Some CMI Classics Aren't Classic

Creation vs. Evolution: Some CMI Classics Aren't Classic · Tas Walker 2015 vs Tas Walker 2008 · Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere: Tas Has Sth to Say About the K-Ar Date of a Rock

In the days of Peleg
by Larry Pierce, This article is from
Creation 22(1):46–49, December 1999
https://creation.com/in-the-days-of-peleg

There are three errors common in biblical chronology today. ... Third, there are those who would lengthen the biblical chronology. One of the earliest were those rabbis in Egypt who translated the Hebrew Bible into Greek to produce the Septuagint (LXX) in the third century BC. They arbitrarily added about 700 years to the biblical chronology for the period between Noah and Abraham, to make it agree with the works of Manetho. If what they had done was correct, then Peleg would be dead and gone (as would most of the leaders of the division of the nations) before the Tower of Babel happened.

Strawman.

Many modern biblical archaeologists, like the translators of the LXX, are just as guilty of the same thing today. Just as the LXX’ translators listened to the fairy tales the Egyptian priests told them, most modern biblical scholars follow the just so stories told by secular historians and archaeologists who push the founding of Babylon and Egypt back thousands of years.

Bad comparison.

Why is the comparison bad? Why is it a strawman?

First, why do I answer this in the first place? I have often linked to CMI, as their work is partly parallel and mainly complementary to mine, despite them being Protestants. Also, they were in the field before me. Also, the views per day would be more numerous than mine. Much of my readership has for all three reasons a probability to consult them about what I write. If they are stating sth which would if taken seriously make me look bad, my readers are likely to be aware of it. CMI are aware of it, they have classified me as a spammer who needs no response. The problem with that approach is, it precludes debate. Either way, they are beyond reasonable doubt aware of it.

A few days ago, I actually sent them an article which I gave them the right to use.

It involved the "admission" or rather explanation that my Biblical chronology followed the Roman Martyrology for Christmas Day. The samples I gave in it made it clear, this is a LXX based chronology. I also made a claim that carbon dates can be accurately calibrated to Biblical chronology (it could be made with Ussher chronology too, I suppose, but the problem is this would need a faster carbon 14 rise, which would need more radioactivity to achieve). It also involved as a conclusion from the recalibrated carbon dates, as opposed to the uniformitarian ones, that Yamnaya culture was too late to be the common ancestor of all Indo-European languages, if that is what happened.

The article immediately brought to sight was not the one above, but another retake of an article from the same issue, which made me look up this article. It is Radioactive ‘dating’ failure The problem is, this is worded in the title as if the unreliability basically totally of K-Ar (and it really is unreliable) disproved any and all radioactive dating methods, even carbon 14 in a modified shape. But back to the claim of Larry Pierce that this would contradict the lifespan of Peleg.

10 And these [are] the generations of Sem: and Sem was a hundred years old when he begot Arphaxad, the second year after the flood. 11 And Sem lived, after he had begotten Arphaxad, five hundred years, and begot sons and daughters, and died. 12 And Arphaxad lived a hundred and thirty-five years, and begot Cainan. 13 And Arphaxad lived after he had begotten Cainan, four hundred years, and begot sons and daughters, and died. And Cainan lived a hundred and thirty years and begot Sala; and Cainan lived after he had begotten Sala, three hundred and thirty years, and begot sons and daughters, and died. 14 And Sala lived an hundred and thirty years, and begot Heber. 15 And Sala lived after he had begotten Heber, three hundred and thirty years, and begot sons and daughters, and died. 16 And Heber lived an hundred and thirty-four years, and begot Phaleg. 17 And Heber lived after he had begotten Phaleg two hundred and seventy years, and begot sons and daughters, and died. 18 And Phaleg lived and hundred and thirty years, and begot Ragau. 19 And Phaleg lived after he had begotten Ragau, two hundred and nine years, and begot sons and daughters, and died. 20 And Ragau lived and hundred thirty and two years, and begot Seruch.		10 Καὶ αὗται αἱ γενέσεις Σήμ. καί ἦν Σὴμ υἱὸς ἑκατὸν ἐτῶν, ὅτε ἐγέννησε τὸν ᾿Αρφαξάδ, δευτέρου ἔτους μετὰ τὸν κατακλυσμόν. 11 καὶ ἔζησε Σὴμ μετὰ τὸ γεννῆσαι αὐτὸν τὸν ᾿Αρφαξὰδ ἔτη πεντακόσια καὶ ἐγέννησεν υἱοὺς καὶ θυγατέρας καὶ ἀπέθανε. 12 Καὶ ἔζησεν ᾿Αρφαξὰδ ἑκατὸν τριάκοντα πέντε ἔτη καὶ ἐγέννησε τὸν Καϊνᾶν. 13 καὶ ἔζησεν ᾿Αρφαξὰδ μετὰ τὸ γεννῆσαι αὐτὸν τὸν Καϊνᾶν ἔτη τετρακόσια καὶ ἐγέννησεν υἱοὺς καὶ θυγατέρας καὶ ἀπέθανε. Καὶ ἔζησε Καϊνᾶν ἑκατὸν καὶ τριάκοντα ἔτη καὶ ἐγέννησε τὸν Σαλά. καὶ ἔζησε Καϊνᾶν μετὰ τὸ γεννῆσαι αὐτὸν τόν Σαλὰ ἔτη τριακόσια τριάκοντα καὶ ἐγέννησεν υἱοὺς καὶ θυγατέρας καὶ ἀπέθανε. 14 Καὶ ἔζησε Σαλὰ ἑκατὸν τριάκοντα ἔτη καὶ ἐγέννησε τὸν ῞Εβερ. 15 καὶ ἔζησε Σαλὰ μετὰ τὸ γεννῆσαι αὐτὸν τὸν ῞Εβερ τριακόσια τριάκοντα ἔτη καὶ ἐγέννησεν υἱοὺς καὶ θυγατέρας καὶ ἀπέθανε. 16 Καὶ ἔζησεν ῞Εβερ ἑκατὸν τριάκοντα τέσσαρα ἔτη καὶ ἐγέννησε τὸν Φαλέγ. 17 καὶ ἔζησεν ῞Εβερ μετὰ τὸ γεννῆσαι αὐτὸν τὸν Φαλὲγ ἔτη διακόσια ἑβδομήκοντα καὶ ἐγέννησεν υἱοὺς καὶ θυγατέρας καὶ ἀπέθανε. 18 Καὶ ἔζησε Φαλὲγ τριάκοντα καὶ ἑκατὸν ἔτη καὶ ἐγέννησε τὸν Ραγαῦ. 19 καὶ ἔζησε Φαλὲγ μετὰ τὸ γεννῆσαι αὐτὸν τὸν Ραγαῦ ἐννέα καὶ διακόσια ἔτη καὶ ἐγέννησεν υἱούς καὶ θυγατέρας καὶ ἀπέθανε. 20 Καὶ ἔζησε Ραγαῦ ἑκατὸν τριάκοντα καὶ δύο ἔτη καὶ ἐγέννησε τὸν Σερούχ.
Genesis 11 page 1 and page 2, LXX with English translation.
Arph. 2 to 537 AF (after the Flood) Cainan 137 to 597 AF		Sala 267 to 727 AF Heber 397 to 801 AF Phaleg 531 to 870 AF

In the graph, I see "2242 BC Tower of Babel (Manetho)" ... without much explanation. So, lets assume the Tower of Babel had been mentioned as such by Manetho, and given a time reference which adds up with its relation to his time to 2242 BC, in and of itself possible, Peleg would at least have been pretty old when it came to be. Let's see, Creation* 5500 BC, minus 2242 = Flood* in 3258 BC, minus 870 after Flood, sure enough, in this case, yes, Peleg would have been already dead when it happened, a total counterintuitive oxymoron.

But I have verified, this is not what happened. Manetho's Book of Sothis is not independently available, it is cited in George Syncellus who made an Ussher method based Biblical chronology, but one based on the LXX. So, arguably, if Manetho had claimed the tower of Babel was in 2242 BC, this would preclude this agreeing with Pelegs placement in George Syncellus' chronology. But that would have meant that Syncellus was disagreeing with Manetho.

In fact, Manetho's Book of Sothis is a fragment, that is only available in the citation it gets in Syncellus.** Let's first see a footnote on it.

The Book of Sôthis which Syncellus believed to be the genuine Manetho, but which in its original form was based upon Eusebius and Josephus, is dated by Gutschmid to the third century after Christ. It is not possible to divide the kings of this "Cycle" into dynasties, for their sequence is unchronological: e.g. 18‑24 belong to Dynasties XIX and XX, 26‑29, 32 to the Hyksôs period, 33‑48 to Dynasty XVIII, 49, 58 to Dynasty XIX, 50, 51 to Dynasty XXVI, 59‑61 to Dynasty I, 63‑67 to Dynasty XXI, 68‑70 to Dynasty XXIII, 74 to Dynasty XXIV, 75‑77 to Dynasty XXV, and 79‑86 to Dynasty XXVI.

The Book of Sôthis includes names taken from another source than Manetho.

Hardly likely, if the book of Sothis had given us an indication for 2242 BC, that this would be better proof than the LXX. But if we look at the content of the actual page, it is mainly a series of king names. And the mention of the Tower of Babel is in a comment by Manetho under name 25. Here are that name 25 as well as Syncellus comment.

25. Concharis, 5 years.

In this 5th year of Concharis, the 25th king of Egypt, during the Sixteenth p239 Dynasty of the Sôthic Cycle as it is called in Manetho, the total of years from the first king and founder of Egypt, Mestraïm, is 700 belonging to 25 kings, i.e. from the general cosmic year 2776, in which the Dispersion took place in the 34th year of the rule of Arphaxad 7 and the 5th year of Phalec. 8 Next in the succession were 4 kings of Tanis, who ruled Egypt in the Seventeenth Dynasty for 254 [259] years, according to the following computation.

As you may have noticed, the Biblical mentions are only in Syncellus' comment. Manetho is no independent source for Menes' real name being Mestraim, alias Mitsraim, nor for the Tower of Babel, nor for its relation to Arphaxad (somewhat obscure, a kind of thought lapse?) and to Phaleg. And, even more, no mention of the Tower of Babel being in 2242 BC. He places it in Anno Mundi 2776. In order to translate this to BC, you need to know that Syncellus considered Christ as born some time between 5500 and 5509 Anno Mundi.

5500 BC = 0 AM
2776 AM =
2724 BC

What would be the age of Phaleg in this year?

2242 AM (Flood)
+531 AF
2773 AM

He would have been three years old.

To be fair, there really were authors who (seemingly at least) placed Tower of Babel in the ballpark of 2242 (or nine years later 2234) BC.

The year was 331 BC. After Alexander the Great had defeated Darius at Gaugmela near Arbela, he journeyed to Babylon. Here he received 1903 years of astronomical observations from the Chaldeans, which they claimed dated back to the founding of Babylon. If this was so, then that would place the founding of Babylon in 2234 BC, or about thirteen years after the birth of Peleg. This was recorded in the sixth book of De Caelo (‘About the heavens’) by Simplicius, a Latin writer in the 6th century AD. Porphyry (an anti-Christian Greek philosopher, c. 234–305 AD) also deduced the same number.

But the problem is, does this "founding of Babylon" correspond to Tower of Babel? I would say no. But even over and above that, Syncellus used Manetho and LXX, Simplicius and Porphyry used neither. I cannot locate the sixth book of Simplicius, and the Aristotelic work he comments on has only four books ... Syncellus obviously did not use Aristotle. But if he had, he might have concluded for the date being about the founding of Classical Babylon, not the Nimrodian one. Yes, I think there is a distinction, and since some time back, I think*** Classical Babylon was originally called Agade, was Sargon's capital before he "founded Babylon" and also after he did so, namely by renaming Agade, after conquering a location in Turkey, Sinjar province, which before his time (and I would argue only from some time after Peleg's birth) had been the location known as Bab-ilu or Hebrew Babel. So, 2234 BC could be referring to Sargon rather than Nimrod.

So, while the article seems to throw a bad light on my view of Göbekli Tepe being Babel and LXX being a good chronology, unjustifiedly so.

Now, I found this as said via an article on Radioactive ‘dating’ failure, while this is technically correct, this old article glosses over (or rather hadn't begun to notice) that there could be a difference between K-Ar (what the article actually talks about) and C14.

The reason I got to making a Biblical recalibration for C14 is I had a kind of trust in that one, which someone on FB seemingly independently put to the test. Not sure if he wants credit on my blog, I'll for now just cite the responses I made to him, which include minimal quotations from his comments.

"Also, C14 has not reached equilibrium. It's been calculated by Creation scientists to take 30,000 years to reach equilibrium, making the Earth less than 30,000 years old."

I think "has not reached equilibrium" is wrong, what we see now is variation around it (up to recent emissions of old carbon).

If C14 hadn't reached equilibrium, why would C14 dating work pretty well and in accordance with known history around known historic objects for past centuries back to Christ and beyond to fall of Troy (greatest deviation from 100 pmC being in the times of the Hallstatt plateau)?

"The point is, the C-14 dating method is junk science. It can't be accurate, because other science disproves it."

There is in fact no other science, including theology, that disproves it.

Theology proves it needs recalibration after Biblical events rather than continuing with dendro-chronological calibration after that becomes insecure (further back then etc).

But theology doesn't disprove the method as such. Nor does any natural science.

By theology, I don't mean anything else than Biblical history, its chronology, and potentially theological ramifications of the chronology. Note, I said it doesn't disprove the method as such, but it certainly disproves the older dates in the currently most often used calibration. I e, theology proves a need for this to be recalibrated.

Now, why would I have any kind of trust in just this one radiometric method? Well, for one it works in relation to recent three millennia.

For another, one of the Creationist classics about this one, namely the "still ongoing" rise in it, gave me the hunch that it could be and most importantly for a Biblical recalibration, formerly have been, rising. A rising C14 level would mean the successive real dates are put into successive datings by two processes:

• as even now, and imperfectly, by older samples having decayed more of its initial carbon 14
• but on top of that, to even out the imperfections or swings, by older samples having less and less initial content the further back you go.

This is how 2958 BC, 2557 BC, 1936 BC° carbon date°° to 37 000, 8600, 3500 BC, i e a much wider span of time than in reality.

I could suspect that CMI looked for an old issue which had two articles contradicting me, and then just in case I should miss it also sent someone to the FB group where I am known to make the points there.

But it could also be, they simply prayed, and God answered their prayer in a way that unexpectedly gave me the opportunity to justify my position, rather than retract it. Whether they were devious in the way first suggested or simply "cautious" and then prayed as suggested this paragraph, I think I can thank God for the opportunity.

It remains that Larry Pierce did a far from professional job. Per se fine, but doesn't really put CMI in a position to boycott me for my (real or at least culturally perceived) lack of professionality. I suspect he did some face to face seeking for feedback numbers could have tumbled over each other to his ears, and he could have inserted one year which was a numeral for a time span, not a date, and misunderstood what was Manetho and what wasn't Manetho.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
XXI Lord's Day after Pentecost
22.X.2023

PS, it seems the guy I stumbled on was a documentarist, which means, he would very arguably like the publicity even if I think he's wrong on detail.

Here's a sneak peek at my upcoming documentary, where I will prove the Book of 1 Enoch was written by Noah's great grandfather, and I will provide archaeological evidence, matching astronomical movements, matching the text of Enoch, that shows it is the most significant eye witness evidence of a young Earth

The Mystery of Enoch - Sneak Preview
David Willhite, 21 Dec. 2022
https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=tLp6VgTkbE0

To which I responded by looking up Josephus (mentioned in video) and commenting:

// ...Now this Seth...did leave children behind him who imitated his virtues.... They also were the inventors of that peculiar sort of wisdom which is concerned with the heavenly bodies, and their order. And that their inventions might not be lost before they were sufficiently known, upon Adam's prediction that the world was to be destroyed at one time by the force of fire, and at another time by the violence and quantity of water, they made two pillars; the one of brick, the other of stone: they inscribed their discoveries on them both, that in case the pillar of brick should be destroyed by the flood, the pillar of stone might remain, and exhibit those discoveries to mankind; and also inform them that there was another pillar of brick erected by them. Now this remains in the land of Siriad to this day. //

I will not deny that sons of Seth could well have done this before the Flood, but I think Noah could have brought a model on the Ark, and Göbekli Tepe is a copy of that model by Nimrod.

A k a Babel.

It could also be, Nimrod was more of an astrologer than the sons of Seth, and Josephus being that too but having a negative view of Nimrod (correctly so) replaced that into the pre-Flood world, so as to exonerate it from being by Nimrod (who was obviously a son of Seth by the way) — or some of his predecessors did so.

PPS, same FB group started to get 2 more posts of videos debunking radiometric dating in general. For the one we see an enumeration of methods in the time stamp, it doesn't cover C14. For the other I'm basically verifying it halfways through or a third through, it seemingly wants to give the impression carbon 14 isn't any good either, without actually stating so and without adressing its specificities. The fact that carbon 14 has been found in fossils supposed to be millions of years old doesn't prove the method is fundamentally flawed. The fact it gives in the first instance ages that are inflated beyond Biblical, a k a real timeline shows there needs to be a recalibration. This I have already done, and it's kind of being cancelled./HGL

PPPS, if anyone wonders why I follow CMI at all, some of their classics really are classic. Here is one:

Is Jesus Christ the Creator God?
by Russell Grigg, This article is from
Creation 13(3):43–45, July 1991
https://creation.com/is-jesus-christ-the-creator-god

* Syncellus' chronology involves a few more centuries than that of the Roman martyrology. In the latter, creation is in 5199 and Flood in 2957 BC (or 5200 and 2958 BC, since Christ is not born in "year zero" but in "year 1 BC" = most of the year was before He was born), this also makes 2242 years in the Genesis 5 genealogy.

** Appendix IV The Book of Sôthis or The Sôthic Cycle
This webpage reproduces a section of The Fragments of Manetho
https://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Manetho/Appendices/4*.html

*** And here I looked up my source:

An Upper Mesopotamian location for Babel
by Ken Griffith and Darrell K. White | This article is from
Journal of Creation 35(2):69–79, August 2021
https://creation.com/babel-upper-mesopotamia

° Flood, Babel dispersion (end of Babel occupation), Genesis 14.
°° By tephra from a supervolcano, considering these belong to the Flood, by charcoal layer uppermost in Göbekli Tepe, by reed mats for evacuation of temple treasures from Amorrhaean En-Geddi.

Would Proto-Indo-European Diverge Into Hittite, Mycenaean Greek, Indo-Aryan in The Biblical Time-Frame?

Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere: Three Questions on PIE and Yamnaya (with one debate continued under Continued Debate with "Germanic Syntax") · Creation vs. Evolution: Is There a Correct Use of Stone Age, Bronze Age, Iron Age? · Early human remains found to carry R1b · Would Proto-Indo-European Diverge Into Hittite, Mycenaean Greek, Indo-Aryan in The Biblical Time-Frame? · Φιλολoγικά / Philologica: Can a PIE Spread with Anatolian Farmers be Defended?

First we rule out Maykop culture. Quotes will consistently be from wikipedia.

Maykop culture, c. 3700 BC – 3000 BC
New data revealed the similarity of artifacts from the Maykop culture with those found recently in the course of excavations of the ancient city of Tell Khazneh in northern Syria, the construction of which dates back to 4000 BC.[citation needed]
Radiocarbon dates for various monuments of the Maykop culture are from 3950 - 3650 - 3610 - 2980 calBC
According to genetic studies on ancient DNA published in 2018, the Maykop population came from the south, from Imereti, and was descended from the Chalcolithic farmers known as Darkveti-Meshoko who first colonized the north side of the Caucasus. Maykop is therefore the "ideal archaeological candidate for the founders of the Northwest Caucasian language family".

So, Maykop presumably spoke Northwest Caucasian.

Second, we line up cultures that lead up to Yamnaya culture / Afanasievo culture (apart from Maykop). We also line up very early Indo-European languages at the very end.

Starčevo culture, circa 6,200 B.C. — circa 4,500 B.C.
Vinča culture, c. 5700–4500 BC
Linear Pottery culture, c. 5500 BC — c. 4500 BC
Boian culture, divided
Phase I – Bolintineanu Phase, 4300–4200 BC.
Phase II – Giulești Phase (also known as the Giulești-Boian culture), 4200–4100 BC.
Phase III – Vidra Phase, 4100–4000 BC.
Phase IV – Spanțov Phase (also known as the Boian-Gumelnița culture), 4000–3500 BC.
Cucuteni–Trypillia culture, is divided
• Early (Pre-Cucuteni I–III to Cucuteni A–B, Trypillia A to Trypillia BI–II): 5800 to 5000 BC
• Middle (Cucuteni B, Trypillia BII to CI–II): 5000 to 3500 BC
• Late (Horodiștea–Foltești, Trypillia CII): 3500 to 3000 BC
and is influenced:
The roots of Cucuteni–Trypillia culture can be found in the Starčevo–Körös–Criș and Vinča cultures of the 6th to 5th millennia,[7] with additional influence from the Bug–Dniester culture (6500–5000 BC).[21] During the early period of its existence (in the fifth millennium BC), the Cucuteni–Trypillia culture was also influenced by the Linear Pottery culture from the north, and by the Boian culture from the south.[7]
Sredny Stog culture, c. 4500 BC – 3500 BC
The culture ended at around 3500 BC, when the Yamnaya culture expanded westward replacing Sredny Stog, and coming into direct contact with the Cucuteni–Trypillia culture culture in western Ukraine.
Repin culture, 3900–3300 BCE
Anthony suggests that the Afanasievo culture was formed by a migration of people with a material culture of the same type as Repin, probably from the middle Volga-Ural area c. 3700–3500 BCE.
Yamnaya culture, c. 3300 – 2600 BC
Afanasievo culture, 3300 BCE — 2500 BCE
Hittite language, attested 17th to 12th centuries BC
Mycenaean Greek, 16th–12th century BC

Note, I cannot take Mitanni as earliest attestation of Indo-Aryan, since the language they actually spoke was Hurrian, with some Indo-Aryan superstrate, if that was the case.

But from Starčevo 6200 BC to Hittite 1650 BC, no problem. 4550 years.

From Yamnaya 3300 BC to Hittite 1650, still no problem. 1650 years.

Third, here is the problem, in a Biblical time-frame this is shorter. I will now add quotes from my New Tables into the mix:

2309 B. Chr.

62.1506 pmC, so dated as 6259 B. Chr.

Starčevo culture begins 6,200 B.C.

2287 B. Chr.

63.387 pmC, so dated as 6037 B. Chr.

2265 B. Chr.

64.6199 pmC, so dated as 5865 B. Chr.

Early Cucuteni–Trypillia culture begins 5800 BC

Vinča culture begins c. 5700 BC

2243 B. Chr.

65.7496 pmC, so dated as 5693 B. Chr.

Linear Pottery culture begins c. 5500 BC

2220 B. Chr.

68.0023 pmC, so dated as 5420 B. Chr.

2153 B. Chr.

70.6677 pmC, so dated as 5003 B. Chr.

Early Cucuteni–Trypillia culture ends and

Middle Cucuteni–Trypillia culture begins 5000 BC

2131 B. Chr.

71.8838 pmC, so dated as 4881 B. Chr.

2086 B. Chr.

74.3062 pmC, so dated as 4536 B. Chr.

Starčevo culture, Vinča culture and Linear Pottery culture end 4,500 B.C.

while Sredny Stog culture begins

2064 B. Chr.

75.4934 pmC, so dated as 4364 B. Chr.

Boian Phase I – Bolintineanu Phase begins 4300 BC

2041 B. Chr.

76.6964 pmC, so dated as 4241 B. Chr.

Boian Phase I – Bolintineanu Phase ends and

Boian Phase II – Giulești Phase (also known as the Giulești-Boian culture) begins 4200 BC

Boian Phase II – Giulești Phase (also known as the Giulești-Boian culture) ends and

Boian Phase III – Vidra Phase, begins 4100

2019 B. Chr.

77.8962 pmC, so dated as 4069 B. Chr.

Boian Phase III – Vidra Phase ends and

Boian Phase IV – Spanțov Phase (also known as the Boian-Gumelnița culture), begins 4000 BC

1996 B. Chr.

79.0927 pmC, so dated as 3946 B. Chr.

Repin culture begins 3900 BC

1952 B. Chr.

81.476 pmC, so dated as 3652 B. Chr.

Boian Phase IV – Spanțov Phase (also known as the Boian-Gumelnița culture)

and Middle Cucuteni–Trypillia culture

and Sredny Stog culture end 3500 BC, and Late Cucuteni–Trypillia begins

1935 B. Chr.

82.73 pmC, so dated as 3485 B. Chr.

1868 B. Chr.

84.1262 pmC, so dated as 3318 B. Chr.

Repin culture ends 3300 BC

when Yamnaya and Afanasievo cultures begin

1845 B. Chr.

84.5892 pmC, so dated as 3245 B. Chr.

1778 B. Chr.

85.9766 pmC, so dated as 3028 B. Chr.

Late Cucuteni–Trypillia ends 3000 BC

1756 B. Chr.

86.4346 pmC, so dated as 2956 B. Chr.

Yamnaya culture ends 2600 BC

1700 B. Chr.

87.575 pmC, so dated as 2800 B. Chr.

1678 B. Chr.

89.4653 pmC, so dated as 2598 B. Chr.

Afanasievo culture ends 2500 BC

1655 B. Chr.

91.4498 pmC, so dated as 2395 B. Chr.

1521 B. Chr.

98.184 pmC, so dated as 1671 B. Chr.

Hittite language begins 1650 BC

1498 B. Chr.

98.555 pmC, so dated as 1618 B. Chr.

1476 B. Chr.

98.924 pmC, so dated as 1566 B. Chr.

Mycenaean Greek begins 1550 BC

1454 B. Chr.

99.0081 pmC, so dated as 1534 B. Chr.

1185 B. Chr.

100 pmC, so dated as 1185 B. Chr.

Hittite and Mycenaean languages end in 1150 BC

2309 - 1521 = 788 years. Bad. Even if you begin with Starčevo culture
2086 - 1521 = 565 years. Worse, and you have begun with Sredny Stog.
1868 - 1521 = 347 years, from beginning of Yamnaya culture to appearance of Hittite.

Add another 100 years each for coming to Mycenaean Greek.

This is why I tend to feel a YEC is basically committed to Sprachbund type of group for Indo European./HGL

PS, this is consistent with, but may not closely correlate to, the earliest Aryan vocabulary of the Mitanni being in the non-IE language of Hurrian. As mentioned above, also sourced to wikis on Mitanni and on Hurro-Urartian languages/HGL

Is There a Correct Use of Stone Age, Bronze Age, Iron Age?

Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere: Three Questions on PIE and Yamnaya (with one debate continued under Continued Debate with "Germanic Syntax") · Creation vs. Evolution: Is There a Correct Use of Stone Age, Bronze Age, Iron Age? · Early human remains found to carry R1b · Would Proto-Indo-European Diverge Into Hittite, Mycenaean Greek, Indo-Aryan in The Biblical Time-Frame? · Φιλολoγικά / Philologica: Can a PIE Spread with Anatolian Farmers be Defended?

If by Stone age you mean an era lasting 4 million years, no, that didn't exist.

If by Stone age you mean an era unbroken between 3000 and 2000 BC, no, that span was broken by the Flood.

If by Iron age, you mean the very first use of iron was after the Bronze age, no, that's inaccurate, Tubal Cain made iron before the Flood.

However, there is a correct usage, and it mostly refers to the post-Flood world.

Probably some tools were on the ark, in metal. But very probably these soon became inadequate to those on board. And after the Flood, they were not finding metal ore any time soon. This is the main beginning of the stone age.

However, this was not the first stone age. Before Tubal Cain, stone tools had been used, and some populations, like the Neanderthals we found, held on to that technology up to the Flood. Someone of Neanderthal lineage was on the Ark, and could instruct the others in stone tool making.

The Lower Palaeolithic, and part of the Upper Palaeolithic (as long as you find purebred Neanderthals) is pre-Flood, regionally stone age, while the contemporary Nodian civilisation was so far not found. But the rest of the Upper Palaeolithic is the 350 years after the Flood when Noah was still alive. Then came the Neolithic, with Nimrod in Göbekli Tepe, as his original Babel is now called. Abraham was born when the Chalcolithic was still ongoing and saw the birth of the Bronze Age, which was still ongoing in Joshua's time./HGL

Waiting for the Messiah, Acc. to the Catechisms

I) The catechism of the Council of Trent: Part I, Article 2
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_catechism_of_the_Council_of_Trent/Part_1:_Article_2

But as the fruit of these admirable blessings is best known by we considering the ruin brought on man, by his fall from that most happy state in which God had placed our first parents, let the pastor be particularly careful to make known to the faithful, the cause of this common misery and universal calamity. When Adam had departed from the obedience due to God, and had violated the prohibition, "of every tree of Paradise thou shall eat; but of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat, for in what day soever thou shalt eat it, thou shalt die the death;?[3] he fell into the extreme misery of losing the sanctity and righteousness in which he was created; and of becoming subject to all those other evils, which are detailed more at large by the holy Council of Trent. [4] The Pastor, therefore, will not omit to remind the faithful, that the guilt and punishment of original sin were not confined to Adam, but justly descended from him, as from their source and cause, to all posterity. The human race, having fallen from their elevated dignity, no power of men or angels could raise them from their fallen condition, and replace them in their primitive state. To remedy the evil, and repair the loss, it became necessary that the Son of God, whose merits are infinite, clothed in the weakness of our flesh, should remove the infinite weight of sin, and reconcile us to God in his blood. The belief and profession of this our redemption, as God declared from the beginning, are now, and always have been, necessary to salvation. In the sentence of condemnation, pronounced against the human race immediately after the sin of Adam, the hope of redemption was held out in these words, which denounced to the devil, the loss which he was to sustain by man's redemption: " I will put enmities between thee and the woman, and thy seed and her seed: she shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel." [5] The same promise he again often confirmed, and more distinctly signified his counsels to those chiefly whom he desired to make special objects of his predilection: amongst others to the patriarch Abraham, to whom he often declared this mystery, but then more explicitly when, in obedience to God's command, he was prepared to sacrifice his son Isaac: " Because," says he, " thou hast done this thing, and hast not spared thy only begotten son for my sake; I will bless thee, and I will multiply thy seed as the stars of heaven, and as the sand that is by the sea shore. Thy seed shall possess the gates of their enemies, and in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed; because thou hast obeyed my voice." [6] From these words it was easy to infer that he, who was to deliver man kind from the ruthless tyranny of Satan, was to be descended from Abraham; and that, whilst he was the Son of God, he was to be born of the seed of Abraham according to the flesh. Not long after, to preserve the memory of this promise, he renewed the same covenant with Jacob, the grandson of Abraham. When in a vision Jacob saw a ladder standing on earth, and its top reaching to heaven, and the angels of God ascending and descending by it, [7] he also heard the Lord saying to him, as the Scripture testifies; " I am the Lord God of Abraham thy father, and the God of Isaac; the land, wherein thou sleepest, I will give to thee and to thy seed; and thy seed shall be as the dust of the earth; thou shalt spread abroad to the west and to the east, and to the north and to the south; and in thee and thy seed all the nations of the earth shall be blessed." [8] Nor did God cease afterwards to excite in the posterity of Abraham, and in many others, the hope of a Saviour, by renewing the recollection of the same promise; for, after the establishment of the Jewish republic and religion, it became better known to his people. Many types signified, and prophets foretold the numerous and invaluable blessings which our Redeemer, Christ Jesus, was to bring to mankind. And, indeed, the prophets, whose minds were illuminated with light from above, foretold the birth of the Son of God, the wondrous works which he wrought whilst on earth, his doctrine, manners, kindred, death, resurrection, and the other mysterious circumstances regarding him; [9] and all these as graphically as if they were passing before their eyes. With the exception of the time only, we can discover no difference be tween the predictions of the prophets, and the preaching of the apostles, between the faith of the ancient patriarchs, and that of Christians But, we are now to speak of the several parts of this Article.

Footnotes [3 - 9]
3) Gen. ii. 16, 17. 4) Sess. 5. Can. 1. & 2. Sess. 6. Can. 1. & 2. 5) Gen. iii. 15 6) Gen. xxii. 16, 17, 18.		7) Gen. xxviii. 12. 8) Gen. xxviii. 13, 14. 9) Is. vii. 14; viii. 3; ix. 5; xi. 1 - 53 per totum. Jer. xxiii 5: xxx. 9. Dan. vii. 13; ix. 21.

II Catechism of Pope St. Pius X, The Apostle's Creed, The First Article of the Creed
https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/catechism-of-st-pius-x-1286

35 Q.

In what state did God place our first parents, Adam and Eve?

A.

God placed our first parents, Adam and Eve, in the state of innocence and grace; but they soon fell away by sin.

36 Q.

Besides innocence and sanctifying grace did God confer any other gifts on our first parents?

A.

Besides innocence and sanctifying grace, God conferred on our first parents other gifts, which, along with sanctifying . grace, they were to transmit to their descendants; these were: (1) Integrity, that is, the perfect subjection of sense . reason; (2) Immortality; (3) Immunity from all pain and sorrow; (4) A knowledge in keeping with their state.

37 Q.

What was the nature of Adam's sin?

A.

Adam's sin was a sin of pride and of grave disobedience.

38 Q.

What chastisement was meted out to the sin of Adam and Eve?

A.

Adam and Eve lost the grace of God and the right they had to Heaven; they were driven out of the earthly Paradise, subjected to many miseries of soul and body, and condemned to death.

39 Q.

If Adam and Eve had not sinned, would they have bee exempt from death?

A.

If Adam and Eve had not sinned and if they had remained faithful to God, they would, after a happy and tranquil sojourn here on earth, and without dying, have been transferred by God into Heaven, to enjoy a life of unending glory.

40 Q.

Were these gifts due to man?

A.

These gifts were in no way due to man, but were absolutely gratuitous and supernatural; and hence, when Adam disobeyed the divine command, God could without any injustice deprive both Adam and his posterity of them.

41 Q.

Is this sin proper to Adam alone?

A.

This sin is not Adam's sin alone, but it is also our sin, though in a different sense. It is Adam's sin because he committed it by an act of his will, and hence in him it was a personal sin. It is our sin also because Adam, having committed it in his capacity as the head and source of the human race, it was transmitted by natural generation to all his descendants: and hence in us it is original sin.

42 Q.

How is it possible for original sin to be transmitted to all men?

A.

Original sin is transmitted to all men because God, having conferred sanctifying grace and other supernatural gifts on the human race in Adam, on the condition that Adam should not disobey Him; and Adam having disobeyed, as head and father of the human race, rendered human nature rebellious against God. And hence, human nature is transmitted to all the descendants of Adam in a state of rebellion against God, and deprived of divine grace and other gifts.

43 Q.

Do all men contract original sin?

A.

Yes, all men contract original sin, with the exception of the Blessed Virgin, who was preserved from it by a singular privilege of God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ our Saviour.

44 Q.

Could not men be saved after Adam's sin?

A.

After Adam's sin men could not be saved, if God had not shown mercy towards them.

45 Q.

What was the mercy shown by God to the human race?

A.

The mercy shown by God to the human race was that of immediately promising Adam a divine Redeemer or Messiah, and of sending this Messiah in His own good time to free men from the slavery of sin and of the devil.

46 Q.

Who is the promised Messiah?

A.

The promised Messiah is Jesus Christ, as the Second Article of the Creed teaches.

I will not venture to call "Vatican II" a valid council, as long as Pope Michael II holds it invalid, but it cannot be denied it kind of says the same thing:

III DOGMATIC CONSTITUTION ON DIVINE REVELATION DEI VERBUM, Chapter 1, § 3
https://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19651118_dei-verbum_en.html

3. God, who through the Word creates all things (see John 1:3) and keeps them in existence, gives men an enduring witness to Himself in created realities (see Rom. 1:19-20). Planning to make known the way of heavenly salvation, He went further and from the start manifested Himself to our first parents. Then after their fall His promise of redemption aroused in them the hope of being saved (see Gen. 3:15) and from that time on He ceaselessly kept the human race in His care, to give eternal life to those who perseveringly do good in search of salvation (see Rom. 2:6-7). Then, at the time He had appointed He called Abraham in order to make of him a great nation (see Gen. 12:2). Through the patriarchs, and after them through Moses and the prophets, He taught this people to acknowledge Himself the one living and true God, provident father and just judge, and to wait for the Savior promised by Him, and in this manner prepared the way for the Gospel down through the centuries.

In other words, all of these sources are unanimously saying:

• God promised the Redeemer (and His Blessed Mother) directly to Adam
• God gave reminders to Abraham so it should not be forgotten
• the promise of the Redeemer was never forgotten by all men, but rather cherished by all men up to fairly shortly before Abraham, and since then, it was cherished at least by Hebrews, and at least some remnants or exceptions among other men.

Let's see which chronology, taken as literal history, note, I say history, not science, fits these criteria best, shall we?

• Adam was created 6000 - 7500 years ago, on an earth not yet 144 hours old (all men, Sapiens, Neanderthalenses, Denisovans, Heidelbergians, Erectus Soloensis, descend from him)
• Adam was the first among "behaviourally modern humans" c. 40 000 years ago
• Adam was the first Homo Sapiens, c. 300 000 years ago
• Adam was the first ancestor of Sapiens, Neanderthalenses, Denisovans, Heidelbergians, but counted as per modern scientific datings, i e at least 600 000 years ago
• Adam was also the first ancestor of Homo Erectus Soloensis, counted as per modern scientific datings, i e nearly two million years ago.

In the first of these scenaria, Abraham is the roughly speaking midpoint between Adam and Jesus, 2000 - 3000 years after the former, 2000 years before the latter. There is another midpoint between Abraham and each of the midpoints, namely Noah, between Adam and Abraham, King David, between Abraham and Our Lord Jesus, the Christ. If the former two stretches between anchor points are 1.5 times the time of the latter ones, the lifespans were also much longer, so, in terms of generations, Abraham is closer to Adam than to Jesus (20 - 21 for the former, 21 if there was a second Cainan, either way including the extremes, 45 - 46 for the latter, with only 41 or 42 generations ritually acknowledged). No huge risk of things being forgotten.

Now, suppose instead the shortest of the other scenarios.

Adam was the first among "behaviourally modern humans" c. 40 000 years ago.

Suppose the ages in Genesis 5 and 11 were not meant to be taken literally, take modern lifespans and generation distances.

40 000 - 4000 = 36 000 years
36 000 years / 25 years per generation = 1440 generations.

I think there is a pretty significant difference between 1440 and 20 generations.

1440 / 21 = 68.57 times as many ... plus obviously, in that case, even 21 generations would have hit worse, since the overlaps would
have been in shorter spans. Here is Haydock on Genesis 3:

Concerning the transactions of these early times, parents would no doubt be careful to instruct their children, by word of mouth, before any of the Scriptures were written; and Moses might derive much information from the same source, as a very few persons formed the chain of tradition, when they lived so many hundred years. Adam would converse with Mathusalem, who knew Sem, as the latter lived in the days of Abram. Isaac, Joseph, and Amram, the father of Moses, were contemporaries: so that seven persons might keep up the memory of things which had happened 2500 years before. But to entitle these accounts to absolute authority, the inspiration of God intervenes; and thus we are convinced, that no word of sacred writers can be questioned. H.

With a LXX chronology, I'd require a bit more than seven "minimally overlapping generations" from Adam to Moses, more like 12, but on the other hand, I am taking the purely oral tradition only to Abraham, who would be sixth from Adam to take this knowledge up, plus all the generations in between each minimal overlap who would reinforce it. To show what I mean, I have met my grandparents but never my great-grandparents. This makes me and my grandparents two minimally overlapping generations. In this sense, 1440 generations would be 720 minimally overlapping generations, also from Adam to Abraham.

720 / 6 = 120

So, in this scenario, the memory Abraham had of the promise to Adam would have been 120 times more diluted = irrecognisable.

To make this worse, in the scenario dating human history by modern science instead of by the Bible, most of this time, the people would have been hunter gatherers and probably even lacking writing. I am not denying that the 32 symbols Genevieve von Petzinger found all over the palaeolithic could be some kind of alphabet, but if so, the samples we found suggest it was used to give initials as memory points.

11 And Sem lived after he begot Arphaxad, five hundred years, and begot sons and daughters. 12 And Arphaxad lived thirty-five years, and begot Sale. 13 And Arphaxad lived after he begot Sale, three hundred and three years; and begot sons and daughters. 14 Sale also lived thirty years, and begot Heber. 15 And Sale lived after he begot Heber, four hundred and three years; and begot sons and daughters.

16 And Heber lived thirty-four years, and begot Phaleg. 17 And Heber lived after he begot Phaleg, four hundred and thirty years: and begot sons and daughters. 18 Phaleg also lived thirty years, and begot Reu. 19 And Phaleg lived after he begot Reu, two hundred and nine years, and begot sons and daughters. 20 And Reu lived thirty-two years, and begot Sarug.

21 And Reu lived after he begot Sarug, two hundred and seven years, and begot sons and daughters. 22 And Sarug lived thirty years, and begot Nachor. 23 And Sarug lived after he begot Nachor, two hundred years: and begot sons and daughters. 24 And Nachor lived nine and twenty years, and begot Thare. 25 And Nachor lived after he begot Thare, a hundred and nineteen years: and begot sons and daughters.

26 And Thare lived seventy years, and begot Abram, and Nachor, and Aran. 27 And these are the generations of Thare: Thare begot Abram, Nachor, and Aran. And Aran begot Lot.

Probably this would have looked like:

SASHPRSNT
T:ANA
AL

With each letter just used to get the ordering correct, as an aid to learning by heart. We have not found anything that remotely looked like longer texts. But the problem is, this becomes vastly inadequate if instead of 21 generations back to Adam you had 1440. If only one in every 68 to 69 people is recorded, the collective memory has suffered considerably, and therefore the memory of Genesis 3 too.

And the points I made from two catechisms, plus a good paragraph in a probably spurious council, actually require Genesis 3 to be all of this time recalled as history, not to be first forgotten and then revealed, for instance to Moses.

So, on top of this, it is also dogma that the Catholic Church in one shape or another, has always existed. This becomes highly dubious if we count 40 000 years of people, or more, with not just only hunters and gatherers, but on top of that these often becoming cannibals, and the most noble hunter gatherers in our time at least being partially corrupt in the faith. However, the 3000 years instead of 36 000 years from Adam to Abraham, the odds become very much less daunting. And the same observations would all be even stronger if you pushed Adam back even earlier than 40 000 years ago.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
Exaltation of the Holy Cross
14.IX.2023

Exaltatio sanctae Crucis, quando Heraclius Imperator, Chosroa Rege devicto, eam de Perside Hierosolymam reportavit.

"Concordism" - a Pointless Concept in France and Madagascar

Two examples of "concordism."

Sample A.

Pius XII is lauding the findings of Georges Lemaître, and considering that his Big Bang is in fact scientific proof of the Fiat Lux.

Sample B.

Creation Ministries International are tomorrow (published in Australia where it's already after midnight) featuring an article saying:

The big bang—Science or science fiction?
by Jim Mason | This article is from
Creation 44(3):42–45, July 2022
https://creation.com/big-bang

So, both samples are supposed to be "concordism" ... why?

Concordism is the supposedly counterintuitive and radical position that, when science is correctly done and when exegesis is correctly done, they will agree and not contradict.*

The "sane" position according to those who coined the terms is, they will not contradict, but neither will they agree. In other words, to some Catholics over here in France, the default position is Non-Overlapping Magisteria.

So, in France and Madagascar, that is so default, that not sharing it has a special word, "concordism" ... or in French, "concordisme" - the wikipedia page in French links to exactly one other language, namely Malagasy - that is, the language of Madagascar ...

Possibly this comes from being unduly impressed by Georges Lemaître and his rejection of Pius XII, and how the rejection was reasoned. Because, you see, in matters of faith and science, to some over here in France, it is the scientist who rules about faith, not the pope who rules about the science ...

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
XVth Lord's Day after Pentecost
10.IX.2023

XV comes handy, in the rugby season ...

* A near month later, I find out William Lane Craig is giving it another meaning. And using it in English. Upcoming video comment on that one ....

Barnes and Haydock Have a Thing or Two in Common

Theoretic Demography Limits · Holy Koolaid Pretended Flood to Sodom Chronology Excludes a Sodom or Gomorrah of Half a Million People · Barnes and Haydock Have a Thing or Two in Common

Barnes was unfortunately presbyterian, so didn't have apostolic succession, unlike George Leo Haydock, a real priest, but here is from his — Barnes' — view on Genesis 11.

The age of puberty in the Hebrew affords more scope for the increase of population than that in the other texts. For if a man begin to have a family at thirty, it is likely to be larger than if he began a hundred years later and only lived the same number of years altogether. Now the Hebrew and Samaritan agree generally, against the Septuagint, in the total years of life; and in two instances, Heber and Terah, the Samaritan has even a less number than the Hebrew. It is to be remembered, also, that the number of generations is the same in every case. Hence, in all human probability the Hebrew age of paternity will give the greater number of inhabitants to the world in the age of Abram. If we take the moderate average of five pairs for each family, we shall have for the estimated population 4 X 5(to the 9th power) pairs, or 15,625,000 souls. This number is amply sufficient for all the kingdoms that were in existence in the time of Abram. If we defer the time of becoming a father for a whole century, we shall certainly diminish, rather than increase, the chance of his having so large a family, and thereby the probability of such a population on the earth in the tenth generation from Noah.

If I want to defend the LXX, how about saying ... Heber was not the oldest son of Shelah, Shelah not the oldest son of Arphachsad (or Kenan II as son of Arphachsad), but more like "the seventh son of a seventh son" ... or, Shelah and Heber, if not Arphachsad, were delayed in marriage, precisely as it is inconceivable Noah reached puberty only at age 500. Or both.

But the point is not whether Barnes is right or wrong in his conclusion.

The point is, the reasoning clearly supposes that the data about generations and ages is accurately portrayed in one of the text versions, and therefore in the autograph text.

Here is Haydock on Genesis 3:

Concerning the transactions of these early times, parents would no doubt be careful to instruct their children, by word of mouth, before any of the Scriptures were written; and Moses might derive much information from the same source, as a very few persons formed the chain of tradition, when they lived so many hundred years. Adam would converse with Mathusalem, who knew Sem, as the latter lived in the days of Abram. Isaac, Joseph, and Amram, the father of Moses, were contemporaries: so that seven persons might keep up the memory of things which had happened 2500 years before. But to entitle these accounts to absolute authority, the inspiration of God intervenes; and thus we are convinced, that no word of sacred writers can be questioned. (Haydock)

Again, the point is not that Haydock is right on the specific number of minimal overlaps between Adam and Moses, again, as a defender of LXX chronology, I disagree.

But the point is, his reasoning also presupposes that the data about ages and generations is accurately portrayed in one of the text versions, and therefore in the first autograph of the hagiographer (unless he made a correction before sharing or as soon as getting corrected when sharing).

Barnes gives a list of years from creation in which the call of Abraham occurred, taken from Genesis 5 and 11. They vary from Anno Mundi 2078 to Anno Mundi 3564. But he, like Haydock, would have felt it as totally absurd to try to multiply either the total or one of the two chapters with ten to account for "unmentioned intermediates" ... to Haydock this would have been betraying the historic credibility of Genesis 3. To Barnes, it would have made the calculation about demographics totally superfluous.

As Barnes touches on post-Flood demographics, I will link back to two earlier posts here that include or concentrate on the issue — would there have been enough people for Babel or for the Kingdom's in Abraham's time?

Yes, there would.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
Nativity of the Blessed Virgin
8.IX.2023

Some Observations

Creation vs. Evolution: Some Observations · Great Bishop of Geneva!: Can We Agree Pre-Adamites is Not a Christian Idea?

1. The Film Jaws starts with a narrator voice taking evolution and millions of years for granted.
2. Catholicism has never condemned Young Earth Creationism, but swathes of Novus Ordo Catholics are gliding away from even normal Creationist as Intelligent Design memes, or Adam being an individual, and even Trads are by now highly prone to Old Age compromise ... one would not expect Catholics to act as if Young Earth Creationism had been condemned, but they do.
3. Murder, Arson ... would you add Jaywalking here? Well, Islamic Terrorism, forcing women to wear a veil, Crusades, Inquisition, some are very happy to put Young Earth Creationism on the same list of complaints against "religion" or "religious fanaticism" (depending on the person's lesser or greater tolerance for religion not perceived as "fanatic").

I recently saw that FB admins have started to eliminate earlier shared links to this blog.

In the group for radio-metric dating (from a Young Earth perspective), he tried to share a link which by now is standard on this blog to cite and re-cite:

New Tables
http://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2020/08/new-tables.html

It was instantly marked as spam — though on topic in the group and I had to copy piece by piece, table by table thereof, onto the group.

I regularly appeal when such a link is removed, and regularly FB refuses to put the link back. It is intellectual vandalism, it is possibly "entrave à la liberté d'expression" ...

Le fait d'entraver, d'une manière concertée et à l'aide de coups, violences, voies de fait, destructions ou dégradations au sens du présent code, l'exercice d'une des libertés visées aux alinéas précédents est puni de trois ans d'emprisonnement et de 45 000 euros d'amende.

Article 431-1, last alinéa.
https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/codes/section_lc/LEGITEXT000006070719/LEGISCTA000006165358/#LEGISCTA000006165358

Possible translation:

The act of hindering, in a concerted manner, and by hitting, violence, skirmishes, destruction or degradation of property in the sense if this present code, the exercise of one of the liberties intimated in the previous alineas is punished by three years of prison and 45 000 euro damage payments.

Dubious part of the translation: "voies de fait" as "skirmishes" ... ah yes, it is "code pénal" and this means that "voies de fait" means some kind of aggressive physical action, it could be a light violence, like without wounding or bruising the other.

Anyway, given the seriousness of liberty of expression, what could put up a FB admin to anyway be doing this kind of thing?

One possibility is false friends I added on FB, or friends of friends who are not directly my friends, making a concerted effort of signalling links of mine as spam ... but that in its turn poses the question what put THEM up to such a thing.

Well, here is where I go back to my initial observations.

1)

The Film Jaws starts with a narrator voice taking evolution and millions of years for granted.

In other words

lots of media, popular and paedagogic, are giving large swathes of the public with some dishonesty the impression that Evolution is the kind of thing you don't question. Two plus two is four. Earth is round. Steam and ice are water in other temperatures. A negative times a negative makes a positive. AND Earth is millions of years old, Evolution happened.

In reality, Evolution doesn't belong here. It has however gained much more following by people taking it for granted in the most varied contexts (Jaws or Kindergarden books on Dinosaurs, discussions of Ecology or discussions of psychology ... even or morals) than by frank discussions of its evidences, even those that are conducted with very great bias.

2)

one would not expect Catholics to act as if Young Earth Creationism had been condemned, but they do

In other words

lots of big fairly old Churches have an apparent "mainstream" as far as numbers are concerned, that in practise treats Young Earth Creationism as anathema.

Lots of them are very willing to decry own members for being Young Earth Creationist.

In some cases, this is enforced by people wanting equally bad treatment for Young Earth Creationists of other religions. It seems, I read it somewhere, the moderation team on FB in France involves some pretty conservative Muslims. If they feel obliged or that it is tactical to treat outspoken Muslim Creationists as spammers, why not extend it to Christian Creationists? Unless it's some kind of follow up since my time in Sweden, after leaving prison in 2000 on the last of June. Along with some neighbourly paranoias in Rosengård.

3)

Islamic Terrorism, forcing women to wear a veil, Crusades, Inquisition, some are very happy to put Young Earth Creationism on the same list...

In other words

they reify "religious fanaticism" and consider any given thing associated with it as associated with all of its parts, including violence and oppression.

In the process, some wreck equity, lots wreck historic veracity or due proportions, and others who may be at the receiving end of such suspicions (which is the case with Muslims in France) may enjoy an opportunity of seeing someone of another religion suffer that instead of their own.

I can also not exclude that someone "higher up" has put up FB admins to such things ...

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
St. Moses
4.IX.2023

In monte Nebo, terrae Moab, sancti Moysis, legislatoris et Prophetae.