Was Noah's Ark Impossible? Baraminology

Was Noah's Ark Impossible? Building the Ark · Was Noah's Ark Impossible? Baraminology · Was Noah's Flood and Ark Textually Possible? Interrupting Refutation of Robert A. Moore to Turn to Damien Mackey

The Impossible Voyage of Noah's Ark
Creation/Evolution Journal | Volume 4 | No. 1 | Winter 1983
https://ncse.ngo/impossible-voyage-noahs-ark

Without going into the details of genetics, it can be stated that every inherited trait, however small, is coded for by one or more genes, and each gene locus may have a substantial number of variants (alleles), which accounts for the great variety observed in a given population. Any specific individual, however, has at most only two alleles per locus—one from each parent.

I think more recent research has shown that many traits are made from more than one locus, in the variation, so that pretty few alleles are all that's needed in each locus.

It is also probably the case that many alleles arise from mutations that degrade parts of the trait, since they take away information.

This means, not every allele present today needs to have been present on the Ark.

When it comes to what collections we consider one kind, I think the important thing is to show it's reasonable to consider certain collections of species as one kind in sufficient number of the species.

And 17 species per kind is sufficient.

This means if one very probable kind shows 17 species, baraminology is feasible as a solution, even if it's not a concrete well documented study.

There is such a kind. Hedgehogs.

I think all believers in evolution admit each population of hedgehogs today, Ateleryx algirus or Erinaceus europaeus or Hemiechinus auritus, developed from one population of hedgehogs.

Unless their single population spanned both hedgehogs and gymnures, which I am open to being one kind.

From this we can see that the original canine baramin in Eden would have needed a fantastic set of giant chromosomes with alleles for every trait that would someday be manifest in coyotes, wolves, foxes, jackals, dingos, fennecs, and the myriad of minute variations in hair color (twenty-four genes at nine loci), height, face shape, and so forth that are seen in the domestic dog (cf. Hutt).

I would disagree with the position emitted by some Creationists who are not specialists in genetics, that all the diversity was in the original kind, or its survivor after the Flood, and merely separated, "untangled" so to speak, after the Flood. Blue eyes, for instance, originated after the Flood, by mutation:

New research shows that people with blue eyes have a single, common ancestor. A team at the University of Copenhagen have tracked down a genetic mutation which took place 6-10,000 years ago and is the cause of the eye colour of all blue-eyed humans alive on the planet today.

Blue-eyed humans have a single, common ancestor
Science Daily, Date: January 31, 2008
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080130170343.htm

6000 to 10 000 BP = 4000 to 8000 BC. The older date would be just after Babel, in 2556 BC at the birth of Peleg, the younger date would be between 2039 and 2022 BC, the decades before Abraham was born, according to my recalibration:

2556 av. J.-Chr.

51,761 pcm, donc daté à 8006 av. J.-Chr.

...

2039 av. J.-Chr.

78,209 pcm, donc daté à 4089 av. J.-Chr.

2022 av. J.-Chr.

79,035 pcm, donc daté à 3972 av. J.-Chr.

Obviously, I think that mutations spelling out genetic differences between the species and genera of hedgehog have also happened after the Flood.

Plus, some speciation could have happened even before the Flood. Some Baraminology may be overkill:

So, the number of couples on the Ark would vary between 2,032 and 7,317 according to dimensions and empty weight of the Ark. With less food per individual, even more so.

Ark : empty weight and freighted weight, number of couples on the Ark.
https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2021/10/ark-empty-weight-and-freighted-weight.html

For that calculation, I used the proportions of weight of animal to weight of food found in ruminants like sheep. But ruminants require a very huge load of food. I think the accomodation was no problem in that way.

That's why Robert A. Moore was so eager to attack baraminology, no doubt (I'm deliberately not quoting several more of his paragraphs on the topic). I think lots of the attacks against baraminology and the implications for the Ark can be traced to his essay.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
St. Martha
29.VIII.2024

Tarasci, in Gallia Narbonensi, sanctae Marthae Virginis, hospitae Salvatoris nostri ac sororis beatorum Mariae Magdalenae et Lazari.

PS, no need for the Ark to have been built in the plains of Shinar!

God himself intervened by implanting in the chosen pair from each species the instinct of migration, and by this mechanism they gathered from the four corners of the world and headed for the Plains of Shinar (Whitcomb, p. 30). ...

A closer look reveals that a miracle is indeed called for in the gathering of the animals, but it is a much larger and more complex one than merely imparting "premonition" and migration. In the first place, a glance at Jarman's Atlas of Animal Migration shows that of all the birds, fish, and terrestrial animals whose paths are shown, only one, the common crane of southern Russia, currently migrates to the Mesopotamian Valley. Therefore, God not only programmed the animals to go to Noah's place before the flood, but afterward he deprogrammed most of them and rerouted all the rest except the common crane—a reverse miracle. Incidentally, it is noteworthy that many aquatic creatures migrate, a faculty whose origins the creationists find incomprehensible unless these creatures were also sent to the ark.

I would rather have the Ark built on the highest pre-Flood mountain! Besides Whitcomb has been left behind by modern Creationists who believe the pre-Flood world doesn't show much in the post-Flood world. They even say I underestimated the destruction of the Flood in this essay:

Trying to Break Down "Reverse Danube" or "Reverse Euphrates" Concept
http://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2018/07/trying-to-break-down-reverse-danube-or.html

Was Noah's Ark Impossible? Building the Ark

Was Noah's Ark Impossible? Building the Ark · Was Noah's Ark Impossible? Baraminology · Was Noah's Flood and Ark Textually Possible? Interrupting Refutation of Robert A. Moore to Turn to Damien Mackey

The Impossible Voyage of Noah's Ark
Creation/Evolution Journal | Volume 4 | No. 1 | Winter 1983
https://ncse.ngo/impossible-voyage-noahs-ark

On the other hand, in an era when hollowed-out logs and reed rafts were the extent of marine transport, a vessel so massive appeared that the likes of it would not be seen again until the mid-nineteenth century AD. Before he could even contemplate such a project, Noah would have needed a thorough education in naval architecture and in fields that would not arise for thousands of years such as physics, calculus, mechanics, and structural analysis. There was no shipbuilding tradition behind him, no experienced craftspeople to offer advice. Where did he learn the framing procedure for such a Brobdingnagian structure? How could he anticipate the effects of roll, pitch, yaw, and slamming in a rough sea? How did he solve the differential equations for bending moment, torque, and shear stress?

The sad fact is, Robert A. Moore didn't bother all that much in verifying what his opponents, us, are actually saying.

One glaring fact stands out immediately : he thinks mainly of post-Flood cultural developments. There are more.

On the other hand, in an era when hollowed-out logs and reed rafts were the extent of marine transport,

What exact era is Robert Moore talking about?

Ice age Denmark would clearly be post-Flood. It is also post-Flood technological developments we have a fairly good overview of, in secular literature, apart from these overlong timespans it supposedly involved. I think I recall hollowed out logs from just post-Ice Age Denmark, but if you don't trust my memory, check this:

The remains of nine log-boats, canoes hollowed from old tree trunks, were found upstream, dating from across the Bronze and into the Iron Age, included some that were contemporary to Must Farm.

University of Cambridge: Research reveals ‘cosy domesticity’ of prehistoric stilt-house dwellers in England’s ancient marshland
Story: Fred Lewsey, Published 20 March 2024
https://www.cam.ac.uk/stories/must-farm-prehistoric-stilt-house-dwellers

In the article, it appears the Must Farm is carbon dated to 850 BC, which is definitely close to the real 850 BC, and so post-Flood.

The oldest similar thing is from Pesse in the Netherlands, carbon dated to 8000 BC, just at the end of Babel (2556 BC).

The oldest boat discovered so far is the 3 meter long Pesse canoe constructed around 8,000 BCE [ Wikipedia ]; but other craft existed even earlier. A rock carving in Azerbaijan dating from ~10,000 BCE shows a reed boat manned by about 20 paddlers. In Northern Europe, some argue that hide boats (kayaks) were used as early as 9,500 BCE.

History of Ships / Prehistoric Craft
Jean Vaucher (April 2014) - updated January 2023 -
https://www.iro.umontreal.ca/~vaucher/History/Ships/Prehistoric_Craft/index.html

Of the three only reed boats are pre-Babel (between 2633 and 2607 BC), Northern European kayaks are at the beginning of Babel (2607 BC). All three are post-Flood (post-2957 BC).

a vessel so massive appeared that the likes of it would not be seen again until the mid-nineteenth century AD.

Container might be more like it?

Before he could even contemplate such a project, Noah would have needed a thorough education in naval architecture and in fields that would not arise for thousands of years such as physics, calculus, mechanics, and structural analysis.

Instructions by an omniscient and allwise God obviously depending on those factors ... so not ...

There was no shipbuilding tradition behind him, no experienced craftspeople to offer advice.

The Nodian Civilisation being obviously the archaeological field of research for Robert Moore ... again, so not ...

Where did he learn the framing procedure for such a Brobdingnagian structure? How could he anticipate the effects of roll, pitch, yaw, and slamming in a rough sea? How did he solve the differential equations for bending moment, torque, and shear stress?

The what? Framing procedure? Much of the Ark is basically the frame. Or did you mean scaffolding? How about using rocks or sand of earth for that, then taking it down (or letting the Deluge wash it down) before the bording (or with rainwashing, before the take-off on day 40)?

How could he anticipate the effects of
1) roll,
2) pitch,
3) yaw, and
4) slamming in a rough sea?

At least God was able to anticipate the rolling period. As I wrote elsewhere:

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.

The ark was not inconvencienced by yaw, since it wasn't specifically going anywhere in particular, and that means, there probably was no pitch. The ark was arguably floating in a wave trough, and definitely not getting from one wave crest to another over the trough between. Hence no pitch. Yaw might happen on occasion when waves changed direction. It's a nuisance for navigation, since it has a course to take, not for the Ark.

As for slamming in a rough sea, that's not what you expect on deep water. Unless you cruise across waves attempting to avoid rolling, which the Ark pretty obviously had no means for and didn't and didn't need to. Rough seas happen in shallow water, like Kon Tiki outside that reef where it landed, the Raroia atoll.

What was the last part of this again?

How did he solve the differential equations for bending moment, torque, and shear stress?

What I can find, this is more of an issue in house building than in ships, but, I think God could have been a competent instructor on any matter where needed. And the lost Nodian civilisation sufficiently sophisticated for Noah to understand the instructions.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
St. Anne
26.VII.2024

Dormitio sanctae Annae, quae mater exstitit Immaculatae Virginis Genitricis Dei Mariae.

Why I Wouldn't Call God Architect of the Universe

• God planned the universe, but also actually made it. Singlehandedly. An architect often plans a building and tells the actual builders what to do.
• An architect often serves the first owner of the ground and then doesn't own the land or the house after it has been built. God still owns the universe.
• Freemasons, who are no real Christians, speak of their god as the "Great Architect of the Universe."
• No verse in the Bible says God "built the world" ... Genesis 2 says God built Eve and Hebrews 3 says God built Moses and the Church.

The Universe owes God more than just the building process, the things to which God is builder are in a way so much more than the universe./HGL

PS, Hebrews 3:4 could be seen as a counterexample, as English "create" and "build" are the same verb in Greek. However, "kataskeuazo" means more like "set up" or "make ready" from the root noun "skeuos" meaning "gear". Only in Genesis 2 do we find ᾠκοδόμησεν, with an "oikodomeo" related to "oikos" or "house" ... to St. Thomas, God is like an instrument maker who builds an instrument and then himself plays it. While "oikodomeo" in Hebrews 3 wouldn't leave room for this, "kataskeuazo" does./HGL

Old Earth Creationism : Incompatible With Science

Creation vs. Evolution: Old Earth Creationism : Incompatible With Science · Correspondence of Hans Georg Lundahl: With Christian Publishing House

Christian Publishing House: How Should a Christian Understand the Age of the Earth Controversy?
Edward D. Andrews, 23.VII.2024
https://www.christianpublishers.org/post/how-should-a-christian-understand-the-age-of-the-earth-controversy

The age of the earth controversy is a significant discussion among Christians, particularly between young-earth creationists (YECs) and old-earth creationists (OECs). This debate did not become particularly heated until the latter third of the twentieth century. While theistic evolutionists and those who do not hold to biblical inerrancy have little interest in the issue, the primary dispute lies between YECs and OECs. Both sides agree that Adam’s creation occurred thousands of years ago, not millions, and both reject Darwinian common descent.

If an Old Earth Creationist thinks Adam was created less than a million year ago, he is not respecting the dating methods that give us for the Mojokerto site, with a Homo erectus child(1), the ages, depending on method:

1.81 Ma old (1994, argon-argon, error margin 40 000 years)
1.49 Ma old (2003, fission track dating, using zircons, error margin 130 000 years)

If he thinks Homo erectus was not human, he is not respecting the science that tells us (much more definitely than with above dating methods or others), that Homo erectus was endowed with Broca's area. While this area exists in the brain, soft tissue that has disappeared, it leaves traces on the inside of the skull. Broca's are today only exists in Homo sapiens, but has existed in now extinct populations of Homo erectus, Neanderthals, Heidelbergians, Antecessors, and for all we know, Denisovans (I'm not sure we have a skull of them yet). We must therefore conclude, much more certainly than about argon argon dates or zircon fission tracks, which disagree between them anyway (2), Homo erectus was human.

However, presumably an Old Earth Creationist would agree that Adam was the first man.(3) So, he must either ignore the science of Homo erectus having Broca's area, which means he is not doing science any favour by being OEC, or pretend Broca's area doesn't mean you are human, or redefine "image of God" as something added to biologically human, rather than inherent in it while surpassing mere biology. Being able to say "I ate yoghurt and a kiwi for breakfast yesterday" is proof you are human, it also surpasses mere biology. It's proof that I am created in the image of God. Supposing the Mojokerto child, probably(4) between 4 and 6 when he died, knew yoghurt and knew kiwi, he could have said that too, if on some occasion it had happened.

But "Adam created thousands of years ago" is not quite enough.

If, as William Lane Craig suggested, Adam was created 750 000 years ago "before the divergence between Neanderthal and Homo sapiens"(5) there is no way that:

• God could have been just to mankind in promising the Redeemer to Adam, and then delaying Him so long;
• or that Adam could have got the story faithfully transmitted (6) to Moses, who lived 746 500 years after Adam if that were the case.

And if some suppose instead Genesis 3 was known by prophecy (which wouldn't solve the former problem), that's incompatible with there being such enormous gaps in the Genesis 5 and 11 genealogies, which at face value seem to be chrono-genealogies, and for the chronological information of which no satisfactory explanation has been proposed.

100 years ago, some people were already calling out Old Earth Creationism in both forms, Day-Age and Gap Theory, as incompatible with Geology (as seen and interpreted by Deep Timers), one had better chances of saying "well, that may be a fluke" than now.

By now, it would involve putting Adam too far before Moses in time, and too far before Jesus in time. Let's say Jesus arrived 5199 years after the creation of Adam, how many Adamic lifespans are that? Only five will stick to BC years only.

5199 - 930 = 4269 (I)
4269 - 930 = 3339 (II)
3339 - 930 = 2409 (III)
2409 - 930 = 1479 (IV)
1479 - 930 = 549 (V)

Jesus arrived in the sixth Adamic lifespan, 549 BC to 381 AD, just as Adam himself arrived on the sixth day.

750 000 / 930 = 806 times and some.

William Lane Craig makes Jesus arrive in the 807th Adamic lifespan. Impossible.

The only way in which an Adam literally the first man, literally connected to Moses by a chronology of an Exodus in Anno a Creatione Adae 2513 to 4052 is if it is also Anno Mundi 2513 to 4052. You need to scrap a method that dates the Mojakerto child to older than a million years old, and that means scrapping much of the methodology or rather all of it except geology, behind millions of years. You need to scrap or redefine a method like carbon 14 dating Mungo Lake 1 (7) to 19 000 / 24 000 (depending on tissue) BP, or La Ferrassie to 40 000 BP. As carbon 14 is actually useful in historic archaeology, I prefer redefining it. But if 17 000 BC was really in 2712 BC, that means the carbon level was as low as 17.576 pmC, and if 38 000 BC came before a 37 000 BC that was really 2957 BC (the Flood), then the carbon level in 2957 must have been as low as 1.628 pmC (8) ... I would say such levels are only possible if the atmosphere is younger than 30 000 years, after which time the equilibrial level between present rate of C14 production and the constant decay rate would be reached.

In passing, that it has already been reached is only possible (with 5730 as correct halflife) if the rate of production was radically higher, like up 10 times higher(9) between the Flood and Babel, and after Babel, still higher than now up to ... beyond the fall of Jericho? To the fall of Troy? On the other hand, if you prefer to say "equilibrium is not yet reached" ... that's only possible with a slower halflife.(10)

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
Vigil of St. James
24.VII.2024

(1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mojokerto_child
(2) 1 810 000 - 40 000 = 1 770 000 > 1 490 000 + 130 000 = 1 620 000; the minimal discrepancy is of 1 770 000 - 1 620 000 = 150 000 years. 1 810 000 + 40 000 = 1 850 000, 1 490 000 - 130 000 = 1 360 000, 1 850 000 - 1 360 000 = 490 000 years, that being the maximal discrepancy.
(3) I'm obviously speaking of Christian OEC, for whom the Genesis 2 account of Adam and Eve refers to the exact same concrete beginning of mankind as mentioned in Genesis 1 from verse 26. Perhaps some Jews, certainly Ku Klux Klan, have pretended Adam lived long after that first beginning of mankind. As a Christian, I disagree.
(4) https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9140541/
(5) I may have mislaid the exact reference while writing this, since I'm not sure that it is in this video or an earlier one I saw that he stated it:

Questions on Visions, Sin, and Young Earth Creationism
Reasonable Faith Video Podcast, 15 May 2024
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5OUFNDGC2Zg

(6) In a manner generally, if not necessarily in all detail, given by the comment of Father 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)

https://johnblood.gitlab.io/haydock/id329.html

(7) https://creation.com/the-dating-game

(8) New blog on the kid : Mes plus récentes tables de carbone 14
https://nov9blogg9.blogspot.com/2024/05/mes-plus-recentes-tables-de-carbone-14.html

(9) Limits of how much faster than now is possible without disaster are discussed here:

Creation vs. Evolution: Difference with Carbon 14 from Other Radioactive Methods
https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2020/08/difference-with-carbon-14-from-other.html

(10) New blog on the kid: Assume Twice the Halflife ...
https://nov9blogg9.blogspot.com/2022/01/assume-twice-halflife.html

Has Kristian Kristiansen at Gothenburg University Disproven My Calibration?

Has Kristian Kristiansen at Gothenburg University Disproven My Calibration? · A Reminder to Kristian Kristiansen · Dates for Scandinavian Prehistory, Revisited, Most Recent Tables

Here is his research, which I just found on Academia:

Repeated plague infections across six generations of Neolithic Farmers
Kristian Kristiansen | 2024, Nature
https://www.academia.edu/122070422/Repeated_plague_infections_across_six_generations_of_Neolithic_Farmers

Here are the dates framing this overall:

In the period between 5,300 and 4,900 calibrated years before present (cal. bp), populations across large parts of Europe underwent a period of demographic decline. Some argue for an agricultural crisis resulting in the decline, others for the spread of an early form of plague. Here we use population-scale ancient genomics to infer ancestry, social structure and pathogen infection in 108 Scandinavian Neolithic individuals from eight megalithic graves and a stone cist. We find that the Neolithic plague was widespread, detected in at least 17% of the sampled population and across large geographical distances. ...

3300 BC to 2900 BC.

New blog on the kid : Mes plus récentes tables de carbone 14
http://nov9blogg9.blogspot.com/2024/05/mes-plus-recentes-tables-de-carbone-14.html

While I cited and belatedly linked to this article of mine, I did not mention it directly in previous. So, what would the dates really reduce to in my Creationist recalibration?

1868 av. J.-Chr.

84,1262 pcm, donc daté à 3318 av. J.-Chr.

1845 av. J.-Chr.

84,5892 pcm, donc daté à 3245 av. J.-Chr.

...

1756 av. J.-Chr.

86,4346 pcm, donc daté à 2956 av. J.-Chr.

1734 av. J.-Chr.

86,8913 pcm, donc daté à 2884 av. J.-Chr.

For each pair, we'll polish* the exact pmC for the excess years, first:

3318 - 1868 = 1450, 0.5^(1450/5730) => 83.912 pmC
3245 - 1845 = 1400, 0.5^(1400/5730) => 84.421 pmC

It turns out that for both of following, getting closer to one extreme works better than getting equidistant, but in diverse directions.** In each case, I will both analyse the pmC value by a carbon 14 calculator and analyse the years it's supposed to correspond to.

(1868 + 1868 + 1845) / 3 = 1860 BC
(83.912 + 83.912 + 84.421) / 3 = 84.082 pmC
1860 + 1450 = 3310 BC
1860 + 1433 = 3293 BC

2956 - 1756 = 1200, 0.5^(1200/5730) => 86.488 pmC
2884 - 1734 = 1150, 0.5^(1150/5730) => 87.013 pmC

(1756 + 1734 + 1734) / 3 = 1741 BC
(86.488 + 87.013 + 87.013) / 3 = 86.838 pmC
1741 + 1150 = 2891 BC
1741 + 1167 = 2908 BC

Wait ... the mean value of three years over 5730 is actually getting us to the exponent, not to the mean value of the pmC itself ...

0.5^(1433/5730) => 84.085 pmC > 84.082 pmC, so, the latter, actual result of the medium, will add more extra years than 1433.

0.5^(1167/5730) => 86.834 pmC < 86.838 pmC, so, the latter, actual result of the medium, will add fewer extra years than 1167.

Anyway, the period 3300 BC to 2900 BC translates to c. 1860 to 1741 BC, 119 years instead of 400.

So, how sure are we that any part of the data show actual six generations of individuals, and is 119 years overall too few for them?

Well, 119 / 6 = 19.8 years.

The Frälsegården pedigree includes 61 individuals in total (38 sampled and 23 inferred individuals) spanning six generations. The pedigree comprises two sublineages/subfamilies (left and right side of Fig. 3, respectively). We found that the subfamily to the left had an unsampled progenitor whereas one male progenitor was found to be the ancestor of all male lineages in the subfamily to the right, through his three sons. ... The chronological span of the six-generation pedigree at Frälsegården can be estimated at approximately 150–180 years if we assume a mean generation length of 25–30 years [27]. Because many of the individuals have been directly dated, we also estimated the chronology by Bayesian modelling. This gave very similar results and supported the overlapping datings of the two branches at both Frälsegården and Landbogården, with a potentially earlier start of the Frälsegården left branch (Extended Data Fig. 5, Supplementary Figs. 7–9, Supplementary Note 3 and Supplementary Tables 11–13).

Now, the supplementary figure 9 shows early datings starting with 5240 BP (3290 BC) and ending in 4843 PB (2893 BC). I e basically all the span of the period we are dealing with and beyond if we take into account margins of error (5240 BP = 5336 to 5118 BP; 4843 BP = 4880 to 4806 BP). This means, we are not even stuck with just 119 years in my recalibration, we are going beyond, and 19 + years per generation is not over the top too quick.

Plus, I was not sure how much the six generations is about six consecutive generations with in each case pedigrees going, patrilineary wise 1, 2, 4, 8, 16, 32 in Sosa Stradonitz, or shorter, and how much this was supplemented by statistics of overall likeness between generations. But I'll give a low value to this copout, it could be me misundertanding the structure of the article, I am not overly used to reading this, though less unused than when I started, and I'm forced to read it online without printing it out first, lack of resources.

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.

Barring misunderstandings on my side, this was fortunately not the case.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris, Georges Pompidou, Bpi
St. Henry I, Emperor***
15.VII.2024

PS, three days later, no answer, I contacted him the same evening I wrote above./HGL

* For purposes of calculation, I'll leave it unrounded, at firts, then,for reading purposes, I'll round it before publication.
** I test equidistant first. This way, (a + b) / 2, I can see whether I need to take (a + a + b) / 3 or (a + b + b) / 3, or whether (a + b) / 2 is adequate.
*** He's sometimes reckoned as Henry II, but when I look up the line from Charlemagne to him, on wiki, "Henry II" is not preceded by any other "Henry I" meaning it would be correct to count him as Henry I.

Göbekli Tepe was not Pre-Flood

The Prehistory Guys made a point about the Sayburç man. The motif seems related to the Urfa man holding hands across his groin and lots of T-pillars with hands on the waists.

Let's first off use my calibration (with intercalations for this one), to see this fits in the early part of Babel / Göbekli Tepe, unlike Bonkuklu Höyük which starts in the late part of Babel and survives it some.

Bonkuklu Höyük 8300 to 7800 BC

8300 BC

C. 2566—2570 BC, 50 pmC(1)

7800 BC

C. 2532 BC, 52.874 pmC(2)

Urfa man 9000 BC, Sayburç, approx. same period

9000 or 8990 BC

C. 2590 BC, 46.107 pmC(3)

Now check this:

Im Jahr 1997 wurde durch DNA-Tests festgestellt, dass matrilineare Verwandte des als "Cheddar Man" bekannten antiken Menschen immer noch in der Region leben. Adrian Targett, ein Lehrer an einer weiterführenden Schule, stellte sich als DNA-Übereinstimmung heraus. Er wurde in der Nähe des letzten Ruheplatzes von Cheddar Man geboren und hält immer noch den Rekord für den „weitesten durch DNA nachgewiesenen Nachkommen“.

Cheddar Man ist ein etwa 10.000 Jahre altes Skelett, das in einer Höhle in Cheddar Gorge, Somerset, im Vereinigten Königreich gefunden wurde. (4)

I'll translate:

In 1997 they found by DNA-tests, that matrilinear relatives of the ancient man known as "Cheddar Man" still live in the region. Adrian Targett, teacher at a secondary school, proved a DNA match. He was born in the vicinity of the last place of repose of Cheddar Man and still holds the record for the "furthest DNA proven descendant".

Cheddar Man is a skeleton, around 10 000 years old, which was found in a cave in Cheddar Gorge, Somerset, UK.

In other words, carbon dated to 8000 BC, he died here when Babel ended. If you agree with my Bible and Archaeology match and with my recalibration.

Unless you dismiss this as a total fluke, and carbon dating beyond 3000 years ago as not even correct in the question of relative older or younger, this would mean, we as Creationists would agree with the Prehistory Guys that Cheddar Man died while Bonkuklu Höyük was inhabited (which was during 34—38 years, 2566 or 2570 to 2532 BC, not as they argue, 500 years, from 8300 to 7800 BC), which started out while Göbekli Tepe was in use.

Now, lets return to the point The Prehistory Guys were making. The motif was well known. Show a girl in red hooded cape with a basked facing a wolf, you will elicit the response "Little Red Riding Hood" ... they thought it was a story, which everyone back then knew.

There are other things than stories that are well known motifs. A) Two men. Both in running positions, raising knees and feet against the other and especially pointing them towards a round object, about the size of their heads. If The Prehistory Guys are in any doubt that this is not a one time event preserved in a well known story, I would advise them to ask fans of Tottenham and Manchester United what that motif means. B) Or a man with a Spanish helmet with a funny grid over the face, holding a trident in one hand and a net in the other. Nope, it's not a reference to a myth about Neptune, it's a reference to gladiator fights. Very recurrent events in Ancient Rome.

Imagine a man possibly trying to hold back ... well, what the Sayburç man is possibly trying to hold back (5). He is surrounded by wild animals. Given we have early Neolithic Anatolian depictions of beheaded people lying before vultures (and the Bird Man on one pillar of Göbekli Tepe seems to be that exact thing viewed from an angle where it looks as if the head was replaced by the vulture), I think we can assume very securely that this kind of thing was not done by Noah and his kin when erecting an altar to God after the Flood. It was more like what Nimrod would do during Babel.

But, equally, it was like a kind of thing which could have provoked God to the Flood?

Well, here the Cheddar Man comes in. His mother or granny or sth or his daughter had far off descendants in the mother of Adrian Targett. There was no Flood between Cheddar Man and Adrian Targett. Arguably, the years after Babel would be when many if not all populations arrived at present locations.

Carbon dated 8000 BC was not pre-Flood. It was also not very early post-Flood as in when Noah stepped out of the Ark and made a sacrifice. It was very arguably the end of Babel. And if Cheddar Man is in reconstructions portrayed as smiling, it could be relief at being that far away from Nimrod.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
Pope St. Anacletus, Martyr
13.VII.2024

Romae sancti Anacleti, Papae et Martyris, qui, post sanctum Clementem Ecclesiam Dei regens, eam glorioso martyrio decoravit.

Notes:

(1) Excerpt and intercalations:

2573 av. J.-Chr.

48,992 pcm, donc daté à 8473 av. J.-Chr.

2556 av. J.-Chr.

51,761 pcm, donc daté à 8006 av. J.-Chr.

8473-2573=5900 0.5^(5900/5730)=0.4898227164058108
8006-2556=5450 0.5^(5450/5730)=0.5172256113123032

8300-2566=5734, 8300-2570=5730 0.5^1

(2) Excerpt and intercalations:

2539 av. J.-Chr.

52,64 pcm, donc daté à 7839 av. J.-Chr.

2522 av. J.-Chr.

53,518 pcm, donc daté à 7672 av. J.-Chr.

7839-2539=5300 0.5^(5300/5730)=0.5266964461029123
7672-2522=5150 0.5^(5150/5730)=0.5363406998226489

(2539 + 2522) / 2 = 2530.5
(52.67 + 53.634) / 2 = 53.152 => 5250
2530.5 + 5250 = 7780.5

(2539 + 2539 + 2522) / 3 = 2533
(52.67 + 52.67 + 53.634) / 3 = 52.9913 => 5250

7800-2532=5268 0.5^(5268/5730)=0.5287392282276087

(3) Excerpt:

2590 av. J.-Chr.

46,218 pcm, donc daté à 8990 av. J.-Chr.

8990-2590=6400 0.5^(6400/5730)=0.4610744262600611

(4) Source:

Der weiteste durch DNA nachgewiesene Nachkomme
Ekto, Leuchtturmwärter 21. Juni [2024], Leuchtfeuer
https://leuchtfeuer.quora.com/Der-weiteste-durch-DNA-nachgewiesene-Nachkomme

(5) Google it! I'm trying to keep this blog family friendly. The google will probably be showing a link to a video by The Prehistory Guys, so I'm not withholding them.

Origin of Language

Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere: No, a Transition from Non-Human to Human is Not Possible · Creation vs. Evolution: Origin of Language · New blog on the kid: Palaeolithic Post-Flood or 2957 to 2607 BC, Language, Yes

If we take the Genesis 2 account, as I do and more importantly as the Church has done for 20 CC., as a closeup on what happens on day 6 in the Genesis 1 account, it pretty clearly follows Adam and Eve were created adult and fully able to understand God speaking and to speak.

Genesis 1

26 And he said:

Let us make man to our image and likeness: and let him have dominion over the fishes of the sea, and the fowls of the air, and the beasts, and the whole earth, and every creeping creature that moveth upon the earth.

27 And God created man to his own image: to the image of God he created him: male and female he created them. 28 And God blessed them, saying:

Increase and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it, and rule over the fishes of the sea, and the fowls of the air, and all living creatures that move upon the earth. 29 And God said: Behold I have given you every herb bearing seed upon the earth, and all trees that have in themselves seed of their own kind, to be your meat: 30 And to all beasts of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to all that move upon the earth, and wherein there is life, that they may have to feed upon.

And it was so done. 31 And God saw all the things that he had made, and they were very good. And the evening and morning were the sixth day.

Genesis 2

15 And the Lord God took man, and put him into the paradise of pleasure, to dress it, and to keep it.

16 And he commanded him, saying:

Of every tree of paradise thou shalt eat: 17 But of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat. For in what day soever thou shalt eat of it, thou shalt die the death.

18 And the Lord God said:

It is not good for man to be alone: let us make him a help like unto himself.

19 And the Lord God having formed out of the ground all the beasts of the earth, and all the fowls of the air, brought them to Adam to see what he would call them: for whatsoever Adam called any living creature the same is its name. 20 And Adam called all the beasts by their names, and all the fowls of the air, and all the cattle of the field: but for Adam there was not found a helper like himself.

21 Then the Lord God cast a deep sleep upon Adam: and when he was fast asleep, he took one of his ribs, and filled up flesh for it. 22 And the Lord God built the rib which he took from Adam into a woman: and brought her to Adam. 23 And Adam said:

This now is bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called woman, because she was taken out of man. 24 Wherefore a man shall leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they shall be two in one flesh.

25 And they were both naked: to wit, Adam and his wife: and were not ashamed.

The other account is very much less clear:

npr : When Did Human Speech Evolve?
SEPTEMBER 5, 2013 1:43 PM ET By Barbara J. King
https://www.npr.org/sections/13.7/2013/09/05/219236801/when-did-human-speech-evolve

No precise day or year is given:

By contrast, the timing for the origin of speech is hotly debated — unsurprisingly, given the challenges recounted above. Dates suggested range between two million and 50,000 years ago. That's a huge span and a clear motivator for more research.

And it is also silent on how language began. Sure, neurological precisions are given, but grammatical ones aren't:

Uomini and Meyer's approach — building on earlier formulations, such those presented in an influential 1991 paper by Patricia Greenfield — was to measure patterns of brain activation in modern people as they demonstrated both linguistic and technological skills, which share what is called "the need for structured and hierarchical action plans." The authors decided to seek "direct evidence that both skills draw on common brain areas or result in common brain activation patterns."

This led the researchers to conclude that speech was there when toolmaking was, pushing for the earlier limit.

Now, neither this type of toolmaking nor language is observed in irrational animals. There are two possibilities:

• the dates are way off, Biblical chronology or sth resembling it is correct;
• or God's image walked on earth nearly 2 million years ago.

This latter possibility breaks down into two in its turn:

• Adam lived c. 1.75 to 2 M years ago, and Genesis 3 is not history
• or Adam was not the first image of God.

Both of them destroy Christianity if true, and so, if Christianity is true, it destroys both of them, and therefore Deep Time.

Let me suggest, it is Deep Time and Evolution that should go. You see, the Evolutionary scenario has drained research money for decades, and on this topic, it does not look like anything like progressing.

Can we call a sham a sham, and the Emperor's New Clothes "naked"?

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris, Bpi Georges Pompidou
St. Antony Maria Zaccaria
5.VII.2024

Cremonae, in Insubria, sancti Antonii-Mariae Zaccaria Confessoris, qui Clericorum Regularium sancti Pauli et Angelicarum Virginum fuit Institutor; atque, virtutibus omnibus et mirdculis insignis, a Leone Papa Decimo tertio inter Sanctos adscriptus est. Ejus corpus Mediolani, in Ecclesia sancti Barnabae, colitur.

No Lice in Paradise

No headlice, sucking blood from their hosts, that is.

So, why lice? Why bloodsuckers?

St. Augustine posits, their embrya (or nits) were created in the one moment of creation, and they matured only after Adam sinned. If he hadn't, they would have been destroyed.

CMI posits, the human head louse descends from other lice that are beneficient. If Adam hadn't sinned, those mutations would not have happened.

Chewing lice live among the hairs or feathers of their host and feed on skin and debris, whereas sucking lice pierce the host's skin and feed on blood and other secretions. They usually spend their whole life on a single host, cementing their eggs, called nits, to hairs or feathers. The eggs hatch into nymphs, which moult three times before becoming fully grown, a process that takes about four weeks. Genetic evidence indicates that lice are a highly modified lineage of Psocoptera (now called Psocodea), commonly known as booklice, barklice or barkflies. The oldest known fossil lice are from the Cretaceous.

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

I think we can figure out which ones came after Adam sinned. The chewing lice might be doing their hosts a favour, under circumstances.

Sucking lice (Anoplura, formerly known as Siphunculata) have around 500 species and represent the smaller of the two traditional superfamilies of lice. As opposed to the paraphyletic chewing lice, which are now divided among three suborders, the sucking lice are monophyletic.

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

Anoplura are monophyletic? Sounds like they went through a mutation in one ancestral population ... in other words, I think CMI would have a point here.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Bpi, Georges Pompidou of Paris
Octave of St. John the Baptist
1.VII.2024