To an Article on Ortho-Christian

To an Article on Ortho-Christian · Continuing Previous · To a Comment on the Article

Author Seraphim Hamilton thought a Creationist argument was bad science:

Likewise, the concept that the entire fossil record was laid down by the Flood of Noah is untenable. This does not explain the particular order of fossils that we discover in the ground, especially for what paleontologists call Cenozoic, or Tertiary rocks. Paleontologists divide the Earth’s history into three periods, corresponding to three different layers of rock. There are Paleozoic, or Primary rocks. These contain fossils from the Precambrian and before. Above this, there are Mesozoic rocks, containing fossils from the Cambrian to the end of the Cretaceous, when the dinosaurs are understood to have gone extinct. Finally, there are Cenozoic, or Tertiary rocks, where we find mammals, most birds, and ourselves. The difficulty with the older creationist view that all of these rocks were laid down by the Flood is that we only find humans at the top of the rock layers, and we find remnants of human civilization, which would be completely wiped out by a global Flood. Why do we only find humans at the top?

From : Why I Became a Creationist
Seraphim Hamilton | May 9, 2016
http://orthochristian.com/93210.html
Source: Apologia Pro Ortho Doxa

Well, author was confused about what we actually find.

We do very much NOT find humans above dinos above trilobites.

While in each location the rocks accounted for by geology may be Tertiary over Mesozoic over Palaeozoic, in each location also, there is nearly always one of them you get fossils from.

And that one is, usually, not indeed top soil, which is very recent, but the top of the "geological column".

Say you find a Neanderthal in a cave. You will NOT find that there is a Dino in a lower cave or a Trilobite in a cave even lower than that.

I checked on where fossils are actually found.

The one exception I found to this principle is, at drill holes for petrol drilling, you may find Trilobites under Elasmosauri - if you like, Palaeozoic under Mesozoic, but if you like, bottom living creatures under mid depth living creatures.

That said, I don't believe all Mesozoic is from the Flood. Why? Bc some Mesozoic, that is some dinosaurs are carbon dated to as recently as 22 000 BP. By Mark Armitage, btw.

I think the carbon date for the Flood is more like 40 000, perhaps 30 000 BP.

Flood in 2957 BC (as per St Jerome, you using Syncellus have a somewhat even more old Flood) ...

38 000 BC
-2 957 BC
35 043 extra years = 1.442 percent modern Carbon as initial condition

20 000 BC
-2 957 BC
17 043 extra years = 12.724 percent modern Carbon as initial condition

No, I don't think the atmosphere at 2957 BC had both 12.724 and 1.442 percent modern Carbon at the same time. I rather think, a dino dated to 22 000 BP or 20 000 BC is in fact from some later mudslide than those of the Flood. 1.442 pmC was the Carbon content at Flood, and 12.724 pmC sometime between the Flood and Babel.

But dinos are in whatever carbon date not found in layers that actually lie lower than Uinthatheria or Sabre Tothed Tigers (or Smilodons).

If you go to Belgium, you can claim the Iguanadon is from Cretaceous, the Woolly Rhinos from Tertiary, but you will not find that Woolly Rhinos consistently come from 10 feet deep and Iguanodons from 20 feet deep. Both come from sufficiently near the surface to merit digging.

Probably both Woolly Rhino and Iguanodon were buried in Flood, if not it is possible Iguanodon is the one that is post-Flood. Woolly Rhinos were eaten by Neanderthals, when they didn't eat each other. And these were pre-Flood.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
St. Moses
4.IX.2018

What Demographic is a Creationist?

One in four US Americans (stats for 2016 or previous year or so) believes God created the world about 6000 years ago, a literal Adam and Eve ...

So, do these coincide with every US demographic that is 25 %?

No.

In fact, Creationism isn't limited to US. I saw a documentary on a German documentary channel caled Galileo. I had to comment on it, since it presumed basically that Creationism is one Christian confession or at worst sect, one Christian lifestyle.

No, I don't spend five or more hours a week at a Protestant Church, I don't live in a country side house (with goats and poultry) in Texas, I am quite a different demographic - I'm still a Creationist.

Some don't get you can

• love fantasy like Tolkien and be Creationist;
• be a hobo and blogger and be Creationist;
• have spent more time in university than at work and be Creationist ...

And a man who thought St Ignatius of Loyola couldn't be against "Pope Francis" being Evolutionist, bc, you know, St Ignatius of Loyola was a Humanist ... some don't get that 16th C. Humanists were Creationists : Erasmus, St Ignatius, St Thomas More, Luther, Melanchthon and everyone else.

Now, Erasmus is one I did study at University - and I don't mean an Erasmus exchange.

Have a Blessed Sunday!/HGL

URL to Print Out and Distribute

I made sure it has the proportions of an A4, so when you print it out, it will probably re-size to an overall A4 image.

I recommend, once it is printed out (make copies freely!) that you cut the rows before separating the four examples in each row, as the columns are not overall reliably made./HGL



PS, Another one, if you want smaller and more URLs:



Otherwise, after printing out the first one, in two copies, put them on the A3 screen, make two copies reduced to A4, put these on the A3 screen and make two or more copies reduced to A4. That might give a clearer text than what I did by similar procedure in paint./HGL

Rolling Period of Ark?

Baraminological Note · For Sea-Farers .... · Rolling Period of Ark? · Ark : empty weight and freighted weight, number of couples on the Ark. · Small Tidbits on Ark, Especially Mathematical

A passenger ship will typically have a long rolling period for comfort, perhaps 12 seconds while a tanker or freighter might have a rolling period of 6 to 8 seconds.

From My Sea Time: Q.What is roll period of a ship and on what factors does it depends ?

Roll Period Time (T) = (K * Beam^2) / sqrt (GM)

Or, from wiki:

T = 2pik / sqrt(gGM)
g = gravitational acceleration
k = radius of gyration about longitudinal axis
GM = stability index

Mathematically the radius of gyration is the root mean square distance of the object's parts from either its center of mass or a given axis, depending on the relevant application. It is actually the perpendicular distance from point mass to the axis of rotation.

Now, I had written in the previous stability related article that ...

"I was out, I calculated that total weight of Ark with load when waterline was 15 cubits up was 50,970 metric tons. I took into account that there were three storeys on Ark, and considering foot tons and calculating for even distribution of weight over three storeys, I got it to a centre of gravitation of either 21.37 feet above keel/bottom, if lowest storey count as ten feet up, or if the foot tons are zero because the height is zero, 18 feet above bottom."

18 - 21 feet up = centre of gravitation.



Problem is, what distance values do I take into account for root mean square distance to the point marked 18/21?

I'll go with three points on the height times three points on the sides. Nine points overall in their distance to the centre of gravitation.

In the middle, where diagonality is not an issue, the three points are high, middle and low. Not marked.

60 - 21 = 39	60 - 18 = 42
30 - 21 = 9	30 - 18 = 12
21	18

Each side has same values, so each following value is counted twice in the mean. High, middle, low on each side is abbreviated as h, m, l.

392 + 502 = h2	422 + 502 = h2
92 + 502 = m2	122 + 502 = m2
212 + 502 = l2	182 + 502 = l2
1521 + 2500 = 4021 = h2	1764 + 2500 = 4264 = h2
81 + 2500 = 2581 = m2	144 + 2500 = 2644 = m2
441 + 2500 = 2941 = l2	324 + 2500 = 2824 = l2
1521 + 81 + 441 + 2(4021 + 2581 + 2941) = 21129	1764 + 144 + 324 + 2(4264 + 2644 + 2824) = 21696
21129 / 9 = 2347.67	21696 / 9 = 2410.67
sqrt(2347.67)= 48.45	sqrt(2410.67) = 49.10
2 * 48.45 * pi = 304.42	2 * 49.10 * pi = 308.50
32.174 ft/s2 * 21 = 675.654	32.174 ft/s2 * 18 = 579.132
sqrt(675.654) = 26	sqrt(579.132) = 24.07
304.42 / 26 = 11.71	308.50 / 24.07 = 12.82

So, unless I totally got the way of calculating radius of gyration wrong, the rolling period of the Ark, according to the formula given in wiki, would have been between 11.71 and 12.82 seconds. Recall that first sentence?

A passenger ship will typically have a long rolling period for comfort, perhaps 12 seconds while a tanker or freighter might have a rolling period of 6 to 8 seconds.

In other words, God saw to it, they were fairly comfy on the Ark, whenever the natural rolling period prevailed!

On the road to St James, on a day when I was crying, a man trying to comfort me told me "God gives his what they need, but not too soon / just a little less, so they don't feel spoiled". God measly? Er, no.

If I got the calculation right, the rolling period of the Ark was that of a passenger ship, or even somewhat slower.

Of course, I am not a ship captain and can have got it wrong, but if you are into ships, see for yourself!

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
St. Narnus of Bergamo
27.VIII.2018

Bergomi sancti Narni, qui, a beato Barnaba baptizatus, primus ab ipso ejusdem civitatis Episcopus ordinatus est.

To Michael Oard

Thank you for telling us about Sahara as wet land in your article:

The problem of the wet Sahara
by Michael Oard
https://creation.com/wet-sahara

Here is a quote I'll highlight:

The timing of the AHP has been debated, but secular researchers generally believe it started about 15,000 years ago.11,12 Based on 3,287 carbon-14 dates from 1,011 Neolithic archeological sites, they surmise that humans were in northern Africa 5,500–10,500 years ago. So, the AHP is inferred to have likely ended about 5,500 years ago in the uniformitarian timescale.

This is where I go ... well, first, let's quote your conclusion:

This corresponds to the very late Pleistocene, during deglaciation, and the early to mid-Holocene, after the biblical Ice Age.

I would object to the phrase "biblical Ice Age" - because the Ice Age as such is only vaguely hinted at in the Bible. It's like saying "biblical penecilline", not that the Bible forbids us to believe in or consume (when infected) penicilline, but that the Bible does not mention it.

I would say, this corresponds to:

• times in Biblical chronology just before the Babel project;
• times of the Babel project (40 years in one Jewish tradition, I recall);
• times after Babel but ending before Abraham, if not necessarily before his birth, at least before Genesis 14.

I base this on:

• accepting Göbekli Tepe as Babel (if "tower" means rocket, lack of tower like architecture is no problem), where the carbon dates are between 9600 and 8600 BC;
• and accepting Osgood's identification of Amorrheans of Asason-Thamar with Chalcolithic En Gedi. Meaning probably a carbon date close to 3000 BC.

In other words, Carbon date 5500 BC is between 8600 BC and 3000 BC. Carbon date 15000 BC is before 9600 BC. Obviously it is after the Flood, not just because 15000 BC is ...

... Sorry, I saw I misconstrued BP (ago, before present) as BC (before Christ). This is about how things can go wrong for a writer who is also homeless and therefore often tired. Now, this does not mean I live in a haze, it means I spend some moments surprising myself with having read myself or others in a short moment of haze. So, 10,500 years ago is 8500 BC = just after Göbekli Tepe, just after Babel. 5500 years ago = 3500 BC, within the possible span (as long as I don't find actual carbon dates cited) of chalcholithic of En Geddi, BUT as being before Pharaos, it would have to have been a bit before Genesis 13.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Kremlin Bicêtre
XII Sunday after Pentecost
12.VIII.2018

Mechanism of Relative Correctness on Lava Layers ... Proposed

It is not withdrawn. Yet.

In a video by Dr.Grady McMurtry, at 7:11, I see a graph on the screen behind the doctor talking.

Text on graph:

1801, the Hualalai Volcano, Hawaii, Lava flow went to the Ocean Floor.

0.8 miles (1.3 km) deep, K-Ar 0 million

2 miles (3.2 km) deep, K-Ar 12 million

2.6 miles (4.2 km) deep, K-Ar 21 million

I propose, the deeper down lava flowed, the cooler it got; the cooler it got, the quicker the lava solidified; the quicker lava solidified, the more Argon got trapped instead of leaking out AND therefore, the older it is dated.

So, if in Laetoli the lower lava layers are older than the upper ones, in dating, it is because the upper ones were laid down in a shallower sea with water somewhat already heated by previous lava flows ... still, during Flood, the streams would be so fast that water would cool much better and 0.8 miles deep would not be absolutely needed to get the K-Ar dates above and below for instance the recent footprints (recently discovered, not saying the Flood was recent, when the footprints were made).

If Obama was seriously born on Hawaii, how come he has no clue about this creationist argument? He seems to be still promoting old age and evolution, right?

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris I
XI Sunday after Pentecost
5.VIII.2018

Herpes on the Ark? (Adult Stuff, Sorry)

This is usually a family friendly blog.

While many posts are more easily understood by young adults or adults than by normal children, the latter are not discouraged from reading them, on my part. This is an exception. Adults sometimes are very studpid about one or two particular things and one of them is likely to land you with sth called herpes. If you are a boy under 14 or a girl under 12 in normal circumstances you should not be reading about this.

Newer post. | Older post.

Children out of this post?

Fine.

As you know, I believe Neanderthals were pre-Flood. I also believe most post-Flood diseases arose after the Flood, by mutating viruses and bacteria. In other words, post-Flood diseases are usually not pre-Flood diseases. The problem for me is, herpes is a disease existing post-Flood. And Neanderthals are, on my view, pre-Flood.

There are some ways to go around this.

• 1) Neanderthals diagnoses with herpes are misdiagnosed, the disease is similar, but not identic.
• 2) Neanderthals are post-Flood.
• 3) Noah had a person infected with herpes on the Ark.
• 4) Herpes some way by passed humans on the Ark.

Now, each has a few problems.

1) Neanderthals diagnoses with herpes are misdiagnosed, the disease is similar, but not identic.

Not likely. I trust the palaeo-anthropologists a bit too much for this one.

After a glance at Melissa Hogenboom, I wonder whether I overdid the confidence ... it reads a bit like, no herpes mark or virus was ever analysed on a Neanderthal skeleton or skull, it is a matter of back-tracing genes related to diseases.

2) Neanderthals are post-Flood.

CMI or IRC would consider this the case. I think it poses problems for carbon dating. If carbon date of Babel, beginning and ending, is 9600 and 8600 BC (Göbekli Tepe), how come carbon levels sank so drastically to supposedly post-Babel Neanderthals, of which the most recent ones are as far as I have gathered, 40 000 - 35 000 BP (38 - 33 000 BC)?

"Babel begins 2602 BC"

"42.89 pmc, 9600 BC"

"Babel ends 2562 BC"

"48.171 pmc, 8600 BC"

"Flood"

"2957 BC"

"low estim."

"c. 1 percent modern carbon (pmc), 38 000 BC (40 000 BP)"

From

Refining table Flood to Abraham - and a doubt

So

no, I don't think Neanderthals are really post-Babel, even if it would solve the problem. Obviously, CMI and IRC consider Babel far older than Göbekli Tepe - and they underestimate relative reliability of C14.

3) Noah had a person infected with herpes on the Ark.

If so - why?

• Some son chose a wife unwisely?
• Most people had herpes (all flesh was corrupted - could mean that) and those who hadn't had avoided it by being part of a very evil élite.
• Someone's wife was raped - but this does not dissolve marriage.
• Someone with a tragic past was nevertheless worthy to be on the Ark (say, Noema as Ham's wife could have been widow of "Pandavas" as Mahabharata calls them, and therefore also exposed to a very evil "Kaurava" - who could have been infected : supposing she was for instance the historic model for Draupadi).

Each is possible, none is totally convincing.

4) Herpes some way by passed humans on the Ark.

It bypassed the humans on the Ark via animals:

Nine herpesvirus types are known to infect humans: herpes simplex viruses 1 and 2 (HSV-1 and HSV-2, also known as HHV1 and HHV2), varicella-zoster virus (VZV, which may also be called by its ICTV name, HHV-3), Epstein–Barr virus (EBV or HHV-4), human cytomegalovirus (HCMV or HHV-5), human herpesvirus 6A and 6B (HHV-6A and HHV-6B), human herpesvirus 7 (HHV-7), and Kaposi's sarcoma-associated herpesvirus (KSHV, also known as HHV-8).[7] In total, more than 130 herpesviruses are known,[8] some of them from mammals, birds, fish, reptiles, amphibians, and mollusks.

Or via corpses.

Both animals and corpses pose the question what post-Flood person was uncautious enough to catch it ... I consider Nimrod a candidate. "He began to be a giant" could refer to some kind of initiation, with very unsound, like necrophiliac or zoophiliac rites.

Or, the news that Neanderthals had herpes is hyped, the research is as bad as my glance at Melissa Hogenboom's article seemed to suggest to me.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Cergy
St. Dominic of Guzmán
4.VIII.2018