Yesterday, I Heard a Man from the Orthodox Church Repeat a Heterodox and Unmanly View

It goes like this.

We now know how Babylonians (both Sumerian and Akkadian speakers) thought the world was created, and Phoenicians weren't totally different. The story in Genesis 1 is very similar, but there are key differences. So, Genesis uses mythology (understood as never meant by anyone to be taken literally) and then tweaks it to make theological points. Only one creator God. Creation is effortless, not a ruthless brawl. Man is created in God's image. This in context of Ancient Near East cultures means, man is God's representative on Earth, and probably, though he didn't say it, this is also a theological point embroidered onto a mythology taken from elsewhere.

I have no quarrel with the differences spelling out theological points, and each is pretty sound as far as it goes. I especially love the one about the dignity of each individual human person, and how this is different from Babylon. B U T ... why would one place the originals of the stories in the realm of wild speculation by heathen "who knew not their maker" and why would only the theological points be left to God's own Israel (of which the Church is the continuation)?

Orthodox, like us Catholics, and unlike Protestants, have a "Formalprinzip" (to use a Lutheran term, I once upon a time was Lutheran) of Scripture with Church Fathers. This view is obviously not the one of any Church Father. No one says "Ezra loved the Babylonian creation account as a story, but hated its ideology" and the rest. No one denies that Genesis from 1:1 to 50:25 is history. And you'd be very hard put to present the story of Joseph in Egypt as taken over from the Babylonians. That's also in Genesis. So, the problem one is, this Orthodox man contradicted the Church Fathers.

However, he could argue (as people have about millions of years or about heliocentrism, both of which are chemically absent in the Church Fathers) that no one knew of the Babylonian account. After all, Cuneiform was only recently discovered, long after the Patristic era, and Leonard William King only translated Enuma Elish in 1902. Who could blame the Church Fathers for not knowing? Well, part of the argument is style, and part of the style is such as is also found in the mythology that the Church Fathers did know, like Greco-Roman, sometimes Egyptian, myth. But they never made the connection, so, are we more savvy than they?

But there is more. Cuneiform, Sumerian, Akkadian, that didn't just die when Cyrus overthrew the heir of Nebuchadnezzar. In fact, the early authors of the Mishna had access to both Sumerian and Akkadian texts (at least if they bothered to learn the languages and look) and when the New Testament was written, Akkadian was still being studied. In fact, one could argue that St. John was in some numbers referring to Babylonian numerals.

Babylonian Math : Four Corners and a Fish

From this, one could argue that he was also conscious how the Babylonian shape for 666 would look like the needle point of a syringe or the top capsule of a rocket:

Babylonian Numerals for a certain number have a certain shape

In fact, as in the New Testament 11 verses mention Babylon, and 6 of them are in the Apocalypse, it would be hard to argue that St. John neither had prophetic acquaintance with Babylonian culture, nor had a preparation as due diligence for speaking up on the matter. Very hard. How, given this, are the NT authors supposed to have missed this connection, if it is so obvious?

And here we come to a third thing. The connection may indeed be obvious, but it's not obviously only in one direction, one cannot obviously tie Genesis 1 to a copy of Enuma Elish. Indeed, if all the peoples who were divided from each other and lost contact (or most of it) around Babel were descended from Noah, they would all have known something of how God created. What if it were instead Enuma Elish that was tweaking and making polemic points? For Atrahasis, it's pretty obvious, the differences from the Biblical account would boil down to three:

• sloppy description of the Ark (though the "shape of a die" could refer to an astragal and be somewhat accurate about the real shape);
• vain shortcut of dynastic connections between pre-Flood Shuruppak and post-Flood royalty;
• but above all a different theology. (By the way, Atrahasis, unlike Enuma Elish, does have an Adam and Eve, but they were created to be slaves to the gods, as in Enuma Elish). Enlil decides the Flood for petty jealosy, deciding in favour of Adad and Nisaba, who had acted destructively, and Enki by slyness saves mankind, as before.

So, rather than Genesis making theological polemics on the basis of what was otherwise mythology, Genesis can as well be history, and Babylonians have forged the history and prehistory they inherited into the pagan myth we see. The historical untruthfulness of the texts having the above three explanations, rather than the genre. I think this is pretty much what the Church Fathers said in relation to Deucalion and Pyrrha. "The Greeks confused the Flood of Noah with a later Flood in Thessaly" and that one featuring Deucalion and Pyrrha.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
Gabriel of Our Lady of Sorrows
27.II.2025

Insulae, in Aprutio, sancti Gabrielis a Virgine Perdolente, Clerici Congregationis a Cruce et Passione Domini nuncupatae, et Confessoris; qui, magnis intra breve vitae spatium meritis et post mortem miraculis clarus, a Benedicto Papa Decimo quinto in Sanctorum canonem relatus est.

Correction to Jonathan Sarfati

Since then, those languages have divided much further. For example, English, French, German, Icelandic, Greek, Russian, Hindi, Persian, and many others can all be traced back to one ancestral language. This language is called “Proto-Indo-European” (PIE). PIE might have been one of the languages God created at Babel. But Hungarian, Finnish, and Estonian did not come from PIE. Rather, they came from an ancestral language called Proto-Uralic, maybe another Babel language.

From tomorrow's page on CMI, The Genesis Flood for Kids | Noah’s descendants

French, Spanish, Italian can all be literally traced back to Latin. When in around 800 in Tours Latin started to get a more oldfashioned pronunciation, closer to the letters, the Latin writing was no longer the default spelling of the vernacular language. Within a century, French appeared as very archaic Old French.* Classic Old French is a bit younger.**

In a council in Burgos, the Frankish way of pronouncing Latin was adopted, mid-11th C. and soon enough after that, 1200, you find Old Spanish.*** For Italy I'm not sure of the exact time when Frankish pronunciation trumped the close to Italian one (without nasals at all in -um, pronouncing it like -o), but as Italian is even closer to Latin than Spanish and French are, it is very clear that Italian too stems from Latin. On top of that, there is no record of Latin ever being replaced with an actual foreign language, at any point, so one is very safe to assume that what language Sicilian poets like Giacomo da Lentini or Tuscan poets like Dante wrote was actually a later form of what Horace or Virgil had written.

In this sense, we cannot trace any "branch of Indo-European" or anything at all to "Proto-Indo-European".

One of the reasons that Indo-European languages are supposed to all descend from Proto-Indo-European is verbal endings. You'll be familiar with the Greek ones, no doubt. Now, look at the Finnish endings as well:

μῑσέω		ἐμίσεον		minä vihaan
μῑσέεις		ἐμίσεες		sinä vihaat
μῑσέει		ἐμίσεε		hän vihaa
(μῑσέετον μῑσέετον)		(ἐμῑσέετον ἐμῑσεέτην)
μῑσέομεν		ἐμῑσέομεν		me vihaamme
μῑσέετε		ἐμῑσέετε		te vihaatte
μῑσέουσῐ		ἐμίσεον		he vihaavat

Finnish is not Indo-European, it's Uralic. Was Nostratic, hypothetic ancestor of both Proto-Indo-European and Proto-Uralic, one post-Babel language? Or did some Sprachbund phenomenon influence the common endings between Finnish and Greek? If the latter, could that, on a larger and more intense scale, be the cause of similarities between the several "branches of Indo-European"? Because, if it could, then Greek could be descended from Javanic, the post-Babel language of Javan, son of Japheth. And Hittite with Celtic, Italic (of which Latin and later Romance) and Germanic, could be Gomerite.°

There would have been more than one early and somewhat later occasions for language contact, like when Gomer and Semitic Lud were in Anatolia, Javan was just across the Aegean, or in the 1200's BC, according to archaeologists, the Villanova culture was both influenced by Mycenaean Greeks and in trade contacts all the way up to Denmark from Italy.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
St. Walburgis
25.II.2025

In monasterio Heidenhemii, dioecesis Eystettensis, in Germania, sanctae Walburgae Virginis, quae fuit filia sancti Richardi, Anglorum Regis, et soror sancti Willebaldi, Eystettensis Episcopi.

PS, enumerating the similarities. First person singular is -n in Finnish, -n in Secondary Endings of Greek. Second person singular ends in a dental. Third person singular ends in a long vowel (in present tense in Greek). First person plural ends in -me (-men in Attic and Koiné, -mes in Doric), and in -mme. Second person plural ends in -te / -tte. If I had taken in Latin, I'd have compared "-nt" to Finnish "at", though the preceding -v- is not obviously related to anything in Indo-European, as to third person plural./HGL

* Maybe Strassburg Oaths, certainly the Saint Eulalia Sequence.
** Song of Roland.
*** El Cantar del Mio Cid.
° Church Fathers have traced both Gauls and Cappadocians to Gomer, and it would seem Italic and Germanic are closely related. Old Irish shares grammatic features with Hittite.

Red Lady of El Mirón — When?

The Red Lady of El Mirón is a skeleton belonging to a woman of Upper Paleolithic (Magdalenian) found at El Mirón Cave in eastern Cantabria, Spain.

When is this woman said to have lived?

Radiocarbon dating indicates that the woman was buried around 18,700 years ago.

So, when is that really? Given that it is a radiocarbon date, it's reducible by my recalibration.

Newer Tables: Preliminaries · Flood to Joseph in Egypt · Joseph in Egypt to Fall of Troy.

Given that is says "years ago" it means it's not 18,700 BC, but 16,675 BC.

2712 BC

17.585 pmC, dated as 17,081 BC

2699 BC (!)

20.835 pmC, dated as 15,666 BC

She really died some time between 2712 BC and 2699 BC. Let's get closer to when, and lets ignore that the graph of rising Carbon 14 is slightly bent, and treat it as a straight line graph.

(2712 + 2699) / 2 = 2705.5
(17.585 + 20.835) / 2 = 19.21 (0.1921)

5730 * log(0.1921) / log(0.5) + 2705.5 = 16,343 BC

(2712 + 2712 + 2712 + 2699 + 2699) / 5 = 2706.8
(17.585 + 17.585 + 17.585 + 20.835 + 20.835) / 5 = 18.885 (0.18885)

5730 * log(0.18885) / log(0.5) + 2706.8 = 16,486 BC

(2712 + 2712 + 2699) / 3 = 2707.667
(17.585 + 17.585 + 20.835) / 3 = 18.668333 (0.18668333)

5730 * log(0.18668333) / log(0.5) + 2707.667 = 16,582 BC

(2712 + 2712 + 2712 + 2699) / 4 = 2708.75
(17.585 + 17.585 + 17.585 + 20.835) / 4 = 18.3975 (0.183975)

5730 * log(0.183975) / log(0.5) + 2708.75 = 16,704 BC

So, she arguably died some time around 2709 BC, since 16,704 BC is close enough to the desideratum of 16,675 BC./HGL

Interesting Quote from Georges Declercq

I'm starting to read | Anno Domini |, by one Georges Declercq, with a subtitle The Origins of the Christian Era. It's on BREPOLS PUBLISHERS, Turnhout Belgium, 2000.

It turns out, the add-ups giving the actual span of the OT, as in Ussher, this was not the earliest origin of the totals.

Actually, there was speculation on "sixth day of creation" corresponding to sixth millennium after creation, and ending with Doomsday but having Our Lord's incarnation in the middle. So, the total 5500 Anno Mundi for either Birth or Death and Resurrection of God in the Flesh, of Jesus the Christ, was in place before Syncellus started to add up year items in Genesis 5 and 11 and the rest of the Bible.

This changed with Eusebius of Caesarea.

However, unlike other world chronicles, the text of the bishop of Caesarea does not begin with Adam and the creation of the world, but with Abraham, because prior to this patriarch the chronology of the Bible was in his opinion uncertain and inaccurate. He nevertheless indicated that according to the Septuagint, the Greek version of the Old Testament, 2242 years passed between Adam and the flood, and 942 years from the latter event to Abraham. Each year in the chronicle was consecutively numbered from the birth of Abraham onwards. Interrelated with this era of Abraham, Eusebius also used a regnal chronology and, from the year 1240 since Abraham (776 BC), Greek Olympiads as well. In the version of Jerome, the birth of Christ is thus dated in the year 2015 since Abraham, the forty-second year of Augustus and the third year of the 194th olympiad (2 BC), while the Passion and Ressurrection are placed in the year 2047 from Abraham, the eighteenth year of Tiberius and the third year of the 202nd olympiad (AD 31).

And while the age of the world isn't mentioned, it can be calculated as 5199 when Our Lord was born, 5231 when He died. The quote spans parts of pages 42 and 43 in the book. In the following we learn that St. Jerome very much popularised this chronology. AND that Venerable Bede used Vulgate instead of LXX and had Our Lord born in Anno Mundi 3952 (4 BC).

Now, the span of 942 years from flood to Abraham indicates a LXX version of Genesis 11 without the Second Cainan. In fact, not from this book, but on a site, I found that the beginning of St. Jerome's chronology attributes the 2242 + 942 years to Julius Africanus, who, however also had a different version of chapter five and gave 2262 from Adam to flood.

So, the chronology I use is a collaborative work, but certainly not by noobs from today living in their mother's basement, but from pretty well known names from the First Millennium of the Christian Era (which is the topic of the book, one which touches very much on Easter calculus where I'm right now .../HGL

PS, iffy if one should use "Anno Mundi" for Western or Western popularised calculations like St. Jerome's or St. Bede's birth years of Our Lord, since Anno Mundi actually was a definite thing in the East, either Alexandrian or Byzantine Era, and then always was sth like 5500 AM when Our Lord was born./HGL

PPS, "a definite thing" = an actual system of dating current events. In Russia it was abolished in 1700 by Peter the Great./HGL

"A million steps are possible" — No, Not Always

Arithmetic is not Geometry. And Real Arithmetic makes "Real Numbers" unreal. However much you like apple pie, you can never have π apples. However much a tree is rooted, between 1 tree and 2 trees, there is no such thing as sqrt(2) trees.

This is a good refresher of remembering what we really know even in Number Theory. Someone brought up logarithms, and I finally, years later, came up with a model for logarithms, which was obviously not meant to replace the logarithms we have, but I used a different than usual way of expressing logarithms to prove I hadn't cheated by simply looking at a logarithm table, that my understanding of what logarithms actually are in number theory actually had allowed me to find some logarithms.

This time, I'll go with the known value 0.301 for the ten-logarithm for 2.

So, according to the usual theory, this means 10^0.301 = 2. I'll wager that this is, apart from geometry (natural logarithms come with certain curve shapes) actually an algebraic shortening of another statement.

10 ³⁰¹ = 2¹⁰⁰⁰

10 ³⁰¹ =
1 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

2¹⁰⁰⁰ =
1 0715086071862673200000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

Can't make out whether it's equal length or not? I combined 000 000 000 into "nine zeros" and than three of these into XXVII zeros, then three of those into LXXXI zeros. I then added back last zeros to the part before the abbreviations, and I dissolved parts to bring the number of abbreviations to the same.

10 ³⁰¹ =
10 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000
LXXXI zeros LXXXI zeros LXXXI zeros XXVII zeros

2¹⁰⁰⁰ =
10 715 086 071 862 673 200 000 000 000 000
LXXXI zeros LXXXI zeros LXXXI zeros XXVII zeros

But the difference is pretty great? over and above the 10 followed by 300 zeros, there is 715 followed by 297 digits (the calculator made most of the digits into zeros).

So, let's check, how different is 10^0.301 from 2?

10^0.301 = 1.999 861 869 632 744 1, off by 0.000 1 and some more.

What if we took 0.30103?

10^0.30103 = 2.000 000 019 968 104 6, off by 0.000 000 1 and some more.

Twice as accurate, in terms of how many digits, but inexact on the other side. No doubt, for

10 ^{30 103} = 2^{100 000}

the excess or deficit would be even more notable than 715 followed by 297 digits. However, that is because you need greater whole numbers in order to give finer fractions as whole number to whole number ratio, the finer the fraction, the more exact the logarithm, the greater the powers of 10 and 2, the greater the discrepancy. I expressed this fact as "the logarithm" (from the arithmetic standpoint) "is the make believe that pretends to an impossible equality between powers of ten and powers of two, the more exact the logarithm, the less the powers are actually close to equality" ... something for which I was taken for a raving fool who had no idea what he was talking about. A mixture of drug addict and intellectual hybris capable of spouting things out which it is a no-brainer to refute, and then being too intellectually arrogant to step down when refuted by people with no brain, or with no evidence of their brain being effectively used for the task.

There is of course, as I more recently found out, a more geometric approach to what a logarithm is, and it is used to get more exact values, and I have no problem with that. Geometry, unlike arithmetic, actually does have Real Numbers, that are actually real. I was answering the proposition that in arithmetic there is no such thing as a stark transition from one to two. Or in other words, that you can have pi apples or sqrt(2) trees.

This is important in the Creation to Evolution debate exactly how?

Well, bear with me, for the relevance is coming. Two of them.

A chromosome may have 10 000 genes. And it may (conceivably) gradually rise in number of genes until it has 20 000 genes. Invent a mechanism that allows a functioning gene to arise, and the 10 000 genes on the chromosome may be 10 001, and then 10 002 and so on. Eventually that may reach 20 000 genes. But they would still all be on that one single chromosome. How is this important?

Well, once upon a time Kent Hovind made a spoof argument about the tobacco plant being more developed than man, because it had more chromosomes. Man only has 46 chromosomes, the tobacco plant has 48.

The Solanaceae species Nicotiana tabacum, an economically important crop plant cultivated worldwide, is an allotetraploid species that appeared about 200,000 years ago as the result of the hybridization of diploid ancestors of Nicotiana sylvestris and Nicotiana tomentosiformis.

In other words, the tobacco plant has appeared before the Flood, and there was tobacco on the Ark. The 200,000 years ago date is just "lava cooled rapidly during the Flood and trapped excess argon" ...

Now, the spoof argument by Hovind reminded me of a real argument in Fr. Bryan Houghton, a non-order priest who was still not totally a diocesan priest, since "incardinated 'in propriam fortunam' " ... in the French translation of his Unwanted Priest, he inserted pieces of tracts, one of them against Evolution. And he mentioned that French scientists had for a long time hushed up the existence of chromosomes, because this poses a barrier to evolution. As mentioned, augmenting the number of genes on a single chromosome may be gradual, but the transition to two chromosomes, if it occurred at all, would be abrupt. There is no such thing as "one and a half chromosomes" for the same reason that there is no such thing as "half a chromosome" ...

There are also not one million intermediates between vocal communications having one level, the full message = one sound, and vocal communications having three levels, full message expressed with composition of morphemes (these being often, but not always, words), and morpheme being expressed in composition of phonemes, and phonemes holding no meaning of their own. There is exactly one possible intermediate, and that is having two levels.

However, there are two ways between the one and the three levels.

1) full message = sound, first divides into full message = many sounds

then this divides into full message = many words, word = many sounds. Or:

2) full message = sound, first divides into full message = many words, but each word = sound

then this divides into full message = many words, word = many sounds.

Note, we have two alternatives. Then again, adding notionality to pragmatism is another item. Did it happen during the first, the intermediate or after reaching the last stage?

We have six alternatives. Placements of three events. And, again, no hint of gradualism being even possible.

Again, the physiological underpinning of the human speach can be reduced to two items: "fully or at least adequately reached" and "not even adequately reached" ... While gradualism is possible, it can for this purpose be ignored. The question now becomes:

Did the apparatus exist before even first division and before notionality?

Or did it arise after first, second or third of the three events above outlined?

Again, the alternatives aren't bafflingly many, you can't say "any scenario we can't even think of is possible" ... and you also cannot pretend I'm crunching "a million gradients" into too few events.

Two scenarios:

Full message divided into sounds. Full message divided into words that remained divided into sounds.
Full message divided into words. Words divided into sounds.

Six scenarios:

Notionality was added to pragmatism. Full message divided into sounds. Full message divided into words that remained divided into sounds.
Full message divided into sounds. Notionality was added to pragmatism. Full message divided into words that remained divided into sounds.
Full message divided into sounds. Full message divided into words that remained divided into sounds. Notionality was added to pragmatism.

Notionality was added to pragmatism. Full message divided into words. Words divided into sounds.
Full message divided into words. Notionality was added to pragmatism. Words divided into sounds.
Full message divided into words. Words divided into sounds. Notionality was added to pragmatism.

Twenty-four scenarios:

Apparatus ready. Notionality was added to pragmatism. Full message divided into sounds. Full message divided into words that remained divided into sounds.
Notionality was added to pragmatism. Apparatus ready. Full message divided into sounds. Full message divided into words that remained divided into sounds.
Notionality was added to pragmatism. Full message divided into sounds. Apparatus ready. Full message divided into words that remained divided into sounds.
Notionality was added to pragmatism. Full message divided into sounds. Full message divided into words that remained divided into sounds. Apparatus ready.

Apparatus ready. Full message divided into sounds. Notionality was added to pragmatism. Full message divided into words that remained divided into sounds.
Full message divided into sounds. Apparatus ready. Notionality was added to pragmatism. Full message divided into words that remained divided into sounds.
Full message divided into sounds. Notionality was added to pragmatism. Apparatus ready. Full message divided into words that remained divided into sounds.
Full message divided into sounds. Notionality was added to pragmatism. Full message divided into words that remained divided into sounds. Apparatus ready.

Apparatus ready. Full message divided into sounds. Full message divided into words that remained divided into sounds. Notionality was added to pragmatism.
Full message divided into sounds. Apparatus ready. Full message divided into words that remained divided into sounds. Notionality was added to pragmatism.
Full message divided into sounds. Full message divided into words that remained divided into sounds. Apparatus ready. Notionality was added to pragmatism.
Full message divided into sounds. Full message divided into words that remained divided into sounds. Notionality was added to pragmatism. Apparatus ready.

Apparatus ready. Notionality was added to pragmatism. Full message divided into words. Words divided into sounds.
Notionality was added to pragmatism. Apparatus ready. Full message divided into words. Words divided into sounds.
Notionality was added to pragmatism. Full message divided into words. Apparatus ready. Words divided into sounds.
Notionality was added to pragmatism. Full message divided into words. Words divided into sounds. Apparatus ready.

Apparatus ready. Full message divided into words. Notionality was added to pragmatism. Words divided into sounds.
Full message divided into words. Apparatus ready. Notionality was added to pragmatism. Words divided into sounds.
Full message divided into words. Notionality was added to pragmatism. Apparatus ready. Words divided into sounds.
Full message divided into words. Notionality was added to pragmatism. Words divided into sounds. Apparatus ready.

Apparatus ready. Full message divided into words. Words divided into sounds. Notionality was added to pragmatism.
Full message divided into words. Apparatus ready. Words divided into sounds. Notionality was added to pragmatism.
Full message divided into words. Words divided into sounds. Apparatus ready. Notionality was added to pragmatism.
Full message divided into words. Words divided into sounds. Notionality was added to pragmatism. Apparatus ready.

The apparatus is not all that useful unless you have notionality and speech. Speech is not possible without the apparatus. (Applies to production, but even more to hearing and learning).

Notionality is not possible before you have three levels. But three levels are not useful without notionality.

Tell me, if you can, which of the twenty-four scenarios isn't destroyed by one of these observations. Because, in evolution, a thing has to be both useful and possible. Thick fur is useful to keep warm. Keeping warm is possible on some levels even before acquiring thick fur. On the other hand, acquiring thick fur first isn't a too bad thing, before the climate change to the cold or the move to a colder clime strikes, it can be a neutral change, and then it becomes useful. This is a change which has happened in kind after kind. And the thickness of fur actually does really allow for several intermediate gradients. It's a geometric question.

Inventing language is a question of arithmetic changes. Which, as mentioned, do not allow for intermediates between the integers.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
Holy Founders of the Servites
12.II.2025

Sanctorum septem Fundatorum Ordinis Servorum beatae Mariae Virginis, Confessorum, quorum depositio respectivis diebus recolitur. Quos autem in vita unus verae fraternitatis spiritus sociavit, et indivisa post obitum veneratio populi prosecuta est, eos Leo Decimus tertius, Pontifex Maximus, una pariter Sanctorum fastis accensuit.

Carefully hedged Question.

A teacher on FB posted the meme with a question, I'm skipping the red stuff and just doing the text:

Question Can a person accept Evolution and also believe: Holy Trinity—the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit Incarnation—God became man in the person of Jesus Christ Miracles of Jesus Jesus died on the Cross for our sins Physical Resurrection of Jesus Bible is the Holy Spirit inspired Word of God Inerrant Spirit Truths in the Bible Miraculous signs and wonders Final Judgement of every person Eternal Life for believers in God

Technically, yes. Some of above are ill formulated.

Eternal life is not for all believers, Ephesians 2:8 to 10 indicate a risk of losing justification, despite believing, if you don't do good works after justification.

God the Son is the person who became Man and as such is now called Jesus, and bears the office of Christ.

But back to the qustion. Consistently, not really.

But above all, what is the person posting the meme (Denis O. Lamoureux) NOT asking? In other words, is the question carefully hedged?

• Inerrant Biblical History
• Bodily resurrection of all men, either to eternal torment or to eternal glory
• Bible as humanly reliable historic record, even apart from the Inspiration (Moses for Genesis and Luke for the Gospel relied on information they hadn't observed)
• Adam tainted us with sin
• God was totally good to Adam before he sinned, and generally speaking, God is good.

Just as all of the questions on the list can be answered yes by a believer in the evil "God" of Calvinism, so also, all of them can be answered yes by a believer in the evil "God" of Evolutionism.

I'll give the items where belief in Evolution, when consistent, conflicts with above.

• Inerrant Biblical History — Genesis 5, Genesis 11.
• Bodily resurrection of all men, either to eternal torment or to eternal glory — C. S. Lewis admitted that with man around for a million or even just 100 000 years, there would be too many men for earthly matter to suffice for it. With 7000 + years of history, different story.
• Bible as humanly reliable historic record, even apart from the Inspiration (Moses for Genesis and Luke for the Gospel relied on information they hadn't observed) — If there were so many more years between Adam and Abraham than Genesis 5 and 11 suggest, then the history is very poorly recorded and preserved.
• Adam tainted us with sin — with Genesis 3 events 100,000 years back it's not history, and even then he would not be unique ancestor of all, and a collective fall means the God of Supralapsarian Calvinism, since collectives have no freewill.
• God was totally good to Adam before he sinned, and generally speaking, God is good. — if Adam is supposed to come from evolution and then become man, he either becomes man from start, and if so is raised by beasts in near human bodies and cannot acquire language, or God gives him language in a way that separates him from those dear to him, or God makes him human only after separating him, and then this either leaves Adam with shame for or memory loss of his life prior to being human. But shame and memory loss are things that the good God doesn't allow men to suffer apart from them already being in a state of sin.

And obviously, Global Flood and Young Earth go together, and the First Pope linked disbelief of the Global Flood to disbelief in the Coming Judgement.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
St. Scholastica
10.II.2025

Apud montem Cassinum sanctae Scholasticae Virginis, sororis sancti Benedicti Abbatis, qui ejus animam, instar columbae, migrantem e corpore in caelum ascendere vidit.

What Would 220 Before the Flood Date To? Carbon Wise?

I—I/II

Starts out 2958 BC,

1.6277 pmC, dated as 37 000 BC

2958-2738 = 220 years

10 * 22 years

3.611 times as fast

0.9973422400389199 * = decay

0.0026577599610801 = normal replacement

A) with 3.611 times as fast production, like on this view the correspondingly long period after the Flood?
B) with same production as now?
C) with ten times slower production than now (as generally pre-Flood)?

Note, "production" is here used for how the production is spread through the pre-Flood atmosphere. If it held more carbon, the same actual production would count less in relation to the overall carbon, and it is this "relative production" or "production of proportion" rather than absolute production of a quantity I'm counting.

3178 BC

x pmC

A) x * 0.9973422400389199 + 3.611 * 0.0026577599610801 = 0.016277

x * 0.9973422400389199 = 0.016277 - 3.611 * 0.0026577599610801

x = (0.016277 - 3.611 * 0.0026577599610801) / 0.9973422400389199 = 0.0066976294719845

5730 * log(0.0066976294719845) / log(0.5) + 3178 = 44 561 BC, 46 511 BP

B) x * 0.9973422400389199 + 0.0026577599610801 = 0.016277

x * 0.9973422400389199 = 0.016277 - 0.0026577599610801

x = (0.016277 - 0.0026577599610801) / 0.9973422400389199 = 0.0136555

5730 * log(0.0136555) / log(0.5) + 3178 = 38 672 BC, 40 622 BP

C) x * 0.9973422400389199 + 0.00026577599610801 = 0.016277

x * 0.9973422400389199 = 0.016277 - 0.00026577599610801

x = (0.016277 - 0.00026577599610801) / 0.9973422400389199 = 0.01605389

5730 * log(0.01605389) / log(0.5) + 3178 = 37 334 BC, 39 284 BP

So, these would per this calculation be equally valid guesses:

3178 BC

0.67 pmC, dated as 46 511 BP

3178 BC

1.366 pmC, dated as 40 622 BP

3178 BC

1.605 pmC, dated as 39 284 BP

Why can't I decide between them? Because, backwards* from the Flood, I have no anchor point where physical traces are identifiable to a Biblical event, like I have for Flood, Babel = Göbekli Tepe, En-Gedi in Genesis 14 and so on. When I say for a given point between end of Babel and Genesis 14:

2396 BC

60.027 pmC, dated 6615 BC

2391 BC

Arphaxad died

Then, the pmC value of 60.027 pmC for the year 2396 BC is based on this being an evenly spaced point between:

2557 BC

51.766 pmC, dated as 8000 BC

and: 1936 BC

82.763 pmC, dated as 3500 BC

I'm presupposing the whole atmosphere (with fairly minor variations) was at these levels and is applicable when contamination or bomb effect and old carbon or reservoir effect aren't. I'm also presupposing that the rise between the two levels was even. I am also modelling each interior stretch on the idea that the medium carbon replacement during the overall stretch can be applied to it, and that a good mathematical model is, multiply by a percentage for decay, add the replacement for addition, the new carbon level is decayed old carbon level plus addition. This cannot be done when the stretch has an open end backward, unless of course I presuppose an even rise in carbon 14 levels all the way back to Creation, in which case C would be my pick.

Please note, 220 years before the Flood was prior to God saying

... I will destroy man, whom I have created, from the face of the earth, from man even to beasts, from the creeping thing even to the fowls of the air, for it repenteth me that I have made them
[Genesis 6:7]

A Neanderthal buried in 3178 BC, 220 years before the Flood, would not fall under this decree, even if the CMI were right in interpreting not just "no survivors" but even "no physical remains" which I don't grant. I think the Tautavel man is a real descendant of Adam and was caught in mud and lava in the Flood. And that the huge age of (from memory) 300,000 BP is due to excess argon, to argon trapped in a rapidly cooling lava, because the Flood waters cooled it rapidly. A process totally independent of the events relevant for carbon dating.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
St. John of Matha
8.II.2025

[17.XII] Romae natalis sancti Joannis de Matha, Presbyteri et Confessoris, qui Ordinis sanctissimae Trinitatis redemptionis captivorum Fundator exstitit. Ipsius tamen festivitas, ex dispositione Innocentii Papae Undecimi, agitur sexto Idus Februarii.
[8.II] Sancti Joannis de Matha, Presbyteri et Confessoris, qui Ordinis sanctissimae Trinitatis redemptionis captivorum fuit Institutor, et sextodecimo Kalendas Januarii obdormivit in Domino.

* It can be noted that a pre-Flood period of 2242 years, or 2262, is longer than the whole extension of my tables, since 2957 - 1179 = only 1778 years. Going backwards from the Flood to Creation would also be without subdivisions, unlike this shorter period up to the Fall of Troy.

Did Jean Aitchison Mean Double Articulation of Duality of Patterning?

Was Jean Aitchison Calling Bird-Song Doubly Articulated? · Did Jean Aitchison Mean Double Articulation of Duality of Patterning?

They are used interchangeably, but they are not the same.

Hjelmslev and Hocket speak of what is normally called Duality of Patterning, distinguishing TWO levels or planes.

Martinet speaks of Double Articulation, distinguishing THREE levels.

I think at least in Chomsky or somewhere (which I read in the 90's or early 2000's borrowing from a library I can now not access), because I did not read Martinet himself, it is THREE levels.

Obviously on order to have the word "come" equal a phrase, composed of more than one morpheme, one needs the zero-morpheme for imperative. This is however perfectly reasonable.

There is a difference between "come" as imperative, "come" as participle, "come" as infinitive, and "come" as indicative not third singular, and "come" with additions like "-s" for third singular or "short o => long a" for past. There is no human language where all phrases are made up of 1 morpheme + a zero-morpheme, which in that case would be highly just theoretical. The zero-morphemes in any language where they exist (not sure if some language has none, it is certain some do not have them where English would expect them, like "any nominative or accusative noun in the singular" which would not describe Latin or Polish) actually contrast with non-zero morphemes, like for "come" additions like 3 p sg -s (older -th), or change of root vowel in the past or other words like auxiliaries and non-3 p sg subjects.

So, I dissed her because she missed that double articulation = articulation of phrase into morphemes + of morphemes into phonemes.

Not lightly, since I highly respect her on "Language change: progress or decay" but still.

I would suggest, a) sorry for not knowing the phrasing of Hocket and Hjelmslev and hence being impolite, b) do take into account Martinet or his derivation in Chomsky (or others).

My criticism stands in substance, though I have to mitigate it in tone.

And no, I do not have access to the linguistics books I borrowed from Lund Municipal Library in the 90's or between 2000 and 2004. Perhaps it's even in her own Language change, which I read in 1993, same term as my grandmother died. So, I cannot give the reference.

The truth of the statement is however obvious. A one-word sentence does not mean a one-morpheme sentence apart from the special case of perfectly zero-morpheme after verb root = imperative. Pluit has plu-it. In Greenlandic, you can certainly say "I'm looking for [snow]/[material] to build an igloo" in one word, but it is not one morpheme, but a compound word, with "igdlu" as the lexical base and the rest (material, look for, present indicative non-perfect 1st person singular) as derivation endings and conjugation endings. Don't ask me how this is spelled or pronounced in Greenlandic, I just remember the fact.

And this fact means, Jean Aitchison, alas, your statement that birds have double articulation, in this sense, is still incorrect. They just have two levels in songs, double articulation in this sense has three.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
St. Romuald
7.II.2025

Sancti Romualdi Abbatis, Monachorum Camaldulensium Patris, cujus dies natalis tertiodecimo Kalendas Julii recensetur, sed festivitas hac die, ob Translationem corporis ejus, potissimum celebratur.

German wiki has, correctly:

Ein Zeichensystem ist zweifach gegliedert, wenn eine darauf basierende Nachricht wie folgt strukturiert ist:

1. Die Nachricht besteht aus Ausdruckseinheiten, deren jede eine Bedeutung trägt. Eine solche Einheit heißt signifikativ („bedeutungstragend“). Dies ist die erste Gliederung.

2. Jede signifikative Einheit ist zusammengesetzt aus Ausdruckseinheiten, die keine Bedeutung tragen, sondern lediglich Bedeutung unterscheiden. Eine solche Einheit heißt distinktiv („bedeutungsunterscheidend“). Dies ist die zweite Gliederung.

In dem Satz Jan arbeitet treten drei signifikative Einheiten auf: Jan („Jan“), arbeit- („pflichtmäßig zum Broterwerb tätig sein“) und -et („3. Person Singular Präsens“). Die signifikative Einheit Jan ist aus drei distinktiven Einheiten zusammengesetzt: /j/, /a/, /n/.

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zweifache_Gliederung

CMI Don't Have an Office in Sweden, So, I Looked for One of AiG ... and Found Sth Else

Google search:

answers in genesis sweden

Hit:

Oldest Living Tree Located In Sweden
on April 19, 2008 | [someone on AiG]
https://answersingenesis.org/geology/carbon-14/oldest-living-tree-in-sweden/

It's about Old Tjikko. I've written about Old Tjikko previously, appropriately on my Swedish Blog:

På Svenska og på Dansk på Antimodernism: Huru gammal är Old Tjikko?
https://danskantimodernism.blogspot.com/2017/02/huru-gammal-ar-old-tjikko.html

Now, 9550 BP I got to somewhat after Babel, but with an old table. I'll recalibrate with my most recent one:

9550 - 1950 = 7600 BC

2511 BC

54.143 pmC, dated as 7583 BC

A very important part of the difference is, back in early 2017 I hadn't yet made the connection that if Jesus is born 2957 after the Flood and 2015 after the Birth of Abraham, as this means Abraham was born 942 after the Flood, it must also mean Peleg was born (and Babel ended) 401 after the Flood. It's Septuagint without the Second Cainan. And back in early February 2017, I hadn't figured that out. Hence the confusion on this old post:

If Göbekli Tepe is Tower of Babel ...

Of which the above linked post on Old Tjikko depends.

However, let's go to my newest version, appropriately (considering what chronology I use) from Christmas:

Newer Tables, Flood to Joseph in Egypt

That's where you find above quote. The old post means Old Tjikko's oldest surviving root is somewhat after Babel. My new calibration means it is from 45 years after Babel.

Now, there is a real good takeaway from the AiG post:

Did you note that the variable wasn't ¹⁴C decay rate (as per Setterfield), but ¹⁴C production rate, which I agree with? Nice, as a sudoku solver says when solving and solving and solving ...

Some persons from Sweden need to get on board with (or leave me alone) that "total content of consensus science" does not equal "observed fact". Any school (including the ones that now carry near consensus among scientists) will produce results depending on observed fact, logic, some kind of world view or ideology. It follows that the results of any school can be wrong, not from insufficient observation, nor necessarily even from bad logic, but from badness of world view assumptions. And since world views don't necessarily improve as facts accumulate, that can equally be the case for the school which at present carries consensus.

Someone growing up in Sweden now will arguably know that Marco Polo knew of pasta even before visiting China. But he will have a scarier overall worldview than I had. The cure isn't to curb the flow of facts on the internet, it's to fight back on the world view issues, and that takes the internet to get things done, mostly these days. Though I'd prefer my writings were available in print as well, which could earn me money and make access less dependent on the whims of internet censors.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
St. Augulus of ...?
7.II.2025

Augustae, cui nunc Londini nomen, in Britannia, natalis beati Auguli Episcopi, qui, aetitis cursu per martyrium expleto, aeterna praemia suscipere meruit.

CMI Promote a False View of Private Property

REV. PROF. F.N. LEE isn't a regular on their staff, these days, but his paper has nevertheless been presented on a pdf on their site. Perhaps he was when Ex Nihilo was published in that vol. 3 of 1988. He goes after St. Thomas Aquinas. Especially as they see the pre-Flood world.

Biblical Private Property Versus Socialistic Common Property
REV. PROF. F.N. LEE | EN Tech.J., vol.3, 1988, pp.16-22
https://dl0.creation.com/articles/p028/c02821/j03_1_016-022.pdf

Before the Fall

It is true that man owns nothing at all — over against God (Psalm 50:9-11)! Yet God gives what He wants to some men, while withholding what He wants from others (Romans 9:15,21). So man indeed owns many things, over against his fellow man (Matthew 20:15). For all men (as images of the Triune God) have different personalities from one another (Genesis 2:18,23 and 3:20). Here, when taken all together, men resemble the various Persons of the Triune God Himself within the Trinity (Genesis 1:26-27, 5:lff and 9:6). Each human personality is strengthened by his or her private ownership of property (Genesis 1:26, 2:24 and 4:4, and 1 Corinthians 7:4). For God's Trinity too is undergirded by the private property possessed by Each of the several Divine Persons "over against" the Others. Compare Genesis 1:1-3 and 1:26, John 1:1-18 and 17:1-5, and Hebrews 9:14 with Matthew 28:19.

It is very important to remember that God gave private property dominion to Adam as an individual, over against Satan, even before the creation of Eve (Genesis 1:26-27 and 2:15 cf. 3:1). Even initially, God revealed to man that private property was sacrosanct (Genesis 2:17 and 3:3,11). Internally, the law of God, including the principle of the commandment 'you must not steal' (which implies the existence of stealable property belonging to another) was stamped on Adam's heart (Ecclesiastes 7:29 cf. Romans 2:14-15). Externally, God revealed to the unfallen Adam that he may not steal from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, which did not belong to him or to any other man, but which was indeed God's very own private property (Genesis 2:16-17 cf. 3:3-11). Adam possessed his own male sex (and his own farming tools) "over against" Eve, and Eve possessed her own female sex (and her own household utensils) even before the Fall. Compare Genesis 2:18's "kenegdo" or "opposite him". For the Triune God, Whose image man is, has always had His own private property held by Each Divine Person and maintained "over against" the Other Two Divine Persons (Genesis 1:26-27 and John 1:14,18 cf. l:l's "pros ton Theon" or "with God" and meaning "over against God the Father"). It is true that, on the creation of Eve, Adam entered into a community of marriage with her, which had property ramifications. But he entered into this community with one woman only, so that the two of them then possessed their private property over against all other human persons (Genesis 2:24, Malachi 2:14-16, and Matthew 19:4-5). All of Adam's descendants would do the same. For their property is and always would have been limited to one man and one woman alone over against all of the other marriages and their properties (cf. Genesis 2:24). Accordingly, the very influential view of the great Roman Catholic theologian Thomas Aquinas, that there was no private property but only common ownership among mankind before the human Fall, is radically unbiblical. Indeed, the pre-Fall life of Adam and Eve was anything but "monastic" (Genesis 1:26-28 cf. 2:24). The simple fact is this: precisely the theft of private property is what caused the Fall! (Genesis 2:17 cf. 3:2-7ff, 11).

First, the last point.

It is not clear that the tree of knowledge of good and evil was God's private property withheld from Adam. On the contrary:

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 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 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
[Genesis 1:28-30]

The tree of knowledge of good and evil was thus within the dominion mandate and therefore either Adam's private or mankind's communal property rather than God's private property.

However, God (who is higher authority than the human proprietor) withheld a use of that tree from the proprietor. So, the fall was not in theft, it was in unauthorised use of own property. Unauthorised use by a higher authority. The fact that I own a chair doesn't mean I can do absolutely anything I'd like with that chair. If I started swinging it around to threaten or hurt people, it would be taken away from me, and rightly so. If I took the chair as a way to stay up while holding my head in a noose attached to a hook for the lamp, and then kick away the chair, if I survived that, the chair and materials with which to hang myself, would be taken away from me and rightly so. If I tell someone I will lend him 10 chairs for an evening but for the service expect 11 chairs back, I'd be very rightly and properly told that this is an usurious practise, you cannot lend chairs that way, you expect 10 chairs back not 11. You may charge money, but you may not charge an extra chair. The state has the right to impose limitations on what one can do with one's property, to prevent damage and to prevent usury. And if the private property is a work place, to prevent overcharging hours or underpaying wages.

God never motivates the ban on eating the forbidden fruit by "because I reserve this one for my dominion, not for yours" Not in Genesis 2:17, not in Genesis 3:3, not in Genesis 3:11.

Given the passage I quoted, if you take that together with Genesis 2:17, it basically means "the tree of knowledge is yours, and one day you may eat of it, but not yet, only later when I tell you" or "the tree of knowledge is yours, you may lean on it or sit under its shadow but just not eat from it" or "you may not eat from the tree of knowledge, but your descendants will" ... Adam was not a thief, a non-proprietor taking someone else's property, he was a high-handed prorietor, who did not finally accept a limitation in his use of his own property.

Male and female sex are not our private property, to do with as we wish, we have for instance no right to change our sex, nor to abuse it by voluntary combinations of infertility with pleasures coming from it. Perhaps F. N. Lee would have regretted his words had he seen today's conditions, I suppose he has already died.

Similarily, Fatherhood, Sonship, Procession by Spiration are not private property of the three persons, they are propers, but in "private property", you presupposed the possibility to dispose of and relinquish. The Son did not relinquish being Son even when becoming Man, that would be a very extreme form of the Kenotic heresy. No Divine Person can relinquish His proper. Therefore it isn't private property.

Eve in Eden had no use of kitchen utensils, because all they were eating was fruit. If you say "glasses to drink water from" you forget that they weren't under a workmaster, weren't in a hurry, and had all the leisure in the world to cup their hands under a fountain. Once certain ground fruits or grains became a necessary supplementary food, after the garden, yes, they would need to cook. You don't get calories efficiently from wheat kernels that are neither ground nor baked nor cooked, if wheat was one of the post-Eden staples (it could have been a thing they got after the Flood, under Noah, like wine) and the same is true of potatoes. Nor did Adam need any farming utensils before the curse.

By entering the covenant of marriage, Adam and Eve had a property community of marriage, and while their children were small they would also be part of that community of property. There were no "men outside the garden" against which their property would be bordering. As Adam and Eve would be living on forever and forever capable of settling any minute hint of a dispute between them, the brothers and sisters who were also husbands and wives and sons and daughters of the first couple would not have needed any private property against each other. The only "private property" so to speak they would have had, would have been the own wife not shared with brothers, the own husband not shared with sisters.

Now, finally, the Protestant "theologian" says that pre-Fall Eden was anything but monastic. His supposed proof-texts for this are:

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 And God created man to his own image: to the image of God he created him: male and female he created them 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
[Genesis 1:26-28]

Wherefore a man shall leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they shall be two in one flesh
[Genesis 2:24]

This is based on a complete nonsense idea of what monasticism actually is. The point of monasticism is not abstinence from sex, but abstinence from the distraction from God that follows from sex (I Cor. 7:32—34). Now, this distraction is a consequence of the Fall, so the unfallen would have been not distracted even with sex. Hence, the goal of prayer would be equally met in marriage before the fall as it is in celibacy after the Redemption. But also, the celibacy and the communal property are two different things, so that the one could have been the rule before the Fall while the other wasn't. Here too the post-Fall world is cursed with sth making the pre-Fall condition not quite similarily applicable. Aristotle notes, that everyone cares more for what belongs to himself than what he has in common with others. Hence, non-division of property has a tendency of people shoving work on each other rather than doing their part. This tendency also was absent before the Fall, so one could have had flourishing conditions even without any division of property.

Let no one conclude from this that I intend to be a monk, just because I admire monks. I don't intend to be a Ocean sailor just because I admire Ocean sailors. Let no one conclude from this that I intend to live without private property, nothing I've said this millennium would indicate that, and any plans I could have had prior to 5.II.1998 to enter monastery have been cancelled in my affection when I had to do the unmonastic job of defending myself, and in my conscience, when I checked with Le Barroux before release and got a no. But some people insist on pretending all I say (including praise of monasticism) is so autobiographical that it would follow, and they do this because they like to set a very expensive price tag on my remaining Catholic.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
St. Joan of Valois
4.II.2025

A False View of Science

Gutsick Gibbon is reviewing the revised standards in Iowa's board of education.*

She's reviewing the one that's relevant for what they used to call Evolution.

She has without noticing shown a very real dedication for establishing in Iowa as in other states Science as a State religion. That's not the issue here.

She has also misunderstood what Creationists object to when speaking of Evolution as a modern fairy tale. They do not object to mutation, natural selection and other similar mechanisms, they say Evolution is a bad word for them, because it's also used to describe men and monkeys, mussels and microbes, mallows and mimosas all descending from Last Universal Common Ancestor. I know. Weird. That theory used to be called "Theory of Common Descent" and some weirdo seems to have repackaged that into "Theory of Evolution" while also calling the mechanisms I mentioned "Theory of Evolution." At least the Creationists claim so ... while Erica is so vocally proposing those mechanisms, never in a thousand years would she then switch over without notice to speak of the "Theory of Common Descent", would she?

Well, this is not my subject for this one.

It's the sentence in the image that she is NOT commenting on (at least up to 9 minutes 45 seconds). The one I've underlined in red.

Scientific knowledge assumes that natural laws operate today as they did in the past and they will continue to do so in the future

I have two quibbles with this sentence.

First, some would say all proper knowledge is "scientific knowledge" ... I disagree, philosophical knowledge is not scientific in this sense and neither is historic or interpersonal or personal.

Second, natural laws don't operate. They limit the operations of certain factors.

The three equations of Ohm's law limit the operations of electromagnetism as related to currents.

Ohm's law states that the electric current through a conductor between two points is directly proportional to the voltage across the two points. Introducing the constant of proportionality, the resistance,[1] one arrives at the three mathematical equations used to describe this relationship:

V = IR, I = V/R, R = V/I

where I is the current through the conductor, V is the voltage measured across the conductor and R is the resistance of the conductor. More specifically, Ohm's law states that the R in this relation is constant, independent of the current. If the resistance is not constant, the previous equation cannot be called Ohm's law, but it can still be used as a definition of static/DC resistance.

In other words, Ohm studied the realities of currents with a constant resistance of the conductor. The actual Ohm's law is interfered with whenever a conductor can chance resistance. Ohm's law is not operating, it's a partial only description of what is operating in reality, namely electricity, currents, conductors, and does not take into account how the equations get different results if the resistance changes.

Natural laws describe physical factors. They are not the physical factors and they neither say nor claim that physical factors are the only ones, they neither say nor claim that all apparently non-physical factors are ultimately physical (like grammar and thought supposedly being derived from the physics in human brains, as some would have it).

Not only does the 1947 book by C. S. Lewis contain a great proof of God, related to but much more step by step than Presuppositionalism, possibly the greatest, once you renounce the proof by Geocentrism (which by the way involves that some aspects of astronomy, and pretty big lines of it, have their correct explanation outside science as above defined). It also contains an excellent distinction of concepts between natural factors and natural laws. Whatever Anscombe technically disagreed on in the proof for God, she would certainly have agreed with what CSL said in that later chapter.

If we imagine, a) that natural laws have in and of themselves the power of causation, and b) that they are very regular, we could come to conclude, and a good deal of people in the last centuries in the West have concluded, that any irregularity, whether of events in human history or of explanations in astronomy would be some kind of breach in the natural laws. If God did that, God would on that view have dictated one law and then dispensed Himself from it.

If we realise that any natural law is a) just a description of how certain causes work, b) just describing one or some of several interlocking causes, which selection c) can be more or less relevant for the overall result depending on other factors, the whole sentence in Iowa's standards of Education falls apart. Obviously, if so, God is not breaking or dispensing Himself from any kind of law, He is just creatively interacting as Creator with factors He has Himself created and Himself not ever placed in the ultimate High Seat that certain science believers incorrectly place them in. Or in other words, "law" is a metaphor as applies to causalities, it only prescribes for a certain kind of description or calculation of them.**

If 1 Ampère * 1 Ohm equal 1 Volt, I cannot claim that 2 Ampère by 3 Ohm equal 7 Volt, it has to equal 6. If measured units insist on 2 Ampère, 3 Ohm, 7 Volt, I'm obliged to conclude that something other than normal electric current is taking place. I'm not obliged to conclude it didn't happen.

So, some people would like to pretend I'm a religious madman because I'm a Supranaturalist and refuse to share this false view of science? There is a name for people of that persuasion. Marxists. Unfortunately, like Evolution in the sense Theory of Common descent, it has another usage which is perfectly harmless, in this case Social Equity, Social Justice or Equity. That concept has been misused, and recently very heavily, in response to Marxist theories of who are the oppressors and the oppressed, but it has legitimate uses. A bit like denial of change over time has historically led to Old Earth Creationism with Racism as per Isaac La Peyrère, a Jew, converted to Catholicism, not very Orthodox, and often cited without acknowledgement by the Ku Klux Klan. Or, more benignly in the immediate theory, to the idea of a local or large regional Flood, a scenario which the Schooner Wyoming definitely disproved in the fairly shallow Nantucket Bay.***

Unfortunately, the Protestant mainstream back in 1924 (if not totally irreligious) was for total Species Fixism, was for a Local or Large Regional Flood, was for the Ark surviving for one year in that shallow water, so when Wyoming sank, 11th of March, many thought the Flood as such had been repudiated.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
St. Blasius
3.II.2025

* Is Iowa Removing Evolution and Climate Change from their Education Standards?
Gutsick Gibbon | 2 Febr. 2025
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=so8_A4LD2tw

** The conventional symbol for current is I, which originates from the French phrase intensité du courant, (current intensity). Current intensity is often referred to simply as current.

*** See: Was the Ark Too Long for a Wooden Ship? Local Flood—Yes. Global Flood—No.