Did Henry Drummond Have Any Other Hunch on Language?

How did Henry Drummond Explain Human Language? · Did Henry Drummond Have Any Other Hunch on Language?

I feel somewhat guiltyish for omission in the previous.

Not guilty, the main problem is actually, he assumes once a "Homo alalus" is anatomically equal to a Homo sapiens surely an adult "Homo alalus" would at the very least show the talent in language making of a five year old or ten year old Homo sapiens, thereby becoming a Homo sapiens.

But he had two other leads, or three, one of which is resurfacing and the other ones of which aren't so much. They are just very subsidiary to this egregious error. The problem being that the five or ten year old actual human person actually started talking by being taught that. And an adult so far "alalus" (non talking) would, by definition, not have had any seach teaching. He would not as a child have seen and heard first hand how certain meanings and certain sounds go together. Or rather sound-sequences. Or rather sequences of sound-sequences. The phoneme being a sound (as abstractly recognised in the language), the morpheme being a sound sequence with some kind of incomplete meaning, or a definitional one, and the sequence of morphemes (of sound sequences) having a full meaning, two (or more) definitions going together to tell something.

Now here are the other leads.

A second witness is savage Man. Some of the more primitive races, far as they have evolved past the alalits stage, still cling to the gesture-language which bulked so largely in the inter¬ course of their ancestors. No one who has witnessed a conversation — one says “ witnessed,” for it is more seeing than hearing — between two different tribes of Indians can have any doubt of the working efficiency of this method of speech. After ten minutes of almost pure pantomime each will have told the other everything that it is needful to say. Indians of different tribes, indeed, are able to communicate most perfectly on all ordinary subjects with no more use of the voice than that required for the emission of a few different kinds of grunts. The fact that stranger tribes make so large a use of gesture in expressing themselves to one another does not, of course, imply that each has not a word-language of its own. But few of the Languages of primitive peoples are complete without the ad¬ ditions which gesture offers. There are gaps in the vocabulary of almost all savage tribes due to the fact that in actual speech the lacunce are bridged by signs, and many of their words belong more to the category of signs than to that of words.

I suppose a certain true Scotsman, as Henry Drummond was, never ever set foot in North Dakota or South Dakota. He did visit Boston. But it would seem that the descendants of the Pilgrim Fathers had been a bit bad for the persistance of the Indians who welcomed them. Boston is just 42,4 mi from Plymouth Bay. So, I'm very sure Mr. Drummond himself had never witnessed a conversation between two different tribes. But even if we grant that lots were left to gesture, I would venture that the gestures are a conventional substitute for actual words, not a more universal dictionary. Whoever Drummond was relying on had misunderstood Amerindian linguistics pretty grossly. So, no, this one is not very much repeated these days. Fortunately.

The next stage in the Evolution of Language must have been reached as naturally as the Language of gesture and tone. From the gesture-language to mixtures of signs and sounds, and finally to the specialisation of sound into words, is a necessary transition. Apart from the fact that gestures and tones have limits, circumstances must often have arisen in the life of early Man when gesture was impossible. A sign Language is of no use when one savage is at one end of a wood and his wife at the other. He must now roar ; and to make his roar explicit, he must have a vocabulary of roars, and of all shades of roars.

This one is kind of repeated. Latest avatar of it, someone said, when human females lost fur and babies could no longer 24/24 cling to the fur of the mother, another way of keeping contact was necessary. The problem is, apart from us not descending from creatures with fur for real, the capacity to talk seems "on the evolutionary timeline" to arise way later than the loss of body hair. How did babies survive without getting lost in the meantime? It's obviously pretty ludicrous to talk of a man and of his wife before they could talk as if a marriage contract could be signed in chimp calls. But supposing there was even just a momentary pairing, why would they be on opposite ends of a wood before they were able to agree on things like "you search that region, I'll search this one" ... things one normally agrees to verbally.

The child who says moo for cow, or bow-wow for dog, or tick-tick for watch, or puff-puff for train, is an authority on the origin of human speech.

...

“ An Englishman would hardly guess from the present pronunciation and meaning of the word pipe what its origin was ; yet when he compares it with the Low Latin pipa, French pipe, pronounced more like our word peep, to chirp, and meaning such a reed-pipe as shepherds played on, he then sees how cleverly the very sound of the musical pipe has been made into a word for all kinds of tubes, such as tobacco-pipes and water-pipes. ..." [Tylor Anthropology, p. 127.]

...

The instructiveness of this, in showing the reason why philology is often so helplessly at a loss in tracking farstrayed words to their original sense, is plain. In the nature of the case, the onomatopoetic theory can never be proved in more than a fraction of cases. So cunning is the mind in associating ideas, so swift in making new departures, that the clue to multitudes of words must be obliterated by time, even if the first forms and spellings of the words themselves remain in their original in¬ tegrity — which rarely happens — to offer a feasible point to start the search from.

As with Tolkien's language invention, the child who calls a dog bow-wow already has some notion of talking. He's substituting onomatopoeia for adult words, because he hasn't heard or has forgotten the adult word, or for plain fun. But the point is. His cue is, Drummond's not the child's, onomatopoeia starts a process of associations, and when one of the concepts actually is needed separate from the rest, it starts all over, and words originally onomatopoeic diversify by sound changes (like the Great Vowel Shift very thoroughly had the onomatopoeia in the English pronunciation of pipe.)

But this very obviously can't be the first step from calls of apes to words of men. The reason why human words can change meaning by associations and can change sound so as to sound different from before is not just that they are conventional, the calls of animals are that too to a degree, but that they are so very conventional that a word is made of meaningless sounds. D, O and G don't mean anything, "dog" does and "God" means something very different. Every time a word changes or drops or assumes a sound, other sounds are preserved, so that the distinction remains. A Dominican is sometimes nicknamed "the Lord's dog", but for the two words concerned, let's go for "God's dog" ... in Old English it would have been "Goddes dogga" ... you can see how the words have remained the same because parts of the original sounds remain, while others changed or in this case simply got dropped. Similarily, the word "war" ... let's consult wiktionary:

From Middle English werre, from Late Old English werre / wyrre (“armed conflict”), from Anglo-Norman and Old Northern French guerre / werre (compare modern French guerre), from Medieval Latin werra, from Frankish *werru (“confusion; quarrel”), from Proto-Indo-European *wers- (“to mix up, confuse, beat, thresh”). Gradually displaced native Old English beadu, hild, ġewinn, orleġe, wīġ, and many others as the general term for "war" during the Middle English period.

Werre. Note, "er" would have sounded like in "hair" but shorter, not like in "her". Werr. Loss of final vowel. Warr. Same vowel as in "father". Later: war. Rhymes with "for". With R. And in any parts of England, Oceania and part time in New York City, "waur" became "wau" ... At each stage, the sounds that don't change keep the word recognisable despite the sound that does change at each step.

How it could go from "confusion" to "war" depends on the fact that one could have many different words for "war" ... or for "confusion" ... again, a degree of conventional you don't find in ape calls. There is one call and precisely one call for "lion danger" = "flee into the trees".

None of the proposals deals with how, supposedly, on the Evolutionist view, language got restructured from calls where 1 sound (or vaccillation between sounds) = 1 meaningful whole, to 1, 2, 3 ... sounds = definitional meaning, concept, while 1, 2, 3 ... such meanings = a meaningful whole. And yet, that's precisely what their proposal entails. Drummond just presumes, without evidence, that an onomatopoeia for "lion" would somehow be superior to the older call for "lion danger", that it could be a word and still assumed into a context of calls, or even that changes we have documented for words (sound or meaning, sometimes both) could function for a call or for an onomatopoeia introduced among calls.

He also doesn't see the difference between "lion!" in the sense of "lion danger" and a word denoting the concept of lion. Apes that live near lions can communicate "lion danger = flee into the trees" in one call. But that call is absolutely not used in saying things like "we saw lions yesterday, but fortunately they were far off" — perhaps he dealt with it in the chapter on mind, though I doubt he did so intelligently, but how does curiosity (which hasn't killed any cat I have seen) intrude into a communication system of emotions ranging from high strung alarm signals to humdrum signals of contentment, but all just emotica and pragmatica, all they the equivalent of smileys and traffic signs?

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
Epiphany of the Lord
6.I.2026

How did Henry Drummond Explain Human Language?

How did Henry Drummond Explain Human Language? · Did Henry Drummond Have Any Other Hunch on Language?

He didn't. Here is a passage from The Lowell Lectures on the Ascent of Man, Chapter V, The Evolution of Language:

Into the problem, therefore, of how the infinite variety of words in a Language was acquired it is unnecessary to enter at length. Once the idea had dawned of expressing meaning by sounds, the formation of words and even of Languages is a mere detail. We have probably all invented words. Almost every family of children invents words of its own, and cases are known where quite considerable Languages have been manufactured in the nursery. When boys play at brigands and pirates they invent pass-words and names, and from mere love of secrets and mysteries concoct vocabularies which no one can understand but themselves.

Tolkien, as some may know, continued this game. And gave an intelligible ratio for what he was doing even as a child.

Now, the thing is, Tolkien as a child was rearranging words of the English language. That's Animalic. Even in the ensuing made up language, Nevbosh, while the word shapes were not English*, most words and all of the grammar was derived from English.

Only the third language he made, way past Nursery years, Naffarin, had a grammar of its own, like a real foreign language.**

We must conclude that Tolkien had reached the idea of "expressing meaning by sound" from being taught English as a child, and probably already had realised the existence of non-English languages as well, from actually being taught or at least told at this stage of French (back in Bloemfontein, he may have heard Afrikaans and Sesotho).

His expression already included:

• sentences or phrases composed of words of morphemes
• morphemes composed of phonemes
• phonemes having no meaning by themselves.

He invented other instances of that with the children he played with and later on his own, and much later shared with readers, but he didn't invent any of that. He was taught it.

It's amazing how the man who invented the phrase "God of the gaps" should have provided a gap which no scientist has so far closed. He just overlooked it.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
Epiphany of the Lord
5—6.I.2026

* Example: "woc" for "cow" and "hoc" for "how". ** But not in extent of vocabulary.

Can People Know What Good Is, Without Being Christian?

Once in a while, I'm not building from CMI as Creationists, but opposing their Protestantism. Today is one of those days.

It is impossible, especially for those who do not know the Lord, to have any kind of mental framework in which they can recognize what ‘good’ really is. As fallen people, we are born cut off from knowing the only right and good Being in the universe [God], and therefore, we are also cut off from knowing what is really good. Sinners think sinning is good, and God is bad! Clearly, their thinking is upside down!

Thinking ‘upside-down’!
By Gary Bates | Published 23 Nov, 2011 | Updated 09 Jan, 2014
https://creation.com/en/articles/thinking-upside-down

And, unfortunately, Gary Bates says "spot on".

No, it is somewhat beside the point. If we were born thinking upside down about morals, Pagans wouldn't be without excuse. They are.

For professing themselves to be wise, they became fools
[Romans 1:22]

Who, having known the justice of God, did not understand that they who do such things, are worthy of death; and not only they that do them, but they also that consent to them that do them
[Romans 1:32]

St. Paul doesn't say the Pagans had no idea these things were wrong. It's just that they had got socially used to thinking they were excusable.

A sinner is born with knowledge of God's justice, instinctively. Any theoretical deviation from it comes from three issues:

• excusing oneself when one sins (and as people sin on different issues, this involves excusing different things), ad hoc each time;
• generalising an excuse (whether for oneself or for someone one admires or loves), hoping others will agree;
• being taught by others to excuse a bad thing.

As different cultures are dominated by different bad men, different cultures will go wrong in different directions. And will teach this wrongdoing to the young, who weren't born to this evil thinking and didn't arrive there by themselves, most of them.

The diversity of moral systems are not in and of itself one moral systems, but surround it as more or less bad approximations, with the correct one (on most issues) in the middle. Often with one of the bad extremes being less popular. Saying "no one should drink alcohol" is less popular than "getting drunk is no sin" ... saying "no one should have sex" is less popular than saying you don't need marriage or a heterosexual setup of it, as well as other factors of fertile intention, to have sex. But the truth is still in the middle and attacked from both sides: you can drink alcohol, but not get drunk. You can have sex, but within marriage, open to procreation, and you should not obsess about that aspect of your partnership. And it's still pretty close to what people before their teens could have figured out if they weren't corrupted one way or the other in education or in comradeships.*

We are however born without the capacity to consistently follow the right morality. We only get that by Baptism. We only keep that by staying faithful to Baptism or returning to Fidelity with Confession.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
Vigil of Epiphany
5.I.2026

PS, see also:

For when the Gentiles, who have not the law, do by nature those things that are of the law; these having not the law are a law to themselves:
[Romans 2:14]

St. Paul doesn't say the Gentiles are always doing things of the law, he's saying when they act against it, they act against their own nature and reason./HGL

* Some are seduced to some things before puberty. With gluttony, that's pretty common. With some other sins it's rarer.

Durupınar Pottery is Arguably Post-Babel

JP: Pottery fragments found near Ararat renew debate over site of Noah’s Ark
JANUARY 1, 2026 11:36
https://www.jpost.com/archaeology/article-881983

Citation:

According to UK-based news site Metro, the shards, exposed during road work by the Dogubayazit site in Agri province, indicate human presence between 5500 BC and 3000 BC, according to Kaya.

Let's hope, the dating was made by carbon dating. No, pottery as such doesn't contain carbon and isn't datable, but used pottery tends to contain organic traces of for instance Food, which are datable by carbon.

Conveniently, the dates given are BC and not BP, I don't have to translate them.

2258 BC

66.981 pmC, dated as 5571 BC

2235 BC

68.129 pmC, dated as 5407 BC

So, this is between the birth of Serug (who taught Abraham), in 2295 BC, and the death of Peleg, in 2218 BC.

1779 BC

85.963 pmC, dated as 3029 BC

1759 BC

86.359 pmC, dated as 2971 BC

This is between the death of Ishmael, in 1793 BC, and the death of Isaac, in 1736 BC.

If we give each pair just briefly a medium value, the carbon dates translate to real dates between 2247 and 1769 BC.

The actual Flood was in 2957 BC. Noah died in 2607 BC. Peleg was born in 2256 BC.

Would the medium values make for carbon dates that match the given (probable) carbon dates?

2246.5 BC, 67.555 pmC. 1769 BC, 86.161pmC. Let's calculate:

5730 * log(0.67555) / log(0.5) + 2246.5 = 5489 BC (11 years off)

5730 * log(0.86161) / log(0.5) + 1769 = 3000 BC (on spot)

Yes, I think 2247 to 1769 BC is the good actual date for the pottery's content remains, if that's what they carbon dated. 478 years, starting 309 years after Babel ended.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
II LD after Christmas
4.I.2026

Predictions of YEC, One from CMI, One from Me

ONE) Evolutionists had originally predicted that galaxies would become rarer the further out they were. Like the starlight from out there would be coming from a time before the galaxies formed.

Creationists, picking up on this, predicted, no, God created all stars at the same time, galaxies were ready on day four, so, galaxies shouldn't become rarer further out.

They, the Creationists, have been confirmed.

Is that confirmation compatible with Geocentrism? Yes. To a man like Dr. Jason Lisle, the Andromeda Galaxy actually is 2.5 million light years away and then there are galaxies 13 billion light years away too. To me, the Andromeda spiral nebula is 1 light day away, and so are those other spiral nebulas. So, the jubilation of Dr. Jason Lisle doesn't disturb me, I'm just not impressed by the distance measures.

TWO) So, a Deep Timer, not sure if Evolutionist or if Progressive Creationist, stated in 2015 that if carbon 14 had exploded in the atmosphere from very low levels (like an original 3.125 pmC, giving the mirage of five halflives and therefore adding in the carbon date 28 650 extra years back to the real — BC — date and that then rising to our c. 100 pmC, on average no extra years), then this explosion would have needed so much cosmic radiation (or whatever other source of radioactivity that produced the carbon 14 that fast) that "all life except spiders would be fried" ...

As I held that carbon 14 levels really had been low, I predicted, no, the radioactivity wouldn't have been frying all life except spiders. This logically involves predictions about how fast the carbon 14 formed (like it didn't go from 3.125 pmC to 100 pmC in one day, not even in 1 or 10 years) and also what levels of cosmic radiation are needed for a certain rapidity of formation of carbon 14 (like 10 times faster doesn't take 1000 times more radiation, which would involve a "spider paradise" with no vertebrates left: 1000 * 0.34 milliSievert per year would be 340 milliSievert per year, and that would be fatal ... 0.34 is the part of the background radiation that on average inhabited height* corresponds to the cosmic radiation).

Let's take the second prediction first. It's probably the more important one. I tried to find a ratio between "how much more radiation" and "how much faster carbon 14 is produced" and there isn't one. I found a source saying "it goes from a square ratio to a cube ratio" in this particular range of variation, and this obviously means that the hypothetic ratio per se is neither square nor cube. By a certain exchange, years ago, I feel confident that I need not worry that a ten times faster production of carbon 14, for instance at Babel, necessitates a thousand times higher milliSievert level (like 340 per year). But first, radiation limits.

Recommended limit for radiation workers every five years: 100.00 [milliSievert].

Radiation exposure: a quick guide to what each level means
https://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2011/mar/15/radiation-exposure-levels-guide

100 per five years = 20 per year.

If the ratio is square, 0.34 milliSievert would in ten times faster involve 100 times more milliSievert, so 34 per year. Not fatal, perhaps, but not comfy, just perhaps one reason for diminishing life spans (over Genesis 11). However, I came to realise that the incoming radiation is not the only factor. Here is a quote from my exchange (I was coming to it) with Ilya Usoskin:

Correspondence of Hans Georg Lundahl: Other Check on Carbon Buildup
https://correspondentia-ioannis-georgii.blogspot.com/2017/11/other-check-on-carbon-buildup.html

Ilya Usoskin to me

10/30/17 at 11:32 AM

Re: Cosmic Radiation and C14 Production, a Q

Dear Hans-Georg (sorry for misspelling your name earlier),

Thanks for the clarification. I think I start understanding your question.

Although indeed, more 14C corresponds to higher radiation dose at Earth, there is no one-to-one relation between 14C production and cosmic radiation dose at the surface.

Exact relation should be calculated using detailed models which do exist but I am not aware of a precise calculation of what you ask.

The problem is that 14C is produced globally, in the entire atmosphere, while radiation is local and at the surface. Their exact relation may depend on many factors, most important being the energy spectrum of cosmic rays (the solar modulation) and the Earth's magnetic field which vary independently of each other. Therefore, the same amount of 14C produced in the atmosphere may correspond to different doses at a given location.

Best regards,
Ilya

So, neither radiation dose is a function of carbon 14 production, nor carbon 14 production of radiation dose. Both are functions of a multifactorial.

This being so, my prediction that 10 times faster production does not necessitate 1000 times higher radiation dose, pending further calculation in these models, holds. Note, I only got this confirmation a bit more than 2 years after the challenge started my research.

So, on the question how much faster carbon 14 was forming, I started out taking my "level at the Flood" from CMI's "ballpark" of carbon dates ranging 20 000 to 50 000 years.** I also started out taking 500 BC as the date when the level reached 100 pmC. AND I started my very first table allowing the carbon 14 level to rise in even portions, like 50 pmC reached halfway between Flood and 500 BC and so on. I quickly found out, this doesn't really work. If Abraham is carbon dated to 10 000 BC or so, how is he contemporary with Pharaos? But the idea of this, plus a memory of a Jewish or Muslim legend of Abraham being tormented by Nimrod (in manners parallelling Daniel by Nebuchadnezzar) stuck. It could be the carbon date of Babel.

A few months into the research, I carefully based a model on fractioning the surplus speed of production into "units" that I fit into a Fibonacci series, with the maximum speed the closest to the beginning. And in January 2017, I tried to find out how much leeway I had outside the "Fibonacci table" and ended up making a refined version of it:

Table modifiée, analysée par convergence avec l'a priori
https://nov9blogg9.blogspot.com/2017/02/table-modifiee-analysee-par-convergence.html

If Göbekli Tepe is Tower of Babel ...
https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2017/02/if-gobekli-tepe-is-tower-of-babel.html

So, I'm going to make a "prediction" or two after the findings. But the predictions could have been made. I started my tables without doing so, using anchor points where a probable archaeological or palaeontological carbon datable item is a match for a Biblical (or otherwise historical) dated event.

• I) A rise in carbon 14 is more rapid at the beginning, just after the Flood, than at the end, just before it reaches 100 pmC. Corrollary: the carbon 14 line of dates needs more reduction near the beginning and less near the end. In my calibration anchor points, the earlier ones will have a greater distance in carbon years from each other (proportional to distance in real years) and from the real years than the later ones.
• II) A rise of equal amount (counted in pmC units) will be more important in time implications and therefore range of extra years the earlier on it is. Rising from 1 pmC to 4 pmC measures two halflives, from 3 pmC to 6 pmC just one halflife, from 6 pmC to 9 pmC, less than one halflife.*** Corrollary, same as previous.
• III) This will match the less well documented earlier periods either being not recorded at all, or recorded with more distortions.
• IV) Atmospheric carbon 14 levels will line up with population increase after the Flood. 10 years after the Flood, you can't have more than 8 adults, so if 30 adults or so died together, and the reading of my calibration says 10 years after the Flood, it has to be later and there has to be a case for the reservoir effect. Even later, you cannot have a genetically identified father and son where my recalibration reduces the generation gap to 10 years.

How are these doing now?

I+II ... Corrollary: the carbon 14 line of dates needs more reduction near the beginning and less near the end. In my calibration anchor points, the earlier ones will have a greater distance in carbon years from each other (proportional to distance in real years) and from the real years than the later ones.

The current anchor points are: I) 2957 BC, Flood, carbon dated 37 000 BC; II) 2607 BC, death of Noah, (close to) beginning of Babel, carbon dated 9500 BC; III) 2556 BC, birth of Peleg, (close to) end of Babel, carbon dated 8000 BC; IV) 1935 BC, Genesis 14 (with a leeway of five years either way), carbon dated 6500 BC; V) 1700 BC (approximated) death of Joseph's Pharao, identified with Djoser, carbon dated (raw dates) c. 2800 BC; VI) 1590 BC, Moses born, (just before) death of the child killing Pharao, identified with Sesostris III, carbon dated 1830 BC; VII) 1470 BC, fall of Jericho, carbon dated 1550 BC; VIII) 1179 BC, fall of Troy, also carbon dated 1179 BC.

III) This will match the less well documented earlier periods either being not recorded at all, or recorded with more distortions.

We have no contemporary books from the Upper Palaeolithic, and the Egyptian records that contradict the Biblical timeline are way later than the pharaos, contradict each other, within the Old and Middle Kingdoms.

IV) Atmospheric carbon 14 levels will line up with population increase after the Flood. 10 years after the Flood, you can't have more than 8 adults, so if 30 adults or so died together, and the reading of my calibration says 10 years after the Flood, it has to be later and there has to be a case for the reservoir effect. Even later, you cannot have a genetically identified father and son where my recalibration reduces the generation gap to 10 years.

Test cases.

A) Mladeč Caves' skeleta° (about 30 individuals) in my previous calibration were so close to the Flood that I found a reservoir effect necessary. Then I divided the I—II table somewhat arbitrarily at I/II with a first part having a carbon 14 build up relatively slower and the second part having a speed of 20 times the present one. As these skeleta fall within the earlier part with slower carbon build up, they can now be sth like 80 years after the Flood and still dated that old.

Plot twist. The 39 000 BP date for the Flood was actually not the uncalibrated carbon date of Campi Phlegrei, but the Argon-Argon date, used to calibrate the carbon date. The raw carbon date for the Flood would be more like 34 500 BP. The skeleta from Mladeč would probably again be within too close to the Flood, so would again need the reservoir effect. Fortunately, they are calcar caves, and this means, they involved lots of carbon from the Flood.

B) The Frälsegården pedigree from the research of Kristian Kristiansson.°° Here is my comment:

When I have went out to archaeologists to see if they had found things disproving my calibration, it was not just rhetoric. If this research had given a pedigree guaranteed of six degrees from "farfars farfars far" to "sonsons sonsons son" as they would call it in Swedish, and my recalibration for the dates had given 10 years per generation, a total of 60 years, rather than 119 or as we see 119 +, this would obviously have proven my recalibration wrong, at least in this part.

Some supplementary observations and corresponding predictions.

• V) Neanderthals and Denisovans are pre-Flood races. All that's left of their genome came through the Ark, but no one on the Ark needs to have been full blood Neanderthal, and the persons in or before the Ark that could be so are a) Noah's mother, b) Noah's wife, c) any father of any daughter in law. Corrollary: any full blood Neanderthal needs to have a carbon date before that of the Flood.
• VI) Göbekli Tepe is Babel. Corrollary: any trace of what could be writing should be mono-lingual before the carbon date of GT, and plurilingual according to places or limited to certain places after.
• VII) Nimrod was active at Babel. Corrollary: the period of GT should also be a period to which one could trace potential signs of tyranny.

How does this hold up?

V ... Corrollary: any full blood Neanderthal needs to have a carbon date before that of the Flood.

The obvious objection is Gorham Cave, Gibraltar. 28 000 BP is later than the Flood date. However, what's carbon dated isn't any Neanderthal. It's charcoal. The only things that tie Gorham Cave to Neanderthals are: a) actual Neanderthal skeleta in nearby caves (one was dated 47 000 BP, earlier than the Flood date); b) the cave itself contains stone tools of Mousterian style, a culture that when found with skeleta typically is found with Neanderthal such.

My hypothesis about Gorham Cave is, Noah's family paid a visit, lit a fire, some time after the Flood. Perhaps pious, for providing decent burials. Perhaps impious, if Nimrod (or someone like him) was already born and tried out the evil practise of incubation, in order to become a kind of post-Flood Nephelim.

There recently was a news story about the Neanderthal nicknamed Thorin (by archaeologists who were also Tolkien fans, no doubt) and he's carbon dated to 42 000 BP. A carbon date falling in the pre-Flood range.

VI ... Corrollary: any trace of what could be writing should be mono-lingual before the carbon date of GT, and plurilingual according to places or limited to certain places after.

Genevieve von Petzinger documented 32 signs all over the Upper Palaeolithic, plus one of them, a hashtag, found in a Neanderthal cave (and in her reckoning, with carbon dates pretty much accepted as they are, this is a very unparallelled cultural constancy over tens of thousands of years). Her geographic range for them was from Spain to Indonesia. They are not younger than (or even as young as) carbon dated 10 000 BC. So, they are older than Babel.

The Vinča symbols are limited to:

found on artifacts from the Neolithic Vinča culture and other "Old European" cultures of Central and Southeast Europe.

The Indus script is limited to the Indus valley and (in its early phase) to:

Early examples of the Indus script have been found on pottery inscriptions and clay impressions of inscribed Harappan seals dating to around c. 2800–2600 BCE during the Early Harappan period, and emerging alongside administrative objects such as seals and standardised weights during the Kot Diji phase of this period. However, excavations at Harappa have demonstrated the development of some symbols from potter's marks and graffiti belonging to the earlier Ravi phase from c. 3500–2800 BCE.

Genevieve von Petzinger would certainly not classify the Vinča symbols and the Indus script as the same set of symbols, unlike "her own" 32 signs. If the earliest Indus script and latest Vinča symbols coincide in time with Genesis 14 (carbon dated 3500 BC), the very earliest Vinča symbols ...

with the symbols on the Tărtăria clay tablets possibly dating back to around 5,300 BC (controversially dated by association).

Which is a carbon date younger than Babel. About the time that Peleg died.

Göbekli Tepe also fits the geographic criteria. In Upper Mesopotamia. West of a candidate of the landing place (a candidate in the mountains of Armenia), whether you prefer Durupınar or Mount Judi or even "Mount Ararat". It's on the Northern border and Western half of the Northern border of a squareish plain (the Harran plain) that is within Mesopotamia, rather than surrounding it.

VII ... Corrollary: the period of GT should also be a period to which one could trace potential signs of tyranny.

In Göbekli Tepe, one has found skulls taken off the human bodies. One has found a "birdman" which can be interpreted as a headless man lying and the place of the missing head covered, along with shoulders, by the vulture. In "nearby"°°° and slightly later Çatal Höyyük, one has found ceramics depicting headless mean and flying vultures approaching.

One can reconstruct this as, with recalcitrants, Nimrod beheaded them, taking the head for his skull collection and giving the body to the vultures.

In other words, I think my own theories have stood up amply to the test of "fulfilled predictions".

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
St. Genevieve
3.I.2026

Lutetiae Parisiorum sanctae Genovefae Virginis, quae, a beato Germano, Antisiodorensi Episcopo, Christo dicata, admirandis virtutibus et miraculis claruit.

Online documentation of the predictions.

ONE, THEIRS: We Predicted This. When It Happened, It Left Evolutionists STUNNED.
Answers in Genesis | 30 May 2025
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BZ3ktKR8KZw

TWO, MINE: Here and Newer Tables: Preliminaries · Flood to Joseph in Egypt · Joseph in Egypt to Fall of Troy.

* Alpine tops have more radiation from the cosmos, a Dutch polder less. Not sure by how much.

** Quote and source:

A sample purporting to be from the Flood era would not be expected to give a ‘radiocarbon age’ of about 5,000 years, but rather 20,000–50,000 years.

[Footnote 1 of] CMI : Radiocarbon in dino bones
International conference result censored
by Carl Wieland | Published: 22 January 2013 (GMT+10)
https://creation.com/c14-dinos

*** 1 pmC = 38 100 extra years, 4 pmC = 26 600 extra years, 38 100 - 26 600 = 11 500 (2*5730 = 11 460, but the values given are rounded by Earth Science Australia Carbon 14 Dating Calculator). 3 pmC = 29 000 extra years, 6 pmC = 23 250 extra years, 29 000 - 23 250 = 5750 (dito). 9 pmC = 19 900 extra years. 23 250 - 19 900 = 3350.

° Mladeč caves
https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2022/09/mladec-caves.html

°° Has Kristian Kristiansen at Gothenburg University Disproven My Calibration?
https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2024/07/has-kristian-kristiansen-at-gothenburg.html

°°° 697 km on E90. Less than the distance from Pamplona to Santiago, which took me 50 days walk.

If Toba and Campi Flegrei were both in the Flood, why is Campi Flegrei my carbon date?

The Campi Flegrei eruption* is carbon dated to 39 000 BP from organic ashes that it burned up and which were deposed in recognisable layers.

39 000 BP or 37 000 BC (should have gone for 37 500 BC, but was lazy) is a carbon date.

But Lake Toba is dated to 74 000 years ago. Why didn't I use 72 500 BC instead?

For the very simple reason, 74 000 BP is NOT a carbon date, the date was not obtained by carbon dating.

The exact date of the eruption** is unknown, but the pattern of ash deposits suggests that it occurred during the northern summer because only the summer monsoon could have deposited Toba ashfall in the South China Sea.[4] The eruption lasted perhaps 9 to 14 days.[5] The most recent two high-precision argon–argon datings dated the eruption to 73,880 ± 320[6] and 73,700 ± 300 years ago.[7]

Argon-argon is not carbon. If I believed both were giving roughly speaking real dates, I'd predict that it would be very difficult to obtain a carbon date, but that it would roughly agree with the argon-argon date. As I believe both dates are off in a matter not directly connected, I don't have any reason to presume they should give the same date, so I don't see how an argon argon date of 74 000 BP could tell us anything whatsoever about the carbon date.

But God has not allowed mankind to be threatened by several different such menaces, there was one, the Flood. That's why Toba and Campi Flegrei are both from the Flood.

If the Younger Dryas had really lasted 1000 years, it would also have been a huge threat. But here is a bit about these 1000 years.

The Younger Dryas*** (YD, Greenland Stadial GS-1)[2] was a period in Earth's geologic history that occurred circa 12,900 to 11,700 years Before Present (BP).

Let's translate:

12 900 - 1950 = 10 950 BC (carbon dated)
11 700 - 1950 = 9750 BC (carbon dated)

Let's check my tables:

2647 BC

33.784 pmC, dated as 11,618 BC

2634 BC

37.009 pmC, dated as 10,851 BC

2621 BC

40.229 pmC, dated as 10,148 BC

2608 BC

43.443 pmC, 9500 BC

It was longer than 2634 to 2621 (13 years), but also shorter than 2647 to 2608 (39 years).

(2647 + 2634) / 2 = 2640.5
(33.784 + 37.009) / 2 = 35.3965

5730 * log(0.353965) / log(0.5) + 2640.5 = 11 226 BC

Too old carbon date, some tries later:

(2647 + 2634 + 2634 + 2634 + 2634 + 2634 + 2634) / 7 = 2635.857
(33.784 + 37.009 + 37.009 + 37.009 + 37.009 + 37.009 + 37.009) / 7 = 36.548

5730 * log(0.36548) / log(0.5) + 2635.857 = 10 957 BC

Pretty good. End of YD?

(2621 + 2608) / 2 = 2614.5
(40.229 + 43.443) / 2 = 41.836

5730 * log(0.41836) / log(0.5) + 2614.5 = 9818 BC

Too old again.

(2621 + 2608 + 2608) / 3 = 2612.333
(40.229 + 43.443 + 43.443) / 3 = 42.3717

5730 * log(0.423717) / log(0.5) + 2612.333 = 9711 BC

Too young. Let's combine the two?

(2621 + 2621 + 2608 + 2608 + 2608) / 5 = 2613.2
(40.229 + 40.229 + 43.443 + 43.443 + 43.443) / 5 = 42.1574

5730 * log(0.421574) / log(0.5) + 2613.2 = 9754 BC

Perfect.

2636 BC

36.548 pmC, so dated as 10,957 BC

2613 BC

42.1574 pmC, so dated as 9754 BC

So, the YD lasted 23 years. NOT an extinction threat to mankind. But Toba, Campi Flegrei and a few more like that would have been so, if the Flood hadn't cleared up things a bit after that.

My dates for pre-Babel years are on Newer Tables, Flood to Joseph in Egypt, these ones on the table I/II—II. And my formula for calculating the carbon year from real year and pmC is on Newer Tables, Preliminaries, pretty close to the bottom, basically 1/4 up.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
St. John
27.XII.2025

Apud Ephesum natalis sancti Joannis, Apostoli et Evangelistae, qui, post Evangelii scriptionem, post exsilii relegationem et Apocalypsim divinam, usque ad Trajani Principis tempora perseverans, totius Asiae fundavit rexitque Ecclesias, ac tandem, confectus senio, sexagesimo octavo post passionem Domini anno mortuus est, et juxta eamdem urbem sepultus.

PS, admission and discovery. Looking at the wiki from Campanian Ignimbrite Eruption, the text gives the impression that both Ar/Ar and C-14 point to 39,000 BP. The footnote goes to Testing and Improving the IntCal20 Calibration Curve with Independent Records° where I find that 39,000 BP is actually the Ar/Ar date, while the raw carbon date, before getting calibrated with Ar/Ar, is ...

After removal of two outliers, possibly caused by incomplete removal of contaminations, 12 measurements on 7 samples yielded a weighted mean ¹⁴C age of 34,290 ± 90 (1 σ) ¹⁴C yr BP for the eruption.

That's the kind of thing I wish I had known before making the Newer Tables./HGL

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campanian_Ignimbrite_eruption
** https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Youngest_Toba_eruption
*** https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Younger_Dryas
° https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/radiocarbon/article/testing-and-improving-the-intcal20-calibration-curve-with-independent-records/D72D9214C47FE9441B5E730D33DCCE3D

Galatians 4:4

CMI has a long article about Jesus born under the law.

Jesus is born under the law: The fulfillment of God’s redemptive plan at Christmas
By Nicos Kaloyirou (Νίκος Καλογήρου) | Published 23 Dec, 2025
https://creation.com/en/articles/gods-redemptive-plan-at-christmas

In it, we see Genesis 3:15 applied to Jesus, as the seed of promise.

We also see Galatians 4:4. And the part about a woman (yes, there is one), is applied to Jesus:

The phrase “born of a woman” establishes Jesus’s full humanity.

Nicos, aren't we missing someone?

Here are the two passages I noted as incompletely commented on:

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
[Genesis 3:15]

(Some Bibles, including some not Protestant, like the LXX, have "he shall crush" and "for her heel", this is the translation of St. Jerome than translated to English).

But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent his Son, made of a woman, made under the law
[Galatians 4:4]

There is a question Catholics sometimes get, namely why we think Mary is the woman of Genesis 3:15. Well, one answer is of course Jesus called Her "Woman" at the beginning and at the end of His public life. In Cana and on Calvary (John 2:4, John 19:26). But there is another one in the NT thinking of Mary as The Woman. St. Paul.

He says Jesus is the seed of the Woman, so he says Mary is the Woman of that Seed.

If Satan is the serpent and "enmities" is "complete enmity" and Mary is the Woman, what does this say about Her?

She didn't become Satan's enemy only by giving birth to God in the flesh, in full humanity, as Nicos rightly notes. No, She was called "blessed among women" before the pregnancy. If we look at Jael (and at Judith) we see this is a military award, a weak woman destroying an exceptionally strong and dangerous enemy of Israel. Feel free to double-check the phrase if it is found applied to other women in other circumstances. Ruth (wife of an old husband) and Abigail (holding back the King from destroying an Israelite) are also called "blessed" but not "blessed among women". I think each of these blessed women has sth to say about Mary, and the two who were called "blessed among women" say She had destroyed an enemy of Israel. Who except Satan? Our Lady got that part when Elisabeth added "and blessed is the fruit of thy womb" ... She was not just the Mother of God, as the angel had told Her, She was the sinless mother of a sinless child, defeaters of sin. Because that is the one way in which a mortal can "kill" the chief of demons. Not sinning.

Eve and Adam had given Satan victory. Mary and Jesus were giving God victory, and mankind victory before God, against Satan. But Adam and Eve, having believed the promise, were saved, waiting for Jesus in the Limbus of the Fathers. It's their day today.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
Sts. Adam and Eve, Christmas Vigil
24.XII.2025

Vigilia Nativitatis Domini nostri Jesu Christi.

Saint Adam and Saint Eve (First Age of the world)
Dec 24, 2000 The Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary
https://catholicism.org/saint-adam-and-saint-eve-first-age-of-the-world.html

PS, St. Paul also praises Mary in 1 Timothy 2:11, since Luke 1:38 speaks of Her submission and Luke 2:19 and 2:51 speaks of Her silence in learning./HGL