the issue. Therefore, in order to get broadcast media exposure for the scientific side, one must consent to a debate situation as well. So, clearly, debate is a regular part of this controversy.
• With the overwhelming evidence in favor of evolution, scientists have little excuse for losing a debate. Furthermore, since the creationist "model" is so weak in so many places, a debate can be an excellent opportunity for exposing creationism for the pseudoscience it is. Much preparation is needed, of course, including a "renaissance" knowledge of science and a thorough understanding of creationism. Debates are not for the faint-hearted or ill-prepared. But those who debate well are providing a valuable service to the public and to science.
• Though many in attendance at debates have their minds already made up, many do not. If these individuals "on the fence" are not reached with point-by-point answers to the creationist's arguments, they could easily by swayed into accepting at least a portion of the creationist errors. Furthermore, many who now accept creationism do so because they think their religion requires it. If they can be shown that creationism is not good science and not necessarily good religion, they might find it possible to accept evolution without denying their faith. But if all they hear is that accepting evolution is denying God, they may come to think that is the actual choice before them.
• With so little evolution actually being taught in the public schools, and with the present diluting of textbooks, National Geographic television specials and creation-evolution debates are becoming major sources of public information on evolution. This is obviously deplorable, and something should be done about it. Meanwhile, those good at debate do their part to support evolution.

Now, let me start commenting.

I

A debate implies a win-or-lose situation, which is not scientific.

Answer:

A classroom implies an authority and disciple situation, which is not scientific. But I do not hear Evolutionists criticise classrooms.

There are other situations in life than that of scientific investigation.

Debate at least shares with it the relevance of the act of arguing, the fact of arguments being relevant.

This is so even if in a certain debate the arguments presented there are not such as to be relevant to sceintific research. Arguments are at the core of both.

II

A debate misleads people into thinking that creation and evolution are somehow equal in standing, that the scientific community is equally divided on the issue, and that the whole matter is far from being resolved scientifically.

Answer:

The argument here presented misleads people into thinking that consensus of the learned over a rather thin slice of time (and it is even thinner compared to the billions of years than to the 7200 years!) is a scientific argument.

It also misleads people into thinking a debate could be more misleading than a lack of one.

Which can only be true about a solidly Catholic and uncritically such population accepting wholeheartedly the revealed faith from God.

Not only if the Catholic faith is true is there no other such situation, but even if Evolutionism were true, there could be no such situation.

If everything from the past is to be questioned (we can't question the future before it becomes present) why should the present be immune?

If religion and culture of non-scientific types were such huge mistakes, why should today's science be immune from the origin of man making these huge mistakes?

So, even if evolution were true, this kind of argument could not be motivated by it, except by bad faith.

Especially since they love to refer to the Scopes Trial and the Huxley / Wilberforce debate.

III

Creationists wish to debate scientists, particularly well-known ones, in order to legitimize themselves and creationism in the eyes of the public. Thus the mere occurrence of such an event, regardless of the outcome, tends to make creationism seem more respectable.

Answer:

This is the kind of argument best answered by someone who cares for that kind of respectability.

If I cannot relate to treating even Evolutionists like a tramp asking for a fourteenth dram of whiskey on credit, how can I relate to them treating us Creationists like that?

If you are too much of a sucker for respectability, that may damn your eternal soul anyway!

IV

When creationists claim that a given debate is about science and not religion, they imply that creationism is science and not religion. For a scientist to debate them on those terms is to concede a major part of the creationist case before the debate has even begun.

Answer:

Actually not.

An evolutionist could - if in good faith - say that Flood geology like the experiment by Guy Berthault for rapid strtification or "Flood Paleontology" like calling Permian and and Cretaceous different biotopes during Flood, at least for land fauna (Napoleon basin has an Elasmosaurus over trilobites, but both creatures are marine or aquatic) is BAD science. It would still be true that the creationist would in such a case be doing creation science and not Genesis exegesis.

The argument seems therefore of ill faith.

If taking this line, an evolutionist who is not so sure his own scientific case could stand with a creationist, can go on and on and, to those accepting the argument, hide that fact, by saying "creation science is anyway just creationism, which is anyway just based on the Bible", even if the case which the debate could reveal was someone having evidence of geological/lithographic or of palaeontological nature which is not "based on" Genesis but simply consistent with it.

V

A debate suggests that the matter can easily be decided by the public within a couple of hours.

Answer:

And a classroom situation before teens only (with parents banned) somehow does NOT?

Oh, wait, perhaps it is more like saying the public has no right to think for itself, scientists are there to take care of schools and schools there to take care of pupils, and public should just take what scientists and schools have to offer?

Ah, that is a far worse suggestion!

VI

Debating is a creationist idea, and scientists play by the creationists' standards and on their terms when they cooperate with this activity, thereby allowing themselves to be manipulated toward creationist ends. The very fact that creationists, campus fundamentalist groups, and, recently, Jerry Falwell have collectively committed millions of dollars to promoting such debates should sound a warning that they understand that they will benefit regardless of the debate's outcome.

Answer:

If in these debates the "debating is a creationist idea", this would tend to show that creationists have more confidence about debates, right?

As for "by their standards" I have seen Kent Hovind in debates where the "scientists" (as if he weren't one, at least amateur) have been very active in setting the standards and terms.

In fact, every standard and term except deciding unilaterally what the opponent may debate about.

If creationists have invested huge money in promoting debates, well, perhaps it is not so much "knowing they will profit regardless of the outcome", perhaps it is rather being very confident about the outcome.

VII

Public debates are actually political moves by creationists, not sincere efforts to argue or teach science. For, if creationists were really trying to be scientific, they would be stating their case before the scientific community instead of adopting a method common to charlatans, namely that of going to the public with claims of conspiracy and discrimination by the scientific community.

Answer:

The expert community - being evolutionist in the recent majority the argument refers to - is using a method common to charlatans, namely pretending they know so much better than the public that they are only answering enquiries and they also use another technique of charlatans, namely dividing opponents into individual "enquirers" rather than letting them together enjoy some debates.

An astrologer may tell a weak Leo that even Leos go weak if Moon is in Virgo. But if he tells that, he had very much better not do so in presence of a very strong Leo who also has moon in Virgo.

VIII

Debates are often publicity stunts for the benefit of the sponsoring fundamentalist campus groups or for the purpose of spreading creationist ideas. Debates, therefore, have been major vehicles for the growth of the creationist movement.

Answer:

Oh, you mean you evolutionists have, in the eyes of much public, actually lost debates?

IX

Debates are spectacles—not reasoned and fair examinations of both sides of the public controversy.

Answer:

If you think the 15 minutes, then 10 minutes, then 5 minutes per speaker orally is too short for a fair examination of both sides, why not take writing on internet?

A version of debate where I am very available.

If any debate becomes long and has many side issues, it may take some time before it is available in an overviewable way, but I am striving for it.

Btw, why has Tony Reed not made any effort to show the long debate I had with him and am editing?

Would be in his interest if he had made a good show.

X

Debates accomplish little for science, since the issue is largely a matter of faith for many, no matter how much science is discussed.

Answer:

Well, that is so true of Evolutionist faith as spread in classrooms too.

Teaching evolution in classrooms is very different from teaching a scientific attitude and methodology per se and often leads to precisely "faith" rather than science.

XI

Creationists often distort evidence in their debates and present persuasive but actually illogical and fallacious arguments. However, they do so in a manner that makes creationism appear plausible to a public poorly trained in the sciences. Yet, if the scientist points this out, the creationist charges him or her with insulting the audience and being patronizing. If creationists use distortions or falsehoods in their arguments, it is difficult to call them down for it without seeming discourteous or appearing to be engaging in ad hominem attacks on them. Yet, if one does not risk this, then such distortions or falsehoods will appear to be legitimate scientific arguments.

Answer:

How about "scientists" learning some debate manners and some logic?

How about NOT pointing out "this is misleading the public which is too dumb to reason correctly" and instead saying what the fallacy is before the public and hope it is well enough educated to get the fallacy as a fallacy?

THIS argument is actually showing that the one so arguing against debates actually HAS a very low opinion of the public.

XII

Doing well in a debate often requires that one "beat creationists at their own game," which often means compromising either science or one's integrity.

Answer:

Sorry, but the "own game" of creationists, as I have seen it, has been using logic and common sense. If you beat us at that, how can that compromise your science if it is any good? If you beat us at that, how can that compromise your integrity?

XIII

Preparation for such debates is time consuming and distracts greatly from more important scientific work.

Answer:

Well, if scientific work means research and reporting to researchers, so is preparation for teaching evolution in class rooms.

Unless a lack of debates makes sure that very little preparation is needed, because a science teacher can get away with being very authoritarian to a creationist pupil.

Now, for the arguments for debates.

A sentiment which I generally speaking agree with.

I

Many valid arguments against debating are now invalid, because so many debates have already taken place. If debating was ill advised, it never should have been done in the first place. But to stop debating now is to imply to the public that the creationists have the better case. Therefore the only solution is to debate the creationists and consistently do well in such encounters.

Answer:

Hear, hear!

This was written in 1980's first half.

Have evolutionists become less debate eager since then?

"But to stop debating now is to imply to the public that the creationists have the better case."

Well, haven't we?

II

When creationists fail to find an opponent, this does not prevent the event from taking place. It merely means that the creationist will speak unopposed. In addition, the creationist will make much of the fact that his offers to debate were declined. This can have a negative effect on the public's view of science and scientists and can serve to validate creationist claims.

Answer:

Well, I too am making much of the fact that debates are declined. Rightly so, I think.

However, declining a debate can in fact deprive me of the occasion to comment on some extra ridiculous quirk in evolutionists' ways of arguing, which I am too dense to recall just from sheer memory.

After this fair warning, thank you very much.

III

Debates give science a free public platform, albeit diluted with the pseudoscience of creationism. As Milne declared after his first debate, "My audience was profoundly interested in the debate and more concerned and attentive throughout the entire three hours than was any fifty-minute class in all of my twelve years of teaching experience." Such debates, then, can become a valuable public-instruction tool when properly handled.

Answer:

I too enjoy hearing the evolutionist side. Up to when they shut up like clams.

Sometimes, after one does, like Paul Wettstein (other debater to edit my debate with), a supporter comes up in the combox and tries to tell me I was useless:

Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : ... with a Fanatic Evolutionist
http://assortedretorts.blogspot.com/2016/09/with-fanatic-evolutionist.html

The debate he was commenting, not in but on in a metadebatish way was whether evolution can account for human morality.

IV

The public is entitled to feedback from the scientific community on this issue. Often it is only something such as a debate that can get scientists to deal directly with the general public. It would be better if this were not so, but, so long as this is the case, debates will have positive value.

Answer:

What does "it would be better if it were not so" even mean?

Is this a hidden nostalgia for the anti-debate arguments?

For a situation where scientific community of evolutionists, no longer challenged by any alternative ones, like CMI, can enjoy the status of a clergy?

V

Creationism will not go away by itself. It is a serious threat. Since winning debates has actually proved effective in slowing the creationist movement in some communities (examples will be provided later), it should be regarded as an effective tool for maintaining the integrity of science in the public schools.

Answer:

Well, perhaps you did win some debates. Not sure you would rewin if on same themes.

But what do you even mean by calling creatiuonism "a serious threat"?

If you called some other community you disagreed with "a serious threat", you might be sued. By now, after 15 years of War against Terror, you might just get away with calling Muslims a serious threat (but not in France), but try that approach if instead of "creationism" you said "Judaism" or "immigration" or ... you see what I mean?

And a serious threat to what? To your doing science about things as they are now? No. To your deluding public into thinking Evolutionism correct? Well, I hope so!

VI

To object to debates, while favoring lobbying and testifying at public hearings before politicians, is inconsistent. Such lobbying, testifying, witnessing in court cases, and the like is nothing other than engaging in debate. Often television and radio programs won't feature just one side of the issue. Therefore, in order to get broadcast media exposure for the scientific side, one must consent to a debate situation as well. So, clearly, debate is a regular part of this controversy.

Answer:

Sadly enough, media have been more willing, lately, to give only the evolutionist case.

But this might be a problem more in francophone and suecophone media than in US ones.

VII

With the overwhelming evidence in favor of evolution, scientists have little excuse for losing a debate. Furthermore, since the creationist "model" is so weak in so many places, a debate can be an excellent opportunity for exposing creationism for the pseudoscience it is. Much preparation is needed, of course, including a "renaissance" knowledge of science and a thorough understanding of creationism. Debates are not for the faint-hearted or ill-prepared. But those who debate well are providing a valuable service to the public and to science.

Answer:

Hear, hear!

THAT is the kind of attitude I want from my opponents!

Three cheers for the well prepared evolutionist debater.

Happy Birthday * For he's a jolly good fellow - André Rieu
CarlosAnthonyBuenfil
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKNLsrv0du8

I just think he is wrong about the case though.

The overwhelming evidence in favour of evolution is only overwhelming rhetorically, in an enumeration of the amounts of evidence that supposedly "all" speak "just" for evolution. NOT for a detailed investigation in any particular line of evidence.

I have seen Tom Trinko (in a debate about Geocentrism), after doing a very good show by presenting the case that really was hardest to me, then ask me to, as a condition for keeping the debate on my blog, add his excuse.

You can read it on the top of the blog post I called ...

With Tom Trinko on Physics of Geocentrism, First Rounds
posted Saturday, 28 June 2014 on my blog Correspondence of Hans Georg Lundahl
http://correspondentia-ioannis-georgii.blogspot.com/2014/06/with-tom-trinko-on-physics-of.html

VIII

Though many in attendance at debates have their minds already made up, many do not. If these individuals "on the fence" are not reached with point-by-point answers to the creationist's arguments, they could easily by swayed into accepting at least a portion of the creationist errors. Furthermore, many who now accept creationism do so because they think their religion requires it. If they can be shown that creationism is not good science and not necessarily good religion, they might find it possible to accept evolution without denying their faith. But if all they hear is that accepting evolution is denying God, they may come to think that is the actual choice before them.

Answer:

Actually, they would also be hearing that by accepting Evolution they would be denying either human reason or certain specific evidence. Not just that they would be denying that God the Holy Spirit spoke through the prophets, including of course Moses as final author of Genesis.

Apart from this correction, that is an attitude I like from Evolutionist opponents.

It is identic to part of my rationale for debating people I won't be converting.

Sporting fun, certainly, but there is always also being useful to those "on the fence".

IX

With so little evolution actually being taught in the public schools, and with the present diluting of textbooks, National Geographic television specials and creation-evolution debates are becoming major sources of public information on evolution. This is obviously deplorable, and something should be done about it. Meanwhile, those good at debate do their part to support evolution.

Answer:

So LITTLE evolution taught in public schools?

I'd like a system in which parents could chose confession to be taught, not just between Catholic and Protestant as in Germany, but also between Evolutionist and Creationist. And OBVIOUSLY no more school compulsion.

Meanwhile, when I try to get a corner of the debate, it seems that though debates are still being held, Evolutionists have become very much more wary of them.

I have had some difficulty finding qualified opponents. I am not boycotting opponents for being unqualified, so this is not as if I were doing myself the boycott of debating I reproach Evolutionists for doing.

Perhaps indeed the case for Evolution is so bad, that Evolutionists are losing the courage for debates!

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
St Linus, Pope and Martyr
23.IX.2016

Update next day: confer also the essay on Argument from Reason which I called Parallel Answers. Here:

somewhere else : Parallel Answer to CMI
http://notontimsblogroundhere.blogspot.com/2016/09/parallel-answer-to-cmi.html

A Taste of NioC?

No, I don't mean ma-nioc. I mean the acronym NioC for Not in our Classrooms.*

"Dogma doesn't build better medical devices, good science does."

But dogma may have a role to play in distributing the medical devices in a fairer way, one which is fairer to the poor.

And in making the distinction between good science building medical devices (not always that good in fact ... some medical devices go back to days when the medical understanding was by today's standard really faulty - and were and remain still good) - and bad science, attacking dogma.

"Since the 1700's, some supporters of a literal interpretation of the Bible had argued that scientific evidence existed to support their views, but such arguments had diminished considerably after Darwin's Origin of Species. Now, in the middle of the twentieth century ..."

It is of course entirely possible that between 1858 and 1950 such arguments have decreased, as it is certain that they have increased since then.

What makes me doubt Eugenie Scott's (or is it Glenn Branch's?) capacities as a historian is that she (he?) prefaces all this with "since the 1700's".

St Thomas Aquinas was a proponent of the four senses, and so he was a proponent of the literal interpretation as much as (or more than even?) than the other three. And he lived about 500 years before the 1700's.

References will be given on occasion or demand, right now I am off for coffee. Thá mí an hoffi coffi or whatever the Celtic phrase is** ...

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
St Emmeram
22.IX.2016

* Not in Our Classrooms: Why Intelligent Design Is Wrong for Our Schools
Paperback – October 15, 2006
by Eugenie Scott (Author), Glenn Branch (Author), Bill Nye (Foreword)
https://www.amazon.com/Not-Our-Classrooms-Intelligent-Schools/dp/0807032786#reader_0807032786

** A minute inspection might reveal I was mixing two Celtic languages. Rwy'n hoffi coffi or Yr yddwyf i'n hoffi coffi. In Welsh. Ddrwg gennym, esgusodwch fi cymysgu. / Is toigh leam cofaidh. In Scots Gaelic. Duilich , gabh mo leisgeul measgachadh.

Radioactive Methods Revisited, Especially C-14

Creation vs. Evolution : 1) C14 Calibrations, comparing two preliminary ones, mine and Tas Walker's · 2) Radioactive Methods Revisited, Especially C-14 · 3) What Some of You are Thinking / Ce que certains de vous sont en train de penser · Great Bishop of Geneva! : 4) Carbon Dating of Turin Shroud and Hacking and Conventional vs Creationist Dating · Creation vs. Evolution : 5) A Fault in my Tables? A Plan for Improvement? · 6) Pre-Flood Biomass and More · 7) Advantages of a Shorter Carbon 14 Chronology · 8) Hasn't Carbon 14 been Confirmatively Calibrated for Ages Beyond Biblical Chronology? By Tree Rings? · HGL's F.B. writings : 9) Comparing with Gerardus D. Bouw Ph. D., Debating with Roger M Pearlman on Chronology · 10) Continuing with Pearlman, Especially on Göbekli Tepe and Dating of Ice Age

I wonder if it is "prof solitaire"* who has under cover contact with a priest who shall pray for me to reassess the essays** he is unable to disprove, or people here watching the exchange and praying for me to see something to make me reconsider.

Anyway, it is from "prof solitaire" that I got the second of my links.

Citing, I:

Bales/Stassen as per Talk Origins
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/debate-age-of-earth.html#c14

from Bob Bales's opening statement

3. Radiocarbon balance in the atmosphere

Radiactive carbon-14 is formed in the atmosphere through the action of cosmic rays. The rate of formation depeneds on the cosmic-ray activity. The rate of decay (amount decayed in mass/unit time) depends on the amount present. Thus, the amount will increase until the decay rate balances the production rate. Equilibrium will be reached in approximately 30,000 years. Measurements of production and decay rates indicate that the amount has been increasing for some time. According to V.R. Switzer, a European conference reported two studies which showed the concentration has been increasing for at least 10,000 years ("Radioactive Dating and Low-level Counting, Science, 157:726, August 11, 1967). The paper mentions, without details, that this contradicts previous studies. However, there are other reports of increasing concentration which I have not seen: "Production of C-14 by Cosmic 8 Ray Neutrons," Richard E. Lingenfelter, Reviews of Geophysics, 1:51, February, 1963, and "Secular Variations in the Cosmic-Ray produced Carbon-14 in the Atmosphere and Their Interpretations," Hans E. Suess, Journal of Geophysical Research, 70:5947, December 1, 1965.

from Chris Stassen's rebuttal

3. Radiocarbon balance in the atmosphere

The [14]C/[12]C ratio depends on a number of factors including:

Its rate of production, influenced by both the strength of the earth's magnetic field, and the cosmic-ray proton flux generated by the Sun.
The amount of carbon in "reservoirs" in the Earth, which is strongly influenced by climatic conditions.

All of these factors vary; it is unjustified to assume that a non- uniform level means non-equilibrium. The concentration of [14]C in the atmosphere is calculated by performing [14]C dating on an object of known age (and calculating the difference between the dating age and the real age). The evidence indicates that it has been as high as 10% above its current value, and as low as 10% below its current value at various times in the past. It does not look like a process just now reaching equilibrium.

The "recent creation model" (with [14]C starting near but not at equilibrium) does not account for samples which give [14]C dates older than 10,000 years. Samples give ages to 50k years, which favors the "equilibrium, varying [14]C/[12]C ratio" model.

from Bob Bales's closing remarks

In carbon-14 dating, Chris seems to restrict the carbon-14 concentration to start near equilibrium and says that the creation model does not account for dates older than 10,000 years. But immediately after creation, there may very well have been little carbon 14. Material from that time, whenever it was, would date quite old, if the dating assumed near-equilibrium conditions.

Own comment:

In effect, I actually do believe, in order to defend a young earth, that C14 content at Creation and especially at Flood:

• A, were very much lower than equilibrium
• B, rose much more rapidly than with normal additions today in order to have since Flood reached equilibrium
• C, and has in fact reached equilibrium.

Citing, II

Answers to Creationist Attacks on Carbon-14 Dating
on NCSE, spring 1982
https://ncse.com/cej/3/2/answers-to-creationist-attacks-carbon-14-dating

Question:

Creationists such as Cook (1966) claim that cosmic radiation is now forming C-14 in the atmosphere about one and one-third times faster than it is decaying. If we extrapolate backwards in time with the proper equations, we find that the earlier the historical period, the less C-14 the atmosphere had. If we extrapolate as far back as ten thousand years ago, we find the atmosphere would not have had any C-14 in it at all. If they are right, this means all C-14 ages greater than two or three thousand years need to be lowered drastically and that the earth can be no older than ten thousand years. How do you reply?

Answer:

Yes, Cook is right that C-14 is forming today faster than it's decaying. However, the amount of C-14 has not been rising steadily as Cook maintains; instead, it has fluctuated up and down over the past ten thousand years. How do we know this? From radiocarbon dates taken from bristlecone pines.

There are two ways of dating wood from bristlecone pines: one can count rings or one can radiocarbon-date the wood. Since the tree ring counts have reliably dated some specimens of wood all the way back to 6200 BC, one can check out the C-14 dates against the tree-ring-count dates. Admittedly, this old wood comes from trees that have been dead for hundreds of years, but you don't have to have an 8,200-year-old bristlecone pine tree alive today to validly determine that sort of date. It is easy to correlate the inner rings of a younger living tree with the outer rings of an older dead tree. The correlation is possible because, in the Southwest region of the United States, the widths of tree rings vary from year to year with the rainfall, and trees all over the Southwest have the same pattern of variations.

When experts compare the tree-ring dates with the C-14 dates, they find that radiocarbon ages before 1000 BC are really too young—not too old as Cook maintains. For example, pieces of wood that date at about 6200 BC by tree-ring counts date at only 5400 BC by regular C-14 dating and 3900 BC by Cook's creationist revision of C-14 dating (as we see in the article, "Dating, Relative and Absolute," in the Encyclopaedia Britannica). So, despite creationist claims, C-14 before three thousand years ago was decaying faster than it was being formed and C-14 dating errs on the side of making objects from before 1000 BC look too young, not too old.

Own comment

Two things:

• On author of the piece and tree ring dating
  
  Chris Weber, one of the editors of Creation/Evolution, is a computer programmer and an amateur geologist. He has followed the creation-evolution controversy for over a decade. / Copyright 1982 by Christopher Gregory Weber
  
  I think he has missed a thing on two on tree ring dating. As a computer programmer and an amateur geologist, he may not be a specialist in tree rings.
  
  Neither am I, but I have seen some holes in it.
  
  For a series relevant to Europe, I have seen a bottleneck and a diagram showing how matches are for bottleneck. I would say, they are not exactly stringent in accepting matches. Reference unfortunately lost.
  
  
• On Cook and still rising C-14 content.
  
  I have pretty conclusively disproven the "still rising" scenario.
  
  If it were, and if C-14 started out at a Flood 5000 years ago from a level of 1/64 of equilibrial level (assuming it were a single one), and assuming rise were thus limited to speeds of new formation seen today, we would either accept the half life it has and get very aberrant dates (El Alamein would date as Ghettysburg if we were 45% of equilibrial level right now and still rising and the 5730 years were both the true half life and accepted as such); or, other possibility, we would shorten the half life so as to fit datings with very well known historic dates. And in that case we would not be able to get a consistent half life. Older things would be datable correctly according to a longer half life, younger things by a shorter one.
  
  This I proved mathematically back here:
  
  New blog on the kid : Examinons une hypothèse qui se trouve contrefactuelle un peu de près
  from Wednesday, 28 October 2015, by Hans Georg Lundahl "at 05:26" (in some other time zone than mine)
  http://nov9blogg9.blogspot.com/2015/10/examinons-une-hypothese-qui-se-trouve.html
  
  The funny thing then is, I have since then seen this kind of inconsistency about half life (same or reverse, not sure which) about early C-14 datings from early dynastic and pre-dynastic Egypt. I would say (unless reverse to my last table on that link) that back then the C-14 level was lower than now and rising rather rapidly.
  
  If it had risen slowly, we would not have come up to equilibrial level yet.
  
  So, my scenario for a rising C-14 level is very much not Cooks, not a projection backwards from a level at presently perhaps rising.
  
  It is deduced from Biblical chronology and confirmed by early problems of C-14 with Egyptologists. It implies a rise more rapid than the now observed or equilibrially observable formation of new C-14. Which in turn implies a higher level of cosmic radiation, hence a level which could have given rise to both ice age and to a faster decay of "older" methods, like Uranium based or Potassium Argon.

And it is researching this second link, that I found the first one.

Whatever might be the reason for my coming across so much to refute, I hope it is useful for others.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
St Thomas of Villanova
22.IX.2016

* See Carbone 14 et Franc-maçonnerie.

** See the series I usually search on my blog by searching this one as Fibonacci : Avec un peu d'aide de Fibonacci ... j'ai une table, presque correcte