No, Sibley, and thank you!

Over to CMI:

Deep time in 18th-century France—part 1: a developing belief
by Andrew Sibley | This article is from
Journal of Creation 33(1):85–92, April 2019
https://creation.com/deep-time-in-18th-century-france-part-1

Fontenelle, who was trained by Jesuits at the Collège de Bourbon, wrote a book in 1686 that was arguably a work of science fiction, entitled Conversations on the Plurality of Worlds (Entretiens sur la Pluralité des Mondes). This was in the form of a dialogue between two people and discussed space travel and the possibility of life on the moon and other planets. It also introduced consideration of developments over long periods of time, and, as Stott suggests, opened up the French imagination and ideas for a century thereafter. The purpose was officially concerned with the education of ordinary people by expounding the latest ideas of science, particularly in terms of heliocentrism. Through the dialogue he spoke of nature effecting changes very gradually over very long periods of time.

No, Fontenelle's book is no more science fiction than the Dialogo featuring Salviati, Sagredo and Simplicio*.

No, it is not very relevant that Fontenelle was high school educated by Jesuits**. It is far more to the point that Jesuits refuted Galileo (whose work, as said, is very related to Fontenelle's).

And thank you, very much, you have just provided another example of how speculations about aliens were the most popular "argument" against Geocentrism back when it lost its popularity, as I had done with Euler's arguments to a Prussian princess.***

Thank you again, you have done so while on top of that showing another link between Heliocentric ideology and ... Old Age.

Now, I'll go on and read the rest, but wanted to get this off the chest first!

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
Second Friday of Pentecost Novena
29.V.2020

PS, he also seems to be behind the modern / (even more) Enlightenment fad of dismissing the Iliad:

While being careful to not fully dismiss Scripture, probably out of fear of religious authority and an unwillingness to make enemies, his approach cast doubt on other ancient texts, which he thought offered myths and not facts. For instance, he wrote Of the Origin of Fables (probably written in 1684, published 1724), in which he commented on the “ignorance of the first men”.

I have another - Christian - approach to Apollo's role in Iliad book I. Apollo = Apollyon, a demon, and Greek and Trojan worshippers of Apollo were worshipping a demon, who had more playroom before Christ's redeeming death and resurrection than now. He is even called "god of the flies" = roughly Beelzebub./HGL

Φιλολoγικά/Philologica : Gematria of Apollyon / Apollon
http://filolohika.blogspot.com/2020/05/gematria-of-apollyon-apollon.html

* Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems by Galileo.

** The collège de Bourbon mentioned is now Lycée Pierre Corneille. - and Lycée is senior high school or high school, not anything like University.

*** AUF DEUTSCH (AUF ANTIMODERNISM UND SPÄTER) : Euler als "Astronom"
https://aufdeutschaufantimodernism.blogspot.com/2017/12/euler-als-astronom.html

Himalayas, quater

Himalayas ... how fast did they rise? · Himalayas, bis ... and Pyrenees · ter · quater · quinquies ... double-checked

So, this model of mine is not necessary for Creationism in detail, all that is wanted is, Mount Everest and Himalayas, but also mountains as low as Urals or Pyrenees* did not exist in pre-Flood times. Or at least not Pyrenees**.

However, I wanted to check for how long Himalayas and Mount Everest can have risen as fast as 850 times the present speed.

Could it have gone on up to Younger Dryas, just before Babel in my model? That would be up to 350 after the Flood? No. Not if it started rising in the Flood year with that speed. Unless there really was a time when mountains were indeed higher and more pointed and Tolkien was right on that one:

350 years * 51.8555 meters per year = rise to 18 149.425 m, more than twice the actual height of Mount Everest.

So, I'll settle for just hundred years, instead (and remember this is just a model, it could be wrong in detail, but it serves to give an idea of the initial fast and the later slow of the rise:

51.8555 meters per year * 100 years = 5 185.55 meters (about φ times present height).

8850 - 5 185.55 = 3 664.45 m. In 4877 years, 0.751 m per year. (I'm rounding figures for you, but using unrounded ones into the calculator online).

0.751 / 0.061 = 12.323

12.323² = 151.845 times as fast as now = 9.259 m per year.

If medium the first hundred years was 51.8555, we need to square its ratio to this limit to get initial speed.***

51.8555 / 9.259 = 5.601 times as fast.

5.601² = 31.367 times as fast.

31.367 * 9.259 m/y = 290.425 meters per year.

(290.425 - 9.259)/100 = 2.812 m/y slower each year.

Between that point and the present, the slowing down was slower:

(9.259 - 0.061)/4877 = 0.001886 m = 1.886 mm/y slower each year.

So, that's the model. Where is it most likely to be wrong? Perhaps in being really slower than the start during Younger Dryas which seems to have been a very turbid period. Also, it is possible that in pre-Flood times India was not attached to Tibet and so the time it took to move India to colliding with Tibet where Himalayas are would need to take place before the rapid rise started.

I am not a scientist, but I have here made some real groundwork for creation scientists who want to study post-Flood origeny. I'll actually as Matthew Hunt about the viscosity needed for a 290 meter rise per year at Himalayas not to shell shock all earth with uninterrupted 10 + on the Richter scale. He'll know about viscosity and fluids and stuff ....

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
Friday of Pentecost Novena°
29.V.2020

PS - second thought : with the winds up at 8850 m, Mount Everest can't have a very thick snow cap, can it?

* Citing wiki in Pyrenees : Reaching a height of 3,404 metres (11,168 ft) altitude at the peak of Aneto, it extends for about 491 km (305 mi) from its union with Cantabrian Mountains to the Mediterranean Sea (Cap de Creus).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyrenees

** Urals have a lower highest point: The Ural Mountains extend about 2,500 km (1,600 mi) from the Kara Sea to the Kazakh Steppe along the border of Kazakhstan. Vaygach Island and the island of Novaya Zemlya form a further continuation of the chain on the north. Geographically this range marks the northern part of the border between the continents of Europe and Asia. Its highest peak is Mount Narodnaya, approximately 1,895 m (6,217 ft) in elevation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ural_Mountains

Could be this too is too high, could be it isn't for Flood waters to have covered it and now be in Oceans and atmosphere. I haven't checked.

*** Or a rought approach to it.

° Second one, a week ago was also in the novena.

Himalayas, ter

Himalayas ... how fast did they rise? · Himalayas, bis ... and Pyrenees · ter · quater · quinquies ... double-checked

Let's get a closer grip in present and past growth of Mt. Everest:

In 1856, Andrew Waugh announced Everest (then known as Peak XV) as 8,840 m (29,002 ft) high, after several years of calculations based on observations made by the Great Trigonometric Survey. The 8,848 m (29,029 ft) height given is officially recognised by Nepal and China.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Everest

And now it seems it is 8850 meters.

2020 - 1856 = 164 years
8850 - 8840 = 10 m

So, medium of present elevation is 1 m / 16.4 years or just less than 61 mm per year, between the 8848 measurement and the present (not recognised by Nepal and China) of 8850 it has been slower, but not as slow as 4 mm per year.

In 4977 years since the Flood, this would add up to: 303.4756 m.

8850 / 303.4756 = a factor of 29.162 times slower than the medium speed of rise.

Square this to get a rough estimate of initial speed ... 850 times the present speed. 51.8555 meters per year.

The medium of the slowing down would then be

850 / 4977 = each year 0.17 times the present speed slower than the year before.

This probably may be not so constantly slowing down evenly, but less slowing down at the start and end, more in the middle. Otherwise the rise would even now be 10 mm less each year.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
Thursday in Pentecost Novena
28.V.2020

PS, it seems there may in recent surveys be some height of snow cap involved too, since it's measureable on sighting, as opposed to rock head under it./HGL

Himalayas, bis ... and Pyrenees

Himalayas ... how fast did they rise? · Himalayas, bis ... and Pyrenees · ter · quater · quinquies ... double-checked

I was tired yesterday, and counted a day as 12 hours - which is correct in the sense where day is opposed to night. We are dealing with day in the sense of day and night:

6 115 mm : 365.2425 days = 16.742 mm / day = 0.698 mm / hour (if 8848 at Exodus);
9 393 mm : 365.2425 days = 25.717 mm / day = 1.072 mm / hour (if 8848 at Birth of Abraham);
22 065 mm : 365.2425 days = 60.412 mm / day = 2.517 mm / hour (if 8848 at that of Peleg, 401 after the Flood).

Other thing, in discussing with a friend I found Mt. Everest is still growing:

Quora : Why is the height of Mt.Everest increasing every year?
https://www.quora.com/Why-is-the-height-of-Mt-Everest-increasing-every-year

So, now it is 8850 m.

Obviously, this is lots slower than needed immediately after the Flood, if it started growing then.

9 393 mm : 4 mm = 2348.25 times slower
22 065 mm : 4 mm = 5516.25 times slower

Actually, CMI wrote about it back in 1990:

Everest is still rising

Mount Everest is nearly half a metre (1.5 feet) higher than when New Zealand mountaineer Sir Edmund Hillary climbed it in May 1953.

... conclusion given:

Everest’s height has been awkward to precisely measure because of the difficulty of determining mean sea-level under the mountain. Yet if the figure given in this report is correct, half an inch growth each year with no erosion puts Everest’s beginning at 697,872 years ago—not 10 million. This is using evolutionary (uniformitarian) assumptions and assuming the ground was flat to begin with. This gives no support to evolutionists’ claims that Everest is millions of years old.

From:

Focus: News of interest about creation and evolution
This article is from Creation 13(1):5–8, December 1990
https://creation.com/focus-131

Now, I put Soanian culture in pre-Flood and cited Patu industry in Nepal as early post-Flood human settlement. The book by Dupuis (2nd edition 1972), cites Burzahom in Kashmir as pre-neolithic settlement.

Carbon dating established that the Neolithic culture of this site was traceable to the 3rd millennium BC, the earliest occupation at the site was dated to before 2,357 BC.

Burzahom archaeological site : Period I
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burzahom_archaeological_site#Period_I

As Abraham was born in 2015 BC, this looks earlier than Abraham, but is in fact later : Abraham at about 80, in 1935 BC, fought at Sodom (Genesis 14), with events involving evacuation of treasures from Asason-Tamar or En-Geddi, which are carbon dated to 3500 BC. Joseph in Egypt would have, at c. 1700 BC have had Djoser as Pharao, since Egyptians recall him as Imhotep, and this gives a carbon date of 2600 or 2800 BC (I think 2800 is straight carbon and 2600 calibration, or based on king lists), meaning, Kashmir was settled as late as during the Israelites' stay in Egypt. Kot Diji style refers to an origin in Pakistan, outside Himalaya.

So, a very agitated Himalaya is feasible for early post-Flood centuries, since no men lived there. It would have had much less seismological impact than an equal speed now, since a huge part of the uplift would have started before full solidifying. When sediments and magma were muddy rather than solid.

The discrepancy I found as to procedure in the footnote, yesterday, will have to wait, it might be a bug.

I nearly forgot, Pyrenees was one purported reason given against universal Flood back among certain 19th C Catholics in France. Pyrenees are, supposedly, "much older" than Himalaya, and Pyrenees are also sufficiently high to have present quantities of water not cover all of the globe, if they had existed back then, which they concluded that they did. The idea was, all mountains started out like Alps, Himalayas, Andes, then some had more time to erode than others. I generally find John Ronald Reuel Tolkien a very intelligent man (for an Old Earth Creationist), but the most stupid words he wrote when describing a very old uchronia, set in pre-Biblical times, were, arguably : "when the mountains were higher and more pointed than now" ... nope, Pyrenees and Ural* never looked like Alps or Himalaya.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
Ist Saturday of Pentecost Novena
23.V.2020

* Possibly Grey Mountains were meant as Ural back when they were like the Alps, according to this wrong theory.

PS, a correction on the maths upcoming, 4 mm / year seems to be wrong, but computer time is up now./HGL (27.V.2020)

Himalayas ... how fast did they rise?

Himalayas ... how fast did they rise? · Himalayas, bis ... and Pyrenees · ter · quater · quinquies ... double-checked

I bought a booklet in the collection "que sais-je?" about this. That is, about the Himalayas, only first short chapter involving "millions of years" - the rest being presumably fairly accurate. L'Himalâya, Jacques Dupuis.

Now, according to this booklet, Himalayas rose mainly after Cretaceous. I look for another source, and yes, Indian landmass is supposed to have started moving 71 million years ago, and the collision to have happened 55 million years ago. It would have ended at the onset of the Pleistocene, according to uniformitarians starting 2.5 million years ago. This leaves 52.5 million years for a rise of - for Mount Everest - theoretically 11 000 meters, but in fact, due to ongoing erosion, only 9000 meters.

8848 meters. This means 1152 meters eroded in 2.5 million years.

1 152 000 mm : 2 500 000 years = 0.461 mm per year.

During the rise, 2000 meters eroded in 52.5 million years, since it ended at 9000 instead of 11 000 meters.

2 000 000 mm : 52 500 000 years = 0.038 mm per year.

How come erosion changed speed so much? I mean, it was not a question of actual lowering, since it is about an erosion that compensates a much bigger rise ...

How much would the rise have been, by the way? I'll be unrealistic and have it start out a 0 meters ... now, this means a rise of 11 000 meters in 52.5 million years.

11 000 000 mm : 52 500 000 years = 0.00021 mm or 0.21 μm per year.

Maybe that is supposed to be realistic if you suppose that it was all solid before getting to collide and rise.

I suppose, on the contrary, the Himalayas rose after the Flood, with the added verticality as part of God's way to drain flood waters down into deep sea basins and generally oceans, unless one takes the wind drying around the landing place (Genesis 8 verses 1 and 14) as applying to all of the earth, equally.

This means, they started rising in 2957 BC, the year of the Flood. I'll not suppose Mount Everest was higher or would have risen 2000 meters higher. I'll suppose also that Himalayas were in place by ... Exodus, perhaps birth of Abraham, perhaps that of Peleg. 1510, 2015, perhaps 2556 BC, or 1447, 942 down to 401 years after the Flood.

8848 m : 1447 years = 6.115 meters per year
8848 m : 942 years = 9.393 meters per year
8848 m : 401 years = 22.065 meters per year.

6 115 mm : 365.2425 days = 16.742 mm / day = 1.395 mm / hour
9 393 mm : 365.2425 days = 25.717 mm / day = 2.143 mm / hour
22 065 mm : 365.2425 days = 60.412 mm / day = 5.034 mm / hour

Still a very strong uplift, considering all the cubic meters needed for each mm higher of Mount Everest ... probably too shaky to live on, but we do not have evidence of human post-Flood settlement in Himalayas before the ... wait, we do have the Patu industry in Nepal* carbon dated to c. 7000 BP, meaning before Genesis 14 in 1935 BC, perhaps even before the birth of Abraham.** I am supposing the Soanian culture was pre-Flood, dated by K-Ar and therefore getting high ages from rapid lava cooling during the Flood.

This means, the quakes, if any, may have been irrelevant to where mankind were mainly living.

This means, Himalayas rising after the Flood remains possible, contrary to one of the lines of reasoning leading to Catholics in late 19th C abandoning in certain countries and social strata*** the Biblical timescale.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
1st Friday in Pentecost Novena
22.V.2020

* The Prehistory of Nepal (A summary of the results of 10 years of research), Gudrun Corvinus
http://himalaya.socanth.cam.ac.uk/collections/journals/ancientnepal/pdf/ancient_nepal_154_02.pdf

** According to this table extract it would be somewhere between or around deaths of Peleg and Eber:

2249 BC

67.347 pmc, 5499 BC

Peleg +

2217 BC

Eber +

2186 BC

2170 BC

72.031 pmc, 4870 BC

Last entry doesn't read as anything being actually 4870 BC, but "in 2170 BC [according to this model] carbon level had risen to 72.031 pmc making for 2700 extra years of instant age, meaning the carbon date, which adds the extra years to the real years while initial pmc is compounded by - in this case 56.498 % of - the actual decay, meaning we now have 40.696 pmc leading to it's carbon date as 7450 years ago or 5430 ... 4870 BC". The recalculations didn't quite match up, but near enough? I used this to do them:

Carbon 14 Dating Calculator
https://www.math.upenn.edu/~deturck/m170/c14/carbdate.html

The original calculations for the table did not try to involve directly the modern pmc in the objects from back then, only to add extra years to real years .... 2170 BC augmented by 2700 extra years. It's from here:

Creation vs. Evolution : Table for St Jerome as per Preliminary Conclusion
https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2018/05/table-for-st-jerome-as-per-preliminary.html

*** If all Catholics had abandoned it, even 1 day, either Old Age would be acceptably as true, or question irrelevant, or Christ would have lied or promised too much in Mt 28:20. If only some did, this leaves Young Earth a per se obliging position, and Catholicism the true Church.

https://kolbecenter.org/

What do Harry Blount and Gédéon Spilett have in common?

They use Genesis 1 (and onward), learned by heart, to philibuster telegraph connections until they have the next news to transmit.

Perhaps Jules Verne considered the Bible (outside morals) as so much philibustering ... in The Mysterious Island (where Gédéon Spilett landed), they are not very respectful of the Biblical timescale, as one learned man would have calculated that basalt took so many million years to cool (outside Global Flood conditions, which he didn't take into account, but Jules Verne and Cyrus Smith don't state this), and they were talking about Earth becoming uninhabitable millions of years in the future.

This novel was serialised from 1874 over 1875, and published as a book in 1875. 15 years after Origin of the Species.

One lesson is, pop culture is sometimes wrong when its scope goes beyond the morality of adventures (and Mysterious Island has really too much work ethic in that one too, plus an unrealistically abject Ayrfort, and a Jup which is as fabulous as the Jupiter of Mount Olympus, if not more), and how its characters are portrayed influences people.

Another, connected, is, Evolutionism owes more to pop culture than to serious discourse of the learned (including school teachers and not just entertainment into pop culture), and this may be the case for Darwinism too.

But a third, more important one, is, if you keep reciting the Genesis account, you sometimes do transmit the latest news.

And a fourth one, related to how the history of Genesis 2 - 12 was known to Moses, is, as I have said, the text chunks are succinct enough to learn very easily by heart. If Gideon Spilett could recite Genesis 3 by heart, why couldn't Noah have done so?

However, St. Luke had no need to wait until generations of people learning it by heart had after millennia transmitted the Ascension, he could hear it from people who were there.*

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
Ascension
21.V.2020

* Or at least had talked to those who were.