Can a Doctrine Rise in Essentiality?

Kevin Moritz wrote a very good piece on CMI.

Can Christians believe in evolution?
by Kevin Moritz | First published: 21 October 2010
https://creation.com/can-christians-believe-evolution

Refeatured today.

Do I agree with his conclusion? Or even with all of his principles? No. I'll come back to that.

But I agree with this:

There are a range of biblical doctrines; and, while it’s important to be as consistent and biblical as we can, not every one is as “essential” as every other (even when we consider only true doctrines, as opposed to various misinterpretations). The Bible itself contrasts the “milk”, or “basic principles of the oracles of God”, with “solid food” for the “mature” (Hebrews 5).

Now, I would say, it is an essential doctrine that Mary was sinless from the very moment of Her conception. It is an essential doctrine that anyone who in wilful ignorance rejects the proofs of the Catholic Church being Christ's one true Church up to when he dies is going to Hell. These are dogmas known as Immaculate Conception and Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus. Note, the latter also includes things like, if you are NOT guilty of rejecting Catholicism, you can still go to Hell by lacking (valid Baptism and) Confession for your actual mortal sins. Now, the justification from mortals (in the kind of act and personal circumstances surrounding it), committed after Baptism, can happen through an act of perfect contrition, through an act of faith, hope and love. This could indicate that there is some kind or degree of possibility someone who died without converting and being received into the Church is not in Hell (leaving Heaven or Purgatory). If Charlie Kirk's last known and openly observable prayer had been a rosary, I would have felt more confident for him, than when twenty minutes before he died he prayed with Evangelicals.

If Dimond brothers are right there is no hope at all we can licitly entertain, that's a doctrine which I've sometimes struggled to accept as "solid meat" in the sense of Hebrews 5. But equally, if there is some kind of hope, as suggested by Father Nix, by a few more, that's also a "solid meat" doctrine not required as essential to a 16th C. Spaniard. When a Luterano was tried by the Inquisition (and it didn't mean the confession we call Lutherans, in Spain it meant essentially Calvinist Presbyterian) people expected that if the heresy wasn't his fault, the Inquisitor would understand the messup and disentangle it. He would stand on an "auto da fé" literally pronouncing an auto da fé, an act of faith, i e adherence to the Catholic Church.

This suggests one situation in which a doctrine could become more essential than before, if we come to a point where we can observe kinds of people we couldn't observe before, this raises formerly unknown questions about their salvation. Pre-Columbians. Populations cut off from Catholicism by Protestant Governments. People accessing Catholic doctrine and good arguments for it through the internet. People prevented from using the internet sufficiently.

But let's get back to the question of essential doctrines. In Catholic parlance, an essential doctrine is called a dogma. There are certain ways for the Catholic Church to pronounce something which is dogma (Immaculate Conception 1854 by Pope Pius IX, Papal Infallibility 1870 by the Vatican Council — a k a Vatican I) or at least dogma equivalent (universal adherence in the Church Fathers, direct statement in the Bible, if in a correct version and correctly understood).

So, how come the Immaculate Conception could become dogma in 1854 and was sth which St. Augustine was free to reject? Or rather, could get away with rejecting? A doctrine can become more essential than it was before. I'm not going over here in detail why Sinlessness of Mary is a Biblical doctrine always held by the Church or why it finally (with John of Damascus, against Augustine) trumps Universality of the Fall (woman and her seed in Genesis 3:15 is if not proof, at least suggestion to treat Mary in the same category as Jesus rather than the same category as all of us, i e the rest of us). Rather, it's a question of how a doctrine once optional (though true) can become essential.

And this is where I say, no, Christians can't believe in Evolution and Deep Time any more. If you say "horses evolved from Eohippus and grass from algae, over millions of years, but God created Adam directly 4000—5600 years before Christ was born, with no bestial ancestry" that can be fine. But the only reason to accept horses evolving from Eohippus (now again Hyracotherium on wikipedia) or millions of years is coupling phylum hierarchies with "scientific" datings, and if the most reliable dating method is Carbon 14, if a very low percentage of modern Carbon (14) is only possible in a young atmosphere, if we find evidence that Homo Soloensis tool making required language, this will close that wiggle room. Pre-Adamite real men is already out, saying non-men with human anatomy could have had close enough to human language turns man as image of God into an unobservable theological extra, putting Adam 750 000 years ago as William Lane Craig proposes reassigns Genesis 3 and 4 from history to prophecy, though neither Bible nor Tradition, neither Josephus nor Augustine say Moses had a revelation about the events, making it prophecy means having to interpret how Genesis 5 and 11 are somehow rather accurate prophecy than an inaccuracy in history, and apart from that also poses the question where Genesis ceases to be prophecy about as unclear as the Apocalypse, if it even does so.

A collective fall is contrary to Trent Session V, on Original Sin, canons 1, 2 and 3. Adam as representative for other already existing men, already image of God (like Christ on Calvary) is as useless, since, why would unfallen man need a representative, and if it were about "becoming" the image of God, again this makes "image of God" an unobservable theological extra. If you solve for "image of God, but not yet called to immortality and a personal relationship" you are very literally repeating the alrady condemned error of Isaac Lapeyrère (who actually did publically reconcile with the Catholic Church and so is presumed to have repented of it).

I think this gives a pretty good model on how a discussion could turn two options into a dogma and a heresy. A thing becomes heresy when either all its proofs or all its explanations that are left are clearly false or even at odds with revelation. I would say, this is what Newman talked about in the term "development of dogma" and this is also how we arrived where three Marian dogmas which as late as a month before his death Charlie Kirk rejected become non-negotiables.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
St. Therese of the Child Jesus
and of the Holy Face
3 Oct. 2025

30 Sept. Lexovii, in Gallia, item natalis sanctae Teresiae a Jesu Infante, ex Ordine Carmelitarum Excalceatorum; quam, vitae innocentia et simplicitate clarissimam, Pius Undecimus, Pontifex Maximus, sanctarum Virginum albo adscripsit, peculiarem omnium Missionum Patronam declaravit, ejusque festum quinto Nonas Octobris recolendum esse decrevit.
3 Oct. Sanctae Teresiae a Jesu Infante, ex Ordine Carmelitarum Excalceatorum, Virginis, peculiaris omnium Missionum Patronae; cujus dies natalis pridie Kalendas Octobris recensetur.

Does Andrew Sibley Know Geography?

New theory about Indo-European language origin
by Andrew Sibley | This article is from
Creation 46(3):45, July 2024
https://creation.com/indo-euro-language-theory

First, he doesn't know linguistics.

No PIE writings are known; rather, PIE has been reconstructed from comparing its known descendants, especially old languages like Latin, Sanskrit, and Ancient Greek. PIE must have had a very complex grammar.

Latin, Sanskrit and Ancient Greek don't have a "very complex grammar." They have a rich verb morphology, which alleviates the need for complexities in syntax. In Latin (which I know better than Greek), the sentence "si me vocavisses, venissem" means "if you had called me, I would have come" ... so, "venissem" corresponds to "I would have come" (in this context). One could say that "I would have come" is just morphology, like "venissem" but let's negate: "etsi me vocavisses, non venissem" = "even if you had called me, I wouldn't have come" ... is adding the negation after would, as a clitic, still morphology or is it syntax? I think most would say it is syntax. The negation is in English added after the verb form that is both "finite" (that is, in relation to Latin terminology not quite applicable to English, defined as to which of the three persons) and an "auxiliary" (a verb that modally or temporally defines the main verb, which is then a non-finite, often the infinitive). We can take the past as statements. "Cum me vocaveris, veni" = "when you called me, I came" and now take the negated form "cum me vocaveris, non veni" ... how do you say this in English? If the negation is added after any finite verb, as in other Germanic languages, it's "when you called me, I came not" ... this is understandable, but it's Biblical or Shakespearean, in current English, only auxiliaries can take the question inversion or the negation, so, "when you called me, I didn't come" ...

When you speak English, all of this is obvious, and you don't think of it as complex syntax, but it really is. In Swedish or German, the last sentence would have a finite main verb, but also use the V-2 rule, and consider the subsidiary temporal clause as "word/phrase" 1 in the main clause, another complexity of syntax: "när du kallade mig, kom jag intet" or "als du mich ruftest, kam ich nicht" ... the apparent inversion between subject and predicate, reminiscent of the question inversion is actually explained by positions within the main clause: 1) när du kallade mig 2) kom 3) jag 4) intet / 1) als du mich ruftest 2) kam 3) ich 4) nicht. Non-English Germanic languages, and I think Anglo-Saxon too, have this rule, called the V-2 rule. Note also, here the negation doesn't immediately follow the verb, but the subject (even if it is a noun) is interposed between finite verb and the negation. If the finite verb is an auxiliary in German, the main but non-finite verb comes very last: 1) als du mich ruftest 2) bin 3) ich 4) nicht 5) gekommen.

I think you will agree, Germanic languages overall, even English, have a quirky and "over regulated" syntax in compensation for simplicity of morphology. But there is more. Since Bopp, some have taken Hittite into account when reconstructing Proto-Indo-European.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hittite_grammar#Verb_conjugation

When compared with other early-attested Indo-European languages, such as Ancient Greek and Sanskrit, the verb system is Hittite is morphologically relatively uncomplicated. There are two general verbal classes according to which verbs are inflected, the mi-conjugation and the ḫi-conjugation. The names are drawn by the ending of the first person singular in the present tense.

And Hittite is not only much older, but also less related to Greek and Latin than they are to each other (not sure if this would be the case with Celtic as well, Old Irish has similar verb prefixes to Hittite), so it is presumed to to have split off earlier than the rest from each other. This would suggest to people buying into this theory, that Hittite reflects an older version of the Indo-European verb system (Greek and Latin declinsions in -o are considered by linguist to correspond to Hittite declinsion in -ḫi, and obviously the Hittite declinsion in -mi corresponds to the Greek declinsion in -mi and in Latin mainly the verb sum). And this would suggest that the oldest Proto-Indo-European had a much simpler verb system than Latin, Greek, and especially Sanskrit. In other words, verb systems have become more complex (has also happened in English, which has 16 tenses, compared with 8 for the other Germanic languages). Don't worry. Doesn't mean development or evolution adds information, it is clearly a case of intelligent design ... yes, from time to time people intelligently re-design their own language.

"I like beer." — "Me too." — "Me three"

Reinterpreting "me too" as "me two" = "myself the second in the category you introduced" which allows for "me three" is obviously an intelligent redesign of English syntax. It's not a mutation.

But, the title of this essay asked about geography, how good Sibley is at that.

The new proposed location is about 1,000 km (600 miles) from Mesopotamia, some 500 km (300 miles) closer than Anatolia (2), previously the closest suggested origin location of PIE.

Anatolia and Mesopotamia overlap. Anatolia basically means "rising sun" so "east" and in context "east of Asia Minor within the modern state of Turkey as well as its predecessor Ottoman and possibly Byzantine Empires" or perhaps rather "Eastern parts of Asia Minor, with coast line to the Black Sea, but none to the Mediterranean" ... and this divides into, West to East, and starting in the Southern part for now: 1) Cilicia inside the coastal region, 2) Mesopotamia, 3) Armenia. If you follow the Black Sea coast, indeed there is no Mesopotamia up there, since Mesopotamia means "between Tigris and Euphrates", since these two rivers flow South and since NO rivers start from the Sea and flow inland. So, the parts of Turkey with Mesopotamia go, from North to South: 1) Black Sea, 2) Taurus Mountains, 3) Mesopotamia, which latter continues into Syria and Iraq.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taurus_Mountains#Southeastern_Taurus

The Southeastern Taurus Mountains form the northern boundary of the Southeastern Anatolia Region and North Mesopotamia. They include the Nurhak Mountains, Malatya Mountains, Maden Mountains, Genç Mountains, and Bitlis Mountains. They are in the watershed of the Euphrates River and Tigris River.

Meaning, South-East Anatolia, and North Mesopotamia, overlap. Now, if Nimrod's Babel was in this region, as I believe and as some already reputed Creationists have supported, though not specifically my take of Göbekli Tepe, which is in this region, this would make Anatolia a pretty ideal origin for Indo-European, whether it was a family or a Sprachbund. Let's pursue this too, for good measure:

PIE was one of several (perhaps several dozen) ‘stem’ languages created at that time.

I would certainly agree stem languages were created at the time. But more like exactly 72. Exactly matching names in the Table of Nations. And I would argue, several of them came to influence each other, in a Sprachbund, in Anatolia West of Babel. Hittite and Celtic would originate in the territory of Gomer, then part of Gomer (Celtic) would go West and get modified by other languages. West of (original place of) Gomer, you had Javan in Greece, and between Javan and Gomer you had the Semitic Lud in Western Asia Minor.

The genetic origins from Yamnaya or Caucasus became relevant for the peopling of Europe, but linguistically they were outside the original Indo-European Sprachbund — just as languages influencing West-Gomeric to become Celtic were. If you agree all of Iberia spoke languages related to Basque in pre-Celtic and pre-Roman periods of Spain, the Basque-Iberic language coincides with the input from Bell Beaker genetics, apart from in Basque country itself where it mixed with Western Hunter Gatherers. In a ratio as dominant for Bell Beaker genetics as Yamnaya is for Bell Beaker. These guys certainly contributed something to Indo-European languages, but not all of it, and they contributed more to Basque, which explains Basque and Caucasus cognates (or related words). I'll let you read this one:

The Anthropological Context of Euskaro-Caucasian
Bengtson, J. D. | Santa Fe Institute, 2017
https://santafe.edu/research/results/papers/6557-the-anthropological-context-of-euskaro-caucas

The article was written before the more recent research linking Yamnaya to Basque-Iberian.

Origins and spread of Indo-European languages: an alternative view
8th December 2024 | by Alberto
https://adnaera.com/2024/12/08/origins-and-spread-of-indo-european-languages-an-alternative-view/

By the time they reached Central Europe around 2800 BC*, the CWH** people had around 30% admixture from the Neolithic farmers. Quite a significant amount, but not surprising given how fast a small population can change genetically when they start incorporating “foreign” genes into their pool.

And

On their way to the Iberian peninsula and in the peninsula itself, however, they did find some surviving Neolithic communities as again we see further admixture coming from the “foreign” females they were incorporating into their own communities. By the time they had settled the Iberian peninsula, this admixture had increased to around 70%. .... What all the process described in the above paragraphs basically means is that Northern and Western Europe were completely (re)populated by people who came from the steppe. By communities, clans, of people that came from the steppe. This was not a 50% replacement of the previous Neolithic population. It was a 100% replacement.

This means, it was the whole Iberian Peninsula, peopled mainly by Steppe communities, that spoke Ibero-Basque, so, the Steppe communities spoke Ibero-Basque too.

The same learned team, for which Alberto González is a spokesman along with a Robert, argues that the actual Indo-European languages spread later over this repeopled Europe, but also the South East which was outside the current and kept more Early European Farmers, from the Balkans or the South-East.

Which fits neatly with my view on a Sprachbund between Anatolia and Greece being the starting point.

By carbon dated 1400 to 1200 BC*** we have a Mycenaean Greek influx into the Terramare Culture of North Italy, and it's trading all the way up to the Baltic, making for conditions for other combinations of languages influencing each other, in which Mycenaean Greek would already start out as Indo-European and other languages become so by adopting Indo-European traits.

In other words, a PIE unity is not absolutely vital to explaining the IE unifiers, both vocabulary and grammar.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
St. Maurilius of Angers
13.IX.2025

Andegavi, in Gallia, sancti Maurilii Episcopi, qui innumeris miraculis claruit.

PS, if some say that Basques as to Basques, not the rest of Iberian Peninsula, have unique DNA, yes, but, the thing is if Basque is identic to Iberian back in the day, Iberian outside the Basque country presumably didn't get their Basque like language from the small Basque minority./HGL

* Carbon dated 2800 BC = c. 1700 BC, death of Joseph's pharao who would be Djoser, in my tables, see Newer Tables, Flood to Joseph in Egypt Carbon dated 2500 BC, also mentioned in the text, sounds like 300 years later, but is between 1678 and 1656 BC according to Newer Tables, Joseph in Egypt to Fall of Troy
** Chorded Ware Horizon
*** 1395 to 1210 would really be 1349 to 1203 BC, according to Newer Tables, Joseph in Egypt to Fall of Troy

Sündfluth oder Gletscher Revindicated?

In the 19th C. there was no shortage of Roman Catholics who were Young Earth Creationist.

One of them was Alois Trissl, probably identic to the one who was chaplain in Ruhmannsfelden in Lower Bavaria, 1880 - 1881. He wrote a book on the subject, and had no shortage of readers.

Die Cooperatoren von Ruhmannsfelden
https://pfarreiengemeinschaft-teisnachtal.de/Archiv_HP-Pfarrer-Meier/cooperat.htm

Now, same or different, his book is anyway: A. Trissl Sündfluth oder Gletscher ; Das Biblische Sechstagewerk, 2e édit. Munich, Ratisbonne, 1894.

The subtitle of the work is "the Biblical Six-Day Work" ... but the main title refers to certain geological features, posing the question: "Flood or Glaciers?"

So, after hearing that CMI actually does believe in the Glaciation as one post-Flood event (I'd agree, but disagree on how long, it ended by Noah's death), I concluded, Chaplain Trissl was probably wrong in attributing to the Flood things that came from a post-Flood Ice Age.

Today, CMI kind of revindicates him at least partially:

As for the supposed ‘earlier ice ages’, examination of the evidence indicates that their features are different from those of the Pleistocene one. They are better interpreted as huge underwater landslides caused by massive sediment movement during the Flood.

Footnotes 2 and 15 are relevant:

Old-earth scientists typically argue for a total of five major glaciation events: the Huronian, the Cryogenian, the Andean-Saharan, the Karoo, and the Quaternary (or Pleistocene); see Marshall, M., The history of ice on Earth; newscientist.com, 24 May 2010.

Oard, M.J., Ancient Ice Ages or Gigantic Submarine Landslides? Creation Research Society Books, Chino Valley, AZ, 1997; Molén, M., Diamictites: ice-ages or gravity flows? in Walsh, R. E. and Brooks, C. L. (Eds.), Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Creationism, Creation Science Fellowship, Pittsburgh, PA, pp. 177–190, 1990.

So, if this is correct, the Huronian Ice age are not just temporally misplaced features of the post-Flood Ice Age, but actually different features from the Flood, Trissl is, as said, at least partially, vindicated.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
St. Moses, Lawgiver and Prophet
4.IX.2025

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

PS, here is today's article from CMI, the one that I quoted:

Will there be another Ice Age?
by Cody Guitard | This article is from
Creation 39(1):50–52, January 2017
https://creation.com/will-there-be-another-ice-age

No, Dr. Russell Humphries, Sumer is not all of Shinar

Just as Murrica isn't all of América.

The US is not all of the Americas, but its popular name is still "America" as if it were the whole continent, which it isn't.

Likewise, Shumerum isn't all of Shinar. It's just named after it.

The indigenous name for Shumerum (an Akkadian word) is Kengir, and the indigenous name for Sumerian is Emegir.

But Russell Humphries is correct on a few things:

Where is Noah’s Ark? / A closer look at the biblical clues
by D. Russell Humphreys, Ph.D. | 12 July 2011(GMT+10)
Subsequently published in Journal of Creation 25(3)
https://creation.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=8113

I’m quoting the King James Version here, because I think its translation of the Hebrew word miqqedem, “from the east,” is very accurate. The noun qedem in a geographic sense means “east,” or sometimes “front” (the front of the tabernacle was its east side). The prefix mi (short form of min) means “from.” Hence we have “from [the] east.” Occasionally the phrase may mean “to the east,” as is faintly possible in Genesis 13:11, though I think use of a different preposition, le , meaning “to”, would have been more likely had that been the case.3 Very often, however, “eastward” is a different word, qēdemah, as in Genesis 13:14, 25:6, Leviticus 1:16, Numbers 3:38, etc. So our first hypothesis should be to take the phrase in Genesis 11:2 as meaning the Flood survivors traveled from some point in the east, i.e., they traveled westward.

All translations prior to Charles XII's into Swedish have a correct translation of miqqedem.

Now, while "Ararat" is not specifically Agri Dagh, it is however all of the Armenian mountainland. Ararat is the same name as Urartu, an old name for the geographic region of Armenia. And in order to in Armenia get East of Sumer, to go Westward while going to Sumer, you need to start in Nagorno-Karabakh or Arzakh.

Next, notice where they arrived, “a plain in the land of Shinar.” Bible commentators all agree that Shinar is what we know today as the land of Sumer, in the southern half of Iraq. Genesis 10:10, Daniel 1:2 and Zechariah 5:11 associate Shinar with Babylon, which was also in the southern half of Iraq. So, coming from the east, Noah’s extended family arrived in southern Iraq (not northern Iraq, which Scripture usually calls “Assyria”).

When the LXX was translated, when Shinar was translated Babylon, the Neo-Babylonian recently defunct Empire reached well into Northern Iraq and beyond. It encompassed all of Mesopotamia, not just the parts in Iraq, not just the parts in Southern Iraq. In Daniel and Zechariah, Babylon ruled over Assyrian territories, and in Genesis 10 at least one city is pretty solidly associated with Assyria, namely Nineveh. Definitely Northern part of Iraq, not too far from Turkey. Mosul, just across the Tigris from ancient Nineveh, is 490 km from Şanlıurfa, 405 km from Baghdad, not far from Classical Babylon.

The thing is, CMI has later published an article basically admitting I could be right. Ten years after Russell Humphreys:

An Upper Mesopotamian location for Babel
Ken Griffith and Darrell K. White
VIEWPOINT || JOURNAL OF CREATION 35(2) 2021
https://dl0.creation.com/articles/p149/c14992/j35_2_69-79.pdf

Will I have to publish this? I know, I won't publish it just now, I'll see if someone tries to push it more directly towards me ...

I left off at above ellipsis on the 14th of August, so late it was actually the 15th of August First Vespers (Feasts and Sundays begin earlier the day before, like 18:30 I usually count). It is now 29th of August, a day of Feast or Observance, namely the Decapitation of St. John the Baptist. This night, I published a part two of a French mini-series on Shelah's archaeological surroundings and contemporaries. It obviously referred to Göbekli Tepe as Nimrod's Babel, or as the Babel of Genesis 11.* And so, within a few hours, I come to see a mini-series on Nimrod.

In Part 1, at or by 9:19 into the video, I see Shinar identified as Sumer. So, yes, I do have to publish it, what I've already said time and again on topics like Babel and Shinar seems to be ignored, someone has, once again, ludicrously by now, assumed I made a blunder to correct, and proceded, by prayer or by suggestion of videos manually, to "correct" my presumed "blunder" ... when I actually do make a blunder, I am usually easy to correct, as can be seen from dialogues under a video by Susanne the Math Queen** as she is known in English.

The video in question also makes the assumption, a possible error of Muslims and certainly an error of Hislop, that Nimrod invented Pagan Religion as we historically know it ... first, Pagan religion is not a completely unified thing, and second, idolatry as such begins with Ninos, who was not Nimrod but his descendant.

I get a very queezy feeling, I'm being watched by some die-hard Evangelicals, who, whenever I contradict either their religion or their suppositions of a Hislopish type (in some cases even directly taken from Hislop), try their worst to make sure I neither get readers for what they consider my errors, nor peace about the issue, but a presumably "unobtrusive" nudge, which after so many times starts becoming very obtrusive to me. If you ask me, Nimrod wasn't the first idolater in the religious sense, but he was a Totalitarian and a Slave Hunter.

Some who show too much support for ICE or what Trump wants to do to the homeless wouldn't feel OK with this being equated with Nimrod's evils, no, they prefer the Tower being a religious Ziggurat, they sometimes accuse me of being an astrologer.*** So, to them, Nimrod now, that would be my Catholicism or Santa Muerte or sth, but absolutely NOT any kind of Totalitarian methods in socio-political things.°

Hence my need to repeat the points about Babel, Shinar, Ninos (who was not Nimrod, but descended from him) over and over again. To those who have already read and respected my answers on these points, excuses ....

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
Decapitation of St. John the Baptist
29.VIII.2025

Decollatio sancti Joannis Baptistae, quem Herodes circa festum Paschae decollari praecepit. Ipsius tamen memoria solemniter hac die colitur, qua venerandum ejus caput secundo inventum fuit; quod, postea Romam translatum, in Ecclesia sancti Silvestri, ad Campum Martium, summa populi devotione asservatur.

* Salé, première moitié de sa vie (jusqu'à Babel et juste au-delà) · Salé, "seconde moitié" de sa vie, après Babel
** Susanne machte eine Fehler ... seltenste Sensation ... after publishing, and because of a dialogue also now in the post, I added a kind of post-script: Sogar so selten daß es nicht mal diesmal geschah ... sonst wäre es aber wirklich eine Sensation gewesen!
*** Like someone did at the video behind this post: Danny Faulkner Believes in Heliocentrism, but NOT ETs, is That Inconsistent?
° At least not the kind of Totalitarianism that hits the insignificant, like homeless or "mentally ill" or things ... or if at all, their limit of toleration of such totalitarianism is higher than mine.

Common Design is NOT Last Thursdayism

Someone, whom for the moment I'm leaving anonymous (I might watch, comment and link to his video later, if he answers this point first) titled a video:

"Common Design" Is Just Last Thursdayism

Last Thursdayism is the idea, that everything, including myself and my memories of the Thursday before that, popped into existence LAST Thursday. It involves the proposition that my memories are totally unreliable, since I could have popped into existence last Thursday as an adult, with all my childhood memories being illusory.

There actually is a religion to which Last Thursdayism was once true in human society, if I get it correctly, namely the Babylonian one. The Babylonian gods created men in already functioning societies because they wanted something from the men they created and weren't patient enough to laboriously teach them over time. So, some day, there were no men, Tiamat was a stinking corpse, and, next day, men were walking in a city and asking each other "you remember that trade trip when we bought the extra good perfumes ten years ago?" ...

God on the other hand did not primarily create man for society or for providing Him with some substantial upkeep, but for communion with Himself. He had provided for Adam. Adam and Eve could slowly watch human society emerge from their nuclear family after the fall. No false memories involved.

I kind of suspect, the point is to compare:

• either the other aspects of things popping into existence (like trees and beasts on days 3 and 6) without noting that Last Thursdayism is absurd because it involves denial of memory;
• or to equate traces of processes indirectly arrived at only through the traces with memory directly witnessing to the past.

Either point is per se too stupid for wasting 45 minutes of a video on, so, I'll post this in a comment under the video, and ask "where do you even adress this objection to your provocation" and if he doesn't answer, I'm not watching the video./HGL

Padre Nix on Evolution

If Evolution is True, We’re Just Walking Meat-Sacks
By Father David Nix|January 27th, 2022|Theology
https://www.padreperegrino.org/2022/01/meat/

Complex Writing Didn't Exist Among Hebrews? Theory Before Ebla Was Discovered (Check the Video)

There is No Reading Public? · Complex Writing Didn't Exist Among Hebrews? Theory Before Ebla Was Discovered (Check the Video)

Exploring the Ebla Tablets and Their Shocking Genesis Connections
Flying Eagle Publications | 8 Aug. 2025
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9m_jk5FVqp0

It could be added on the issue, however, that the date of the Ebla tablets are in carbon dates 2400 to 2200 BC. This would be Third Millennium if corresponding to real dates. However, in my tables, this translates to, roughly:

1656 BC*

91.353 pmC, dated as 2404 BC

1634 BC

93.251 pmC, dated as 2212 BC

A bit more than a century before the Exodus in 1510 BC. However, this is sufficient for Moses to have had writing before 600 BC, when it is pretended Hebrews were first exposed to writing. However, so is Proto-Sinaitic, which corresponds to the Hebrew alphabet and comes from a region he knew.

The date of the inscriptions** is mostly placed in the 17th or 16th century BC.[30] An alternative view dates most of the inscriptions to the reign of Amenemhat III or his successor circa 1800 BC.[31] It has been suggested that the dating period includes the reign of pharaoh Senwosret III.[32]

This corresponds very well to the theory that Moses was born around the death of Sesostris III, was co-regent with his "mother/sister" as Amememhet IV before he had to leave Egypt, which explains why Amememhet IV had a cenotaph, and that's my basis for table V—VI and VI—VI/VII or rather the limit VI between them. Between VI and VII in previous tables, I have inserted a VI/VII corresponding to the Exodus itself, so that's 40 years after the disappearance of Moses as Amemehet IV. And no, for the Middle Kingdom, we don't have a documentation all that brilliant that the squeezing of time lines can be excluded./HGL

PPS, some have quibbled about Genesis 14. The same channel has a video about Elamite, Chedorlaomer and Genesis 14:

Has archaeology proved Genesis 14 is a lie?
Flying Eagle Publications | 1 Oct. 2023
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4vdbRIMVpkk

Now, one key, I think, is that Genesis 14 happened in 1935 BC or close enough, based on Abraham born in 2015 BC, but Genesis 14 is tied by the verse about Amorrhites in Asason-Tamar to the archeology of En-Geddi where the only or latest possible relevant habitation ended in carbon dated 3500 BC, meaning, the carbon 14 level was 82.763 pmC*** — before any known writing. The Awan dynasty is the earliest Elamite dynasty for which we have names, and it starts (if carbon dated!) in the soujourn. Meanwhile, Genesis 14 falls during the Susa II period. Before there are written records in Proto-Elamite./HGL

PPPS, the Susa II period is from carbon dated 3800–3100 BC.° /HGL

* Citation from Newer Tables, Joseph in Egypt to Fall of Troy and it's on the table of V—VI, between the death of Joseph's pharao and the birth of Moses around the time when Sesostris III, the child killing pharao died. Note, 91.353 pmC isn't what you find now in the samples, it's what the atmosphere held back then. If we translate the percentage fraction to a decimal fraction and insert it in the right place, here is the equation:

5730 years * log(0.91353) / log(0.5) = 748 years

And if we add that to the actual BC year, we get the carbon year:

748 (extra) years + 1656 (actual) BC = 2404 (carbon dated) BC

** https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Sinaitic_script

*** 5730 years * log(0.82763) / log(0.5) + 1935 BC = 3499 BC, citation of carbon level from Newer Tables, Flood to Joseph in Egypt, anchor point IV.

° https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Susa#Susa_II_and_Uruk_influence_(3800—3100_BC)

Mammoth Bone Houses

Starčevo and Linear Pottery: Recalibration · Linear Pottery : the Long House · Mammoth Bone Houses

Here is a video explaining these excellent shelters.

How did humans sleep in the ice age without freezing dead?
Historical Architect | 26 July 2025
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NUAqTSZM3yw

Now, here is a quote giving the dates:

3:37 The most famous 3:37 examples of Paleolithic winter 3:39 architecture come from the mammoth bone 3:41 houses of Ukraine and 3:43 Russia. At sites like Majyarik 3:46 and Kostenky, dating between 25,000 and 3:49 15,000 years ago, 3:52 researchers discovered the remains of 3:53 structures that represent some of the 3:55 most sophisticated 3:56 prehistoric architecture ever 3:58 found.

This means, 23 000 to 13 000 BC. Between Flood and Babel, but in carbon dates, not Biblical dates. Let's check with these, shall we?

2821 BC

Shelah born

2804 BC

8.263 pmC, dated as 23,416 BC

2782 BC

9.201 pmC, dated as 22,505 BC

(2804 + 2782) / 2 = 2793 BC

(8.263 + 9.201) / 2 = 8.732 pmC

5730 * log(0.08732) / log(0.5) + 2793 = 22 949 BC

2691 BC

Eber born

...

2673 BC

27.32 pmC, dated as 13,399 BC

2660 BC

30.555 pmC, dated as 12,461 BC

(2673 + 2673 + 2660) / 3 = 2669 BC

(27.32 + 27.32 + 30.555) / 3 = 28.398 pmC

5730 * log(0.28398333333333333) / log(0.5) + 2668.6666666666666667 = 13075 BC

So, the architecture in question started and ended while Noah and Shem were still alive, starting after the birth of Shelah, ending after the birth of Eber, lasting for 124 years, from 2793 to 2669 BC.

What did the Bible say?

And he called his name Noe, saying: This same shall comfort us from the works and labours of our hands on the earth, which the Lord hath cursed
[Genesis 5:29]

The Palaeolithic dated to 25 000 to 15 000 BP pretty well corresponds to this. But doesn't the Bible also say Noah was a farmer?

And Noe, a husbandman, began to till the ground, and planted a vineyard
[Genesis 9:20]

Noah was probably as impopular in this post-Flood era for doing so, as he had been in the pre-Flood era for building the Ark. Grains coming from what could be agriculture have been found from a very restricted area in this time. Ohalo II. Suggesting it was done only by quite few people of the time. Noah, once again going "against the grain" of society, and this time discredited by that drunkenness ...

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
Our Lady's Assumption
14—15.VIII.2025

Assumptio sanctissimae Dei Genitricis Virginis Mariae.

Mark H Armitage Still Has a Point About Soft Tissue

He may have somewhat less of a point about carbon 14.

DSTRI_25SummerUpdate-sm
MarkHArmitage | 8 Aug. 2025
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iF_uLaKmokI

Now, don't get me wrong. Insofar as fungi and microorganisms feed on the soft tissue in a dino bone, they certainly live off the carbon from inside the bones.

But at some point, they entered and the first specimens had their carbon from elsewhere, which is a probable cause of carbon 14 contamination.

If the colonies of living things hadn't been recent, the to them consumable material in dino bones would by now already have been consumed. It's not as if the colony could have been thriving in there since the Flood.

It has bothered me when carbon 14 in dinosaur bones carbon dates to as young as 22 000 years ago. Was it a post-Flood dino dying in a post-Flood landslide? Was the place contaminated by extra neutrons (a k a radioactivity!) from Uranium? Other theory: that extra amount of carbon 14 could have come with some organisms that are or recently were alive.

In my calibration, a sample from the Flood should date to 39 000 BP or 37 000 BC.* Which is the carbon date for Campi Flegrei.

20 000 BC is some decade of years before Eber or Heber was born, not from the Flood./HGL

2958 BC,

1.6277 pmC, dated as 37 000 BC

2738 BC

11.069 pmC, dated as 20,933 BC

2725 BC

14.329 pmC, dated as 18,786 BC

2691 BC

Eber born

Taken from my: Newer Tables, Flood to Joseph in Egypt
https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2024/12/newer-tables-flood-to-joseph-in-egypt.html

* Or older. Reservoir effect.

Some People Think I'm Nuts for Not Believing in PIE

No, I don't mean "a pie in the sky" ... that's just a jocular, ironic, atheist perspective jab at Heaven, which I do believe in.

I mean PIE as in Proto-Indo-European.

Here is a quote from a book on German language and litterature history* (most of which I believe in, like p. 53 where I am to the end, basically), about PIE. It may be noted, the book was edited and printed in 1969 on a Volkseigener Verlag (people's owned publishing house), meaning it comes from the now defunct East Germany. The abbreviation "v. u. Z." reads "vor unserer Zeitrechnung" or "before our timereckoning" / "before our era" ... normally in German it was "v. Chr." back in 1969, meaning "vor Christus" or "before Christ" ... in my translation, I'll say BCE, as true to the spirit, this modern way of avoiding Christianity is really inspired by this Communist kind of thing. But now to the quote, from page 33:

Es wird heute weitgehend übereinstimmend angenommen, daß sich die ide. Spracheinheit um 3000 v. u. Z. bereits in Auflösung befand; im 2. Jahrtausend v. u. Z. besitzen wir im Indischen, Hethitischen und Griechischen bereits voll ausgeformte Sprachen von selbstständiger Individualität. Das setzt aber eine sehr lange Entwicklung der betreffenden Einzelsprachen voraus.

This translates as:

It is today with a broad consensus assumed, that the IE language unity already around 3000 BCE was in a state of dissolution; in the 2nd Millennium BCE we already have, in the shape of Indian, Hittite and Greek, fully formed languages of their independent individuality. But this presupposes a very long Development of the single languages in question.

These guys who already in 1969 were using the "before common Era" instead of "before Christ", well, they were not total dunces and they were also not cut off from linguists outside the East block. Mind you, some inside the East block were very talented men. Very prejudiced, some would very well say "but of course they spoke Nostratic in 13 000 before present, when else? you believe in the Bible, are you dumb or sth?" but they would still be able to coherently argue their theories in a high level of professionality.

Nevertheless, they made a blooper right here, when speaking of "already fully formed languages" ... a language actually in use is never just half formed. That reconstructed PIE is not a fully formed language doesn't mean those who (possibly) spoke the ancestral PIE didn't have a fully formed language, it means that someone who tried to reconstruct a "fully formed" PIE would have to go beyond the available evidence and make choices more artistic than scientific. So, either they were forgetting this, which is ridivulous, or they were, even more ridiculously, from the rudimentary and incomplete shape of PIE as reconstructed concluding that the ancestral language was also an incoplete one, and that one could cite this as "evidence" for a gradual emergence of human language. Obviously no such thing.

But given this, I have two problems with the theory as stated in the paragraph even apart from the blooper.

• If PIE ever existed, it would probably have to be immediately after Babel ... so, which one of the ancestors on the table of nations? As I speak an Indo-European language and actually only leared Indo-European ones as foreign languages, I'd descend from that man. I wouldn't like to be ethnically Magogian if that were the one. And as Indo-Europeans actualy are present on all four corners of the continents, Magog is a better match than Madai.
  
  
  • On a lower key problem in this context, more than one of the ancestors on the table of nations would figure: Javan for Greeks, Madai for Medes, who brought their language to the Elamites with whom they mixed, Gomer for Celts, possibly Romans and Germanics as well, as well as for Hittites. This is a priori an argument for Sprachbund, or perhaps for "instant language family" ... God giving different ones of these instantaneously the appearance of descending from a common language that never actually existed. Like Primitive Elvish to Quenya and Sindarin ... except in the Tolkien timeline, there actually is a place and time for Primitive Elvish to develop into Quenya, Telerin, Sindarin, Doriathrin .... however that language development only existed in Tolkien's head. If Tolkien could pull it off, so could God. But I still prefer Sprachbund over this, if a real, spoken, protolanguage is excluded.
  
  
  
• In 3000 BC, Noah and sons were still building the Ark. The Flood came 2957 BC. Babel broke up at the birth of Peleg, 401 years later, in 2556 BC. Using an Ussher chronology rather than the LXX based one of the Roman Martyrology for Christmas Day only worsens the problem. Babel breaks up in 2204 BC in that perspective.
  
  

  This text has been found in three versions, the earliest of which is considered the oldest known of all Hittite language texts, dated from between the end of the 17th century BCE and the middle of the 16th century BCE.
  
  Hittite language # The proclamation of Anitta
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hittite_language#The_proclamation_of_Anitta

  
  
  Yeah, these days the Commie thing about "BCE" is very comm-on, even used on wikipedia. But 2204 BC - 1550 BC = 654 years. And this even gives no time for PIE to exist before it breaks up. I obviously don't agree with Blessed Anne Catherine Emmerich that PIE was the pre-Babel language either. I would say her visions were natural, even if pious, and the idea of "a beautiful language, reminding of Sanskrit" would have been a piece of conversation she had heard from doctors or priests before she experienced a vision with this feature. She's still holy because of her stigmata and because of illness being occasion for penance. St. Augustine says the pre-Babel language was Hebrew, I'd agree if you add "of some sort" (closer to Proto-Sinaitic than to Biblical Hebrew, 1000 years + more archaic than the Exodus, at which time even Proto-Sinaitic is still a probability).
  
  
  • This problem is obviously even more acute if we note that commonalities like the ones within the IE language "family" would also make Nostratic one, because they exist for instance between IE and Uralic.

So, between English and Russian, etymologically identic words are 25 % of the vocabulary of either side. I'm not going into which language has a higher vocabulary of a complete dictionary, I mean common vocabulary like "the 1500 most common words" (or word families). I don't count English using the word "Samovar" or Russians speaking of "Паддингтон". It takes more time to diverge 75 % than to converge 25 %.

This means, posing a Sprachbund (or a series of Sprachbünder) is more economic in time than the 3000 BC - 1550 BC = 1450 years posed by the quote as passing between dissolving PIE and Proclamation of Anitta. Or, for Mycenaean Greek rather than Hittite, 1600 years from dissolving PIE to the clay tablet of Iklaina. This is consistent with Javan and Gomer each already having their own distinct language in 2556 BC.

2556 - 1471** = 1085 years
2556 - 1349** = 1207 years

In fact, apart from an unusually rapid convergence of not just syntax, but even morphological elements, on my view, the time available for convergence nearly equals the time the PIE believers claim for divergence.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
Our Lady in the Snows
5.VIII.2025

Romae, in Exquiliis, Dedicatio Basilicae sanctae Mariae ad Nives.

* Geschichte der deutschen Sprache, 1969, Volk und Wissen, Volkseigener Verlag, Berlin. Authored by "ein Autorenkollektiv unter Leitung von Wilhelm Schmidt" (with 8 other authors listed).

** 1550 and 1400 translate to 1471 and 1349 in my tables. Newer Tables, Joseph in Egypt to Fall of Troy

How Could People and Dinosaurs Live Together?

Short answer: they didn't, not any more than people and lions live together today (Elsa is an exception*).

Longer answer. I'll start with the objection.

"This doesn't work. For millions of years, dinosaurs roamed all of the earth. There were millions and billions of dinosaurs all over the continents, even on modern Antarctica, back then there would have been no place in the world where you could live without bumping into a dinosaur!"

OK, do you have evidence for that claim?

First, I'd like to note, not all of the dinos were dangerous, and technically, some dangerous creatures featured in dinosaur books weren't dinosaurs (Dimetrodon, Pterodactylus, Mososaurus ...). Have a look at these guys whom I salvaged from a google site now down, onto a blog of mine:

• Bradysaurus 2.5 to 3 m, a pretty big thing, but given the angle of the legs, probably moved somewhat slowly. Think of it like meeting a giant turtle in a fantasy novel.
• Hipposaurus boonstrai Skull length: 21 cm, Length: 1.2 m ... bigger than a dog (except a Great Dane), would reach you to the knees. Not the best guy to make angry, if you can avoid it, but probably not the worst threat to your life either.
• Pareiasaurus serridens 2.5 m. A plant eater.

Now, the other thing is, Young Earth Creationism means, most dinosaurs we find, perhaps all of them (outside cryptozoology), were buried in the Flood. A pretty recent Flood. We have a fair sample of things that lived on land back then, the three fellers I linked to being from South Africa and probably all from some part of Karroo. Border Cave is post-Flood, but pre-Flood caves like Sibudu Cave, Klasies River Caves, some layers of Wonderwerk Cave are all a fair distance from Karroo. And seem to have no dinos associated with them.

"But come on, there are millions of fossils we've found!"

According to Slate**, no:

There are currently about 3,000 so-called “full” dinosaur specimens—complete or near-complete skeletons or just a complete or near-complete skull—in museums around the United States

...

The United States, China, and Argentina have especially numerous fossil deposits, followed by Canada, England, and Mongolia. (China and Argentina have proved especially fertile as of late. Since 1990, there has been a 132 percent and 165 percent increase in genera discovery in these two countries, respectively.) These six countries account for 75 percent of the world’s dinosaur finds. Australia, Europe, and Africa are less fertile.

So, if the US has only 3000 full skeleta of dinos, and if this is matched by very few other countries, which cover a restricted area of our earth where God put us, and put our pre-Flood ancestors and their neighbours, I think there was actually a good chance of living in the pre-Flood world without bumping into a dangerous dinosaur, or even an uncomfortable one, like possibly the Pareiosaurus was.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
St. Alfonsus Maria Liguori
2.VIII.2025

* The generic of that song has maybe something to say about a bad idea of Mr. Trump's, hope he changes his mind ...
** Here is the link:

Will we ever run out of dinosaur bones?
By Kim Gittleson | Aug 28, 20095:31 PM
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2009/08/will-we-ever-run-out-of-dinosaur-bones.html

How Fast did Denmark Change* Population?

New study unearths our Scandinavian ancestors
Published 10 January 2024 | Faculty of Humanities (Gothenburg)
https://www.gu.se/en/news/new-study-unearths-our-scandinavian-ancestors

The first occurred about 5,900 years ago, at the beginning of the archaeological era known as the Neolithic, or New Stone Age. When a farming people immigrated to Denmark, the hunter-gatherer and fisher population known as the Ertebølle culture disappeared completely.

...

“Around 2800 BCE, people of the Corded Ware culture, also called the Single Grave culture, immigrated to Denmark,” says archaeologist Karl-Göran Sjögren.

5900 - 2025 = 3875 BC. This first date is after Abraham was born (2015 BC) but before Serug died (1965 BC), here:

2005 BC

79.432 pmC, dated as 3909 BC

1997 BC*

79.803 pmC, dated as 3862 BC**

1982 BC

80.546 pmC, dated as 3770 BC

The second date is about the death of Djoser whom I count as Joseph's pharao.***

1700 BC

87.541 pmC, dated as 2800 BC

1997 minus 1700 = 297 years. A third of the 900 years the study says./HGL

Notes:

* Hunter gatherers to Ancient Anatolian Farmers, Ancient Anatolian Farmers to Corded Ware.

** (2005 + 2005 + 1982) / 3 = 1997 BC

(79.432 + 79.432 + 80.546) / 3 = 79.803

5730 * log(0.79803) / log(0.5) + 1997.3333333333333333 = 3862 BC

Calculation of carbon year from pmC as per Newer Tables, Preliminaries while the specific "time stamps" I didn't calculate are from Newer Tables, Flood to Joseph in Egypt

*** Changing the pharaos for Joseph and for when Moses was born or for the Exodus would mean a need to drastically change the tables. Take this into account.

Linear Pottery : the Long House

Starčevo and Linear Pottery: Recalibration · Linear Pottery : the Long House · Mammoth Bone Houses

The unit of residence was the long house, a rectangular structure, 5.5 to 7.0 m (18.0 to 23.0 ft) wide, of variable length; for example, a house at Bylany was 45 m (148 ft).

45 (m) / 7 (m) = 6.43
300 (cubits) / 50 (cubits) = 6.

It would seem that the proportions of the Linear Pottery Long House could be influenced by the remembered proportions of the Ark. Remember that 7 meters seems to have been maximal width and 45 meters was exceptional in length. So, perhaps the proportions varied between 5 and 6.43, which would include the proportion 6, that of the Ark.

Reu was alive all of this time, he was born 2427 BC. If his early life doesn't coincide with the late life of Shem, he was 36 when Arphaxad died and 66 when Shelah died. This is about when the Starčevo culture begins, and Linear Pottery begins sometime between 2258 and 2235 BC. Say, 2247 BC, when Reu was 180 years old.

Obviously, this culture is in the wrong region for Reu, but someone in the lineage of Japheth would easily have had a similar lifespan. And the outbreak of generalised violence in carbon dated 5000 BC, well, that could be because this other person died and left smaller chieftains squabbling over the succession.

Since this is the culture that involved Herxheim, I'm pretty sure this could have been an evil man, and I'm happy this ended.

It also gave a chance to hunter gatherers.

If you want to know more about the Linear Pottery Long Houses, how about going to a video by Dan Davis? He'll give the conventional dates, presume modern lifespans and hence miss all of this being within one lifespan, but otherwise he's very well informed.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
Sts. Cyrill and Methodius
7.VII.2025

Sanctorum Episcoporum et Confessorum Cyrilli et Methodii fratrum, quorum natalis respective agitur sextodecimo Kalendas Martii et octavo Idus Aprilis.

Video by Dan Davis:

The Immense Long Houses of the Linear Pottery Culture
Dan Davis History | 7 July 2025
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fbm80SzraRw

Starčevo and Linear Pottery: Recalibration

Starčevo and Linear Pottery: Recalibration · Linear Pottery : the Long House · Mammoth Bone Houses

2361 BC, Shelah died, 2088 BC, Reu died./HGL

2350 BC

62.358 pmC, dated as 6254 BC

Starčevo

6200 BC

2327 BC

63.519 pmC, dated as 6079 BC

2258 BC

66.981 pmC, dated as 5571 BC

Early Linear Pottery

5500 BC

2235 BC

68.129 pmC, dated as 5407 BC

Early Linear Pottery

5300 BC

2212 BC

69.274 pmC, dated as 5247 BC

2189 BC

70.415 pmC, dated as 5089 BC

End of Linear Pottery

5000 BC

2166 BC

71.553 pmC, dated as 4933 BC

2120 BC

73.82 pmC, dated as 4629 BC

Starčevo

4500 BC

2097 BC

74.949 pmC, dated as 4481 BC

Since I Often Promote CMI, I Sometimes Also Warn

In Who controls the kingdoms of this world? the late Russell Grigg argued, that the answer was, right now, Satan.

I have argued elsewhere, this is very incorrect, since Crucifixion and Resurrection, Satan has lost this power too, and Our Lord has gained the domination by victory.

Luke 4 and Matthew 4 both occurred before the Crucifixion.

Here is a key passage in Russell's argument:

In fact, Jesus referred to Satan as “the god of this world” (John 12:31; 14:30; 16:11); and the Apostle Paul similarly wrote concerning Satan that “the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God” (2 Corinthians 4:4).

So, "prince" or "ruler of this world" is supposed to be not just tantamount to but also textually identic to "god of this world"?

Let's check the Gospel verses:

Now is the judgment of the world: now shall the prince of this world be cast out
[John 12:31]

I will not now speak many things with you. For the prince of this world cometh, and in me he hath not any thing
[John 14:30]

And of judgment: because the prince of this world is already judged
[John 16:11]

In all three verses, I find "prince" and not "god" ...

Now, to St. Paul, and I'll give the previous verse too:

And if our gospel be also hid, it is hid to them that are lost In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of unbelievers, that the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should not shine unto them
[2 Corinthians 4:3-4]

There is actually a dispute on whether the words in question refer to God or to Satan. Here is the Haydock comment on these two verses:

Ver. 3. The apostle here brings another proof of the sincerity of his preaching, viz. the success with which it is attended: And he says, if there be any who have not yet received it, that is their own fault. For had they been as eager to receive it, as we have been to announce it to them, the whole world had[would have?] long since been converted. (Theodoret)

Ver. 4. In whom the God of this world hath blinded the minds of unbelievers.[1] Thus the words are placed, both in the Latin and Greek text, so that the true God seems to be called the God of this world, as he is elsewhere called the God of heaven, the God of Abraham. God, says St. Chrysostom, blinded, that is, permitted them to be blinded. Others translate, in whom God hat blinded the minds of the infidels of this world; so that this world may be joined with unbelievers, and not with God: and by the God of this world, some understand the devil, called sometimes the prince of this world, that is, of the wicked. (Witham)

Now, supposing that "the God of this world" actually refers to an enemy of souls, one active in blinding and not just permitting or confirming some to blind themselves, St. Thomas (yes, he wrote a commentary on II Corinthians) doesn't take "god" as "prince" or "ruler" but actually simply as "object of worship". One can refer to Poseidon as a "god of the Greeks" or to Thor as a "god of the Norse" ... and insofar as they are worshipped, it is Satan who gets the worship. It's a very different story if God would still permit Poseidon, i e Satan, to run a stampedo of horses over a man, because that man's father (who takes Poseidon for his own father) is asking him. At least up to when Antichrist will be doing his signs and wonders, that power has been taken away from Satan. Precisely by Jesus.

In other words, Satan is not in control of a kingdom just because it is a kingdom in this world. Not as in Matthew 4 / Luke 4, not any longer. He may be in control of a kingdom because its inhabitants have rejected Christ and as a result are brought under the enemy of Christ.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
Commemoration of St. Paul the Apostle
30.VI.2025

PS. During the Old Testament, God claimed one people for Himself. In AD 33 (or assessments of exactly how long ago vary, some say 29 or 31) most of that people rejected God. The ones who didn't are the beginning of the Christian Palestinians./HGL

I'm Not Into EVERY Proposal of Shortening the Timeline

I'm sorry, in a moment of stress and fatugue, I misread Damien Mackey's work. My bad. He was not talking of Shamshi-Adad I, but of Shamshi-Adad IV.

If certain dynasties were only accessible by written record, no archaeology involved, no sequential annals involved, just narratives about each ruler as such, it might make sense to look for doubles, meaning rulers that under different names appear in more than one list.

In some cases for Egypt, I'd recommend this approach, for instance the II dynasty (last time I checked) seems to have had no archaeological record.

I check on wikipedia, not quite true.* Hotepsekhemwy, Nebra and Nynetjer seem to have identified tombs, albeit tentatively. It's timespan being 2890 to 2686 BC (which if true would put it in the span between Flood and Babel) would, if based on carbon dating, reduce to, for the beginning:

1739 BC

86.754 pmC, dated as 2914 BC

1720 BC

87.148 pmC, dated as 2857 BC

And this would put them close to Joseph's pharao, since the dates given are for close to death of Isaac and to Jacobs immigration into Egypt. I must admit, for the date of Joseph's pharao, I take Djoser and I take the uncalibrated carbon date, c. 2800 BC. The calibrated one is 2600 BC.

For the end, I would land at between 1700 and 1678 BC.

1700 BC

87.541 pmC, dated as 2800 BC

1678 BC

89.449 pmC, dated as 2600 BC

In order to fix this, I'd need to verify the calibrations on Stuiver and Bekker.

Let's first add 1950 to the BC years, and divide by 1.03 and then add the calibrated BP and calibrated BC after that.

1739 BC

86.754 pmC, dated as 4722 BP : 5470 cal BP cal 3520 BC / cal 5370 BP cal 3420 BC

1720 BC

87.148 pmC, dated as 4667 BP : cal 5410 BP 3460 BC / 5310 cal BP cal 3360 BC

1700 BC

87.541 pmC, dated as 4612 BP : cal 5300 BP, cal 3360 BC

1678 BC

89.449 pmC, dated as 4417 BP : cal 5030 BP, cal 3080 BC

I must admit I did not try to systematically work in the calibrations made by uniformitarians into the question. This makes applying my tables a bit more difficult than it should be on some areas. These results are not quite acceptable.

Now, one who really loves this approach (namely of parallelising or even identifying rulers who in the narrative are serialised) would be Damien Mackey. He is willing to identify Sargon II and his son Sennacherib, despite the fact that Assyrian chronicles for the first millennium BC are a year by year affair. He would also identify this composite with Shamshi-Adad I.** [sorry, Shamshi-Adad IV]

His capital was originally at Ekallatum and later moved to Šubat-Enlil.

Now, what do I find out about Šubat-Enlil?***

The site has been occupied since the 5th millennium BC. During the late third millennium, the site was known as Shekhna. During that time it was under control of the Akkadian Empire and was used as an administrative center.[1][2] Around 1800 BC, the site was renamed "Šubat-Enlil" by the king Shamshi-Adad I, and it became his residential capital.

Here we also deal with reduceable carbon dates.

2189 BC

70.415 pmC, dated as 5089 BC

2166 BC

71.553 pmC, dated as 4933 BC

1574 BC

97.392 pmC, dated as 1793 BC (1800 BC)

1543 BC

98.108 pmC, dated as 1700 BC

So, if one can see "Shekhna" renamed as "Šubat-Enlil" at carbon dated 1800 BC, that's 1574 BC. Meanwhile Sargon II would with adequate accuracy be dated to having ruled between 722 and 705 BC, and Sennacherib 705 to 681 BC. Contemporaries with Romulus and Numa Pompilius (the former accessed before Sargon II, the latter died after Sennacherib). So Sargon II and Sennacherib can't be the guy renaming Shekhna to Šubat-Enlil, can't be Shamshi-Adad I. Sorry Damien.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
Sacred Heart of Jesus
26—27.VI.2025

PS, Shekhna was in place as a city, 635 rather than 3300 years./HGL

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Dynasty_of_Egypt

** https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shamshi-Adad_I

*** https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tell_Leilan

Did Tianyuan Man Live Pre- or Post-Flood?

Did the Jomon People Arrive to Japan in Pre-Flood Times? · Did Tianyuan Man Live Pre- or Post-Flood?

Tianyuan man seems ancestral to Ancient Beringians. East Asians seem to have more partial ancestry in him, because of later migrations to the area.

This according to a video by Mysterious Origins from 18th of April this year.*

Now, the problem is, normally this would imply he was post-Flood, but on my view the carbon date of the Flood is 39 000 BP. This coincides with the latest possible date he is given, and yes, it is a carbon date:

In 2007, researchers found 34 bone fragments belonging to a single individual at the Tianyuan Cave** near Beijing, China.[1][2] Radiocarbon dating shows the bones to be between 42,000 and 39,000 years old, which may be slightly younger than the only other finds of bones of a similar age at the Niah Caves in Sarawak on the South-east Asian island of Borneo.

So, the question is, could this be pre-Flood, as the dates suggest?

One could imagine a genetic contributor line to the Ark being mixed in the four marriages and then reconstituted more in some branches than in others. For instance, a blue eyed person will have two alleles for blue eyes. suppose he married a brown eyed person with two alleles for brown eyes. All of his children will in fact have brown eyes, but all will have an allele each for brown and blue eyes. And when two people of such configuration marry and have children, one in four of their children will have blue eyes, because he will have two alleles for blue eyes. So a part, but only a smaller part of the descendants will reconstitute the unmixed original setup of two alleles for blue eyes.

The problem with this scenario is, given the number of alleles it would take to have someone identify as clearly related to Tianyuan man, the reconstitution is very much less likely. Unless, perhaps, it was Noah's genotype, like Tianyuan man was Lamech or Methuselah or someone like that.

That too would involve a problem, unless one could trace all of the haplogroups for Y chromosomes back to Haplogroup K2b (Y-DNA) and one in three haplogroups for mitochondrial DNA to Haplogroup B (mtDNA).

To me, as no more than an amateur and in human genetics not even amateur expert, this seems improbable. While the presumed origins of these haplogroups are given as 50 000 BP (a pre-Flood date in carbon dating), the ancestral and parallel haplogroups are also post-Flood ones, i e still existing after the Flood.

To me, it's pretty clear from genetics that Tianyuan man is post-Flood. If a real geneticist has a way around this, so much the better, but I'll go with Tianyuan man being post-Flood.

This makes the carbon date a problem to be solved.

1) False age values were given. Not my priority, even with Red China.
2) My whole theory breaks down. Also not my priority.
3) In the early post-Flood centuries, the first roughly half of the 350 years before Noah died and Babel began, there was a dip in carbon 14 that descended to pre-Flood values.
4) Reservoir effect.
5) Uneven mixing of the carbon 14 in the atmosphere.

Hypothesis 3. Can a total block of added carbon 14 with the decay produce such a dip?

2958 BC,

1.6277 pmC, dated as 37 000 BC***

2848 BC (extra item)

1.1174 pmC, dated as 40 000 BC

2738 BC

11.069 pmC, dated as 20,933 BC***

110 years

* 98.678 %

1.6277 * 98.678 / 100 = 1.6062 pmC — no. One would need at the same time an emission of old carbon.

But the problem is, old carbon would be from the Flood and also have after decaying a value as high as 1.6062 pmC.

Hypothesis 4. Can the reservoir effect explain such a misdate?

We know that the reservoir effect can make human remains date up to 300 years earlier in normal stable pmC conditions. But the fact is, in conditions or steadily rising carbon 14, this would be misdating by far more than 300 years, though the modern experts who presume a stable pmC scenario do not reckon on this.

So, does the 300 extra years mean 100 % of the carbon intake is from an on average 300 year old sample? Or 50 % fresh and 50 % from an on average 600 year old sample? I think there is some room for someone dying a century or two after the Flood (Tianyuan man) to date to 200 before the Flood, one interpretation of which would be, namely if the last 220 years before the Flood were same rate of production as now, ending in 1.6277 pmC during the Flood, would be 40 600 BP.°

Now, is there anything about the Tianyuan Cave that would make the reservoir effect actually probable? Yes. See the German version of the wiki on the cave.°°

Die Höhle bildete sich in präkambrischem Kalkstein ... Die Fossilienfundstätte wurde in Fachkreisen international bekannt, nachdem es gelungen war, die Hauptkomponenten der Nahrung des in der Höhle entdeckten, rund 40.000 Jahre alten Fossils eines Homo sapiens, genannt Tianyuan 1, zu identifizieren: Süßwasserfisch.

So, whoever lived in the cave was drinking water from a stream in calcium context (one good factor for reservoir effect) and also feeding mainly on fish from the same water supply (other good factor for reservoir effect). I think this may nail it.

Hypothesis 5. Could uneven mixing of the atmosphere explain it?

Yes, but considering the potential of the reservoir effect and its probability due to the cave, exploring this option seems superfluous for now.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
St. John's Nativity
24.VI.2025

Nativitas sancti Joannis Baptistae, Praecursoris Domini, ac sanctorum Zachariae et Elisabeth filii, qui Spiritu Sancto repletus est adhuc in utero matris suae.

* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sw60nkaogyE

** https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tianyuan_man

*** First and third items are, unlike the extra item, from:

Creation vs. Evolution: Newer Tables, Flood to Joseph in Egypt
Christmas Eve 2024, by Hans Georg Lundahl
https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2024/12/newer-tables-flood-to-joseph-in-egypt.html

° Creation vs. Evolution: What Would 220 Before the Flood Date To? Carbon Wise?
8.II.2025, by Hans Georg Lundahl
https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2025/02/what-would-220-before-flood-date-to.html

°° https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tianyuan-Höhle

As a Roquefort Fan, I Need to Share This

Is your cheese on the verge of extinction?
by Robert Carter | This article is from
Creation 46(3):56, July 2024
https://creation.com/cheese-verge-of-extinction

As the article was from 2024, has the Penicillum Roqueforti in the meantime been saved?

Wadi Hammeh, Not Babel

Wadi Hammeh is just East of the Jordan River, so not in Sinear if that means Mesopotamia.

Wadi Hammeh is in Pella, Jordan, where the Church of Jerusalem fled. They also came back from there, after the Roman smash fest was over and so made them ancestral to Jerusalem's Christian Palestinians.

So, if Wadi Hammeh is not Babel and Göbekli Tepe or possibly Karahan Tepe is, how much older is Wadi Hammeh?

I'm using the

Newer Tables, Flood to Joseph in Egypt
https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2024/12/newer-tables-flood-to-joseph-in-egypt.html

which presume that Babel is Göbekli Tepe, and that the Exodus was in 1510 BC. As well as 480 years from Exodus to Temple being a minimum time span off by decades, rather than telescoping timespans in the Judges.

Now, if Babel began 350 after the Flood, when Noah died, or soon after, and is Göbekli Tepe, Wadi Hammeh is obviously earlier, but how much earlier?

Wadi Hammeh 27 is a Late Epipalaeolithic archaeological site in Pella, Jordan. It consists of the remains of a large settlement dating to the Early Natufian period, about 14,500 to 14,000 years ago.

So, 12,500 BC. In Carbon dates.

2660 BC

30.555 pmC, dated as 12,461 BC

...

2608 BC

43.443 pmC, 9500 BC

Wadi Hammeh was 52 years older (or just a little more) than Babel. Could it be where Noah went the last years? Could this be the place where he drank too much wine? And how compatible are the fifty years with "severalgenerations" mentioned in the article?

The people of the Natufian culture were nomadic foragers, but at Wadi Hammeh 27 they built large, durable dwellings that were maintained and revisited over many generations.

Let's see the arguments in the source article, shall we?

Ice Age villagers of the Levant: renewed excavations at the Natufian site of Wadi Hammeh 27, Jordan
Phillip C. Edwards, 2015
https://www.antiquity.ac.uk/projgall/edwards347

The Natufian has been claimed as an example of pre-agricultural sedentism, but the length and frequency of its habitations remain unclear. One issue is that, for the majority of sites, long-term occupation of a single locale by hunter-gatherers would deplete food resources (cf. Munro 2004).

Would fifty years be too much?

These concerns are the focus of a new La Trobe University project (Edwards 2014) entitled ‘Ice Age villagers of the Levant: sedentism and social connections in the Natufian period’, directed by the author and co-directed by Louise Shewan (Monash University/University of Warwick) and John Webb (La Trobe University). In order to achieve the project’s aims, the new excavations are intent on stripping away more of the overlying deposits of phases 2 and 3 at Wadi Hammeh 27 to expose the basal travertine layer (phase 4), where human burials are situated in rock-cut pits (Webb & Edwards 2013).

Would the overlying deposits be a way of covering those there buried?

The first series of excavations, conducted in the 1980s, focused on the site’s uppermost deposits in phase 1 (Edwards 2013). A small sounding (XX F sondage) made at that time also demonstrated occupational continuity between the superimposed phases and the community memory of a sub-site burial by the building of successive cairns and other markers.

That's obviously, for 50 years, less impressive than for 3000 years.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
Ember Saturday of Pentecost
14.VI.2025

Did the Jomon People Arrive to Japan in Pre-Flood Times?

Did the Jomon People Arrive to Japan in Pre-Flood Times? · Did Tianyuan Man Live Pre- or Post-Flood?

I pose the question in a provocative way.

Some are now taking the peopling of Japan as starting in 40 000 BP, which, if true, would be somewhat annoying for me, since I pose the Flood in 37 000 BC. Carbon date wise, of course, in fact only as far back as 2957 BC.

If this were true, it would be some kind of stretching of the matches, it would force me to ask if sometimes, even apart from the reservoir effect, something post 2957 BC could date to carbon years previous to 39 000 BP.

However, the idea of Jomon people arriving in Japan c. 40 000 years ago comes from the Tategahana Paleolithic site in Nojiri-ko.

Here is the article I first found about it:

Geology and Quaternary environments of the Tategahana Paleolithic site in Nojiri-ko (Lake Nojiri), Nagano, central Japan
Y. Kondo et al. | Dec. 2017
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1040618217300307

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2017.12.012

What do I find?

Fossils of animals. An assemblage which is suggestive of human interference. Carbon dates from 37.9–60.4 ka. And, manmade tools.

What do I not find?

People of similar anatomy or genes or both to the actual human skeleta from the Jomon period proper. Or any people at all, for that matter. Dogus, a cultural artefact typical of Jomon culture. And this after nine excavations, by 1984.

What height is it?

The water level of Nojiri-ko is at an altitude of 657 m above sea level, with the deepest point at 38.5 m, and it covers an area of 4.5 km2

So, not too high to be a pre-Flood item or water added to a pre-Flood item.

How do I analyse this?

Men of unknown ethnicity (Homo sapiens, Neanderthals, Denisovans, Homo erectus) meddled with this ground and its fauna in pre-Flood times. The Flood did not destroy it, but surrounded it by volcanos. Arguably no one came just after the Flood, only at the actual start of the accepted Jomon period.

Carbon dated 14,000 BC is when?

2686 BC

24.08 pmC, dated as 14,456 BC

2673 BC

27.32 pmC, dated as 13,399 BC

So, some time between 2686 and 2673 BC. After Heber was born. Before Noah died and Babel began.

(2686 + 2673) / 2 = 2679.5 BC
(24.08 + 27.32) / 2 = 25.7 pmC

5730 * log(0.257) / log(0.5) + 2679.5 = 13 911 BC

If 2679 "and a half" brings us near 100 years after the date we seek, the real date would be sth like 2680 BC. Clearly post-Flood.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
Monday of Pentecost Novena
2.VI.2025

PS, there were actually by now 20 excavations:

In the 20th excavation, conducted in 2014, which involved about 200 people, more than 750 pieces of fossils and archaeological remains were discovered and sediment samples for microfossil study were collected.

Still no human remains. Still no Dogus./HGL

How Long Was the Younger Dryas?

Britannica:

between 12,900 and 11,600 years ago

Swedish wiki:

för cirka 12 800 till 11 700 år sedan

German wiki:

ca. 10.700–9.700 v. Chr.

French wiki:

de 12 850 à 11 650 ans avant le présent / soit une période de 10 900 à 9 700 av. J.-C.

English wiki:

12,900 to 11,700 years Before Present

So, begins 10 900 to 10 700 BC. Ends 9700 to 9600 BC. These years are around the beginning, around a certain middle and just after the end:

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

So, c. 26 years or less.

It was perhaps less cold than supposed according to this youtube:

How We Know PEOPLE Travelled FAR NORTH In The YOUNGER DRYAS
MegalithHunter | 27.V.2025
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yzuBu93ROvI

* The pmC back when the samples start imply 8200 extra years, since 8200 years of instant age, with some rounding. 8200 + 2634 = 10 834 BC

5730 * log(0.37009) / log(0.5) = 8217 years, without rounding. 8217 + 2634 = 10 851 BC.

Follow Up Question

Did This Last 2000 Years or Only 410 Years? · Follow Up Question

Table of Nations in Genesis 10 was before the reduction of male Y chromosome lines.

So, there were more lines in the time of Table of Nations than there are now.

There are these possibilities:

• we no longer have all the male lines from Table of Nations, they were mostly lost through this reduction;
• most losses were within single ones of the 72 nations, so, each first branched out and then, in male lines, reduced;
• or Table of Nations was originally more numerous, but got updated through remaining lines, probably reducing some groups to "group mentions" (Dodanim could be one such, but so would Mitsraim, Capthorim and Philistim be).

I'm not sure which, while I can't exclude the first one, I tend to imagine the last./HGL

Did This Last 2000 Years or Only 410 Years?

Did This Last 2000 Years or Only 410 Years? · Follow Up Question

See this video:

A Genetic Purge Happened 5000–7000 Years Ago
ReYOUniverse | 18 May 2025
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Cl-xSNt1TU

Whatever the real reason for the disappearances of so many Y-chromosome lines, or whatever combination, it was arguably not the best time to live.

In Carbon dates, it's 5000 to 3000 BC.

2189 BC

70.415 pmC, dated as 5089 BC

1779 BC

85.963 pmC, dated as 3029 BC

In the Biblical dates of my Newer Tables, it's 2189 to 1779 BC, from near death of Eber to near birth of Joseph.*

Did all of this last for 2060 years or for 410?

There is another point.

Did this begin in Adam's lifespan (for those who believe that Adam and Eve existed but were one couple among many)? Or did this begin after Babel and end somewhat after Abraham's death, Ancient Near East being a place which in his life had already somewhat calmed down?

I think this concerns the goodness of God.

In the conditions described, would not the promise of the Redeemer, the seed of the woman, be lost or over such a long time of trauma modified?

How long after Babel is this supposed to have started? In my tables, 2557 BC, birth of Phalec, is dated to 8000 BC:

2557 BC

51.766 pmC, dated as 8000 BC

This means, it takes 368 years from the scattering of mankind to when this is happening. Some have said the Gentiles, the lines excepting Eber and Phalec, were turned directly over to the demons. This was Michael Heiser's view. I say this is false, there was a time when Gentile didn't yet mean fullblown apostasy from the faith of Noah and his sons.

But the reason why God would chose a people is, there was a time, even on my view 410 years long, when most peoples went very wrong. If God hadn't chosen one nation, all would have gone wrong. He called Abraham, who was certainly taught the truth by the greatgrandfather Sarug, in the nick of time, since the father Thare, and possibly brother but probably grandfather Nachor were going wrong.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
Pope St. Celestine V
19.V.2025

Natalis sancti Petri de Morono Confessoris, qui, ex Anachoreta Summus Pontifex creatus, dictus est Caelestinus Quintus. Sed Pontificatu se postmodum abdicavit, et in solitudine religiosam vitam agens, virtutibus et miraculis clarus, migravit ad Dominum.

* Joseph was actually 18 when this was over. So, Isaac, Jacob and Joseph "saw" the end of it. Serug saw it begin. Nachor, Terah, Abraham lived through this time.

TV Programmes for Children

They come in several tastes. But a scientific popularisation programme when directed to children is supposed to have:

• exploration trips
• someone doing mistakes on purpose as a foil, so someone can explain
• enthusiasm
• lots of observation on the objects of exploration
• green and sunny scenery (unless rain is the exploration) ...

There were TV programmes like that in Sweden. I can't remember a specific title, I think two or three different ones float together in my memory, or some of them were just part items in larger programmes.* But I recognise a good science programme for children when I see one.

This one is not from Sweden. And especially not from the Swedish state owned TV channels TV1 and TV2. This means, they are not tied to a Naturalistic world view.

Schus Off! Season One, Pilot Episode: “Jumpers”
https://kidsanswers.org/schus-off-season-one-pilot-episode-jumpers/

* Actually, the late Arne Weise was one of the best hosts. But he's even better remembered for science programme's for adults, namely as translating Sir David Attenborough. Some of their agendas were less optimal than the Schus!

"Only Experts Wanted"

Someone posted a gorgeous photo of Avery Foley on a FB group and attacked her.

I found the description so appealing (apart from an error on his part) that I at first suspected she had been using self irony to check her fan base.* Nevertheless, one of his words is a reminder of a basically Prussian attitude:

"Indeed Foley, whose scientific credentials are an Associates degree in Office Administration, has written extensively (and confusingly) about a myriad of scientific subjects, none of which she's actually qualified to comment on as an expert."

Thanks for "as an expert" ... it would be even better if he had said "as an accredited expert" since I think there is such a thing as amateur expertise, and as an amateur astronomer at age 8, the winter before I became a Christian, I had been told that one of the phantastic things about science is scientists have to answer questions and potential objections from anyone, not just from fellow experts. That was in late 1976 or early 1977. Since then, I have seen this more Prussian attitude:

"you are not an expert, you don't have the right to an opinion"

Or in the German original:

"du bist ein Laie, du hast kein Recht auf einer Meinung"

I would distinguish. There are certain types of debate that are really inside the discipline. If you want to argue measurements, whether the parallax of Vega** is 129.87 or 130.59 micro-arc-seconds, I think I'll very definitely leave that to the experts. Dito, I completely trust them that in Heliocentric absolute geometry for the Solar System, this would mean Vega is 25 light years away. But when it comes to another question, namely whether 25 light years can equally be ascertained from that observation or deutero-observation in an absolute geometry that's Geocentric for the universe, this is a matter of logic and trigonometry. If an angel can move Vega, the parallax as well as annual aberration can be a proper movement, which would leave the triangle as offering us one known angle and no known distance, the double Astronomic Unit falling strictly outside this type of triangle. This is a fact about trigonometry (minimum for calculating the triangle being three known quantities whereof at least one known distance, and one angle, no distance, being less than that), and as such approachable independently of very expert assessments about their observations.

The same thing is true about Heliocentrism with only Newtonian movers (mass -> inertia, mass -> graviation) versus Geocentrism with a divine mover for each day and an angelic one for each individual celestial body. This is not a question of highly qualified informations that experts can access and can assess the epistemic validity of, it's more like a question of what's ultimately reasonable. If you believe there is no God, you are doomed to believe Heliocentrim, because the spirograph patterns that planets make otherwise would be too intricate for purely Newtonian factors and we have no biological brains that size. If you believe God exists, you have no reason to accept that. And if you are not sure, as as the case with some of my readers, you can ask what you feel more strongly about:

• trusting your own eyes, and the eyes of experts (which includes, even with the best instruments, observing Geocentrism)
• trusting materialism, the lack of God, of angels.

I think from a neutral standpoint insofar as at some moment someone has that, only the former is reasonable. And it doesn't favour Vega being 25 light years away, since it doesn't favour the Astronomic Unit taken twice as being part of the triangle between Earth and Vega, if it's Vega that physically has two positions.

And from any reasonable standpoint, that is not a question for a corps of experts who approach all astronomic questions from a bias of Newtonian factors only and no to Geocentrism. Bias is not a qualification for treating a question affected by that bias.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
II Sunday after Easter
4.V.2025

* From reading her profile, not likely:

Avery is married to Trevor Schu and a homeschool mom to their five children.

Best wishes to them all!

** French wiki says: "Parallaxe 130,23 ± 0,36 mas"

Obviously, Other People Make Discoveries Too

Dr. Kurt Wise didn't plagiarise me to get this done:

Does the Order of Fossils Match Evolutionary Theory? - Dr. Kurt Wise
Is Genesis History? | 17 Aug. 2021
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VfzU_Mz6bMk