CMI Site Down for Maintenance

This website creation.com/ is currently offline. Cloudflare's Always Online™ shows a snapshot of this web page from the Internet Archive's Wayback Machine. To check for the live version, click Refresh.

When I do this, this happens, omitting the logo:

Under Maintenance
Sorry, our site is down for maintenance right now. It should be back up in a few minutes.

If this lasts longer than approximately 10 minutes, please let us know on our contact page or email us at web@creation.info.

In the meantime, why not check out our videos and podcasts?

Ray ID: 68bf8b0e2fcb4248
Your IP address: 176.158.169.217
Error reference number: 502
Cloudflare Location: Amsterdam

Please note, the IP is not of my own computer, I don't have one, so hacking it won't put me offline.

Meanwhile, was CMI trying to, or are they rebooting the site to include or exclude something, or was their site hacked? I don't know./HGL

Carbon 14 Speeds for Diverse Creationist Scenarios

HGL'S F.B. WRITINGS: Debating CMI's video with Roger M Pearlman · Creation vs. Evolution: Carbon 14 Speeds for Diverse Creationist Scenarios · Ice Age Maximum, 500 After the Flood? · Flood to Genesis 14, Roman Martyrology's Chronology, Two Scenarios (Technical) · What Am I Doing with "How Much Faster" Calculations?

For Old Earthers, this is not a problem, the 100 percent of modern carbon, that is the ratio of carbon 14 to carbon 12 that we find in the modern atmosphere or would find in it if it were corrected to pre-industrial, somewhat higher levels, was reached well before the Biblical history "started coming into focus".

For Young Earthers, I started my quest on making good calibrations between carbon dating and real Biblical dates due to the challenge that we would automatically run into a problem of the speed of carbon 14 production on our scenarios corresponding to a level of radioactivity that would fry us to death, that is that would already have done so.

I don't think this problem disproves Young Earth, I am responding to it.

My own scenario, as you know from New Tables or rather from the French series it links back to, which includes Implications des vitesses de production, my highest speed is 10.275 times as fast as the modern production, namely between beginning and end of Babel identified as Göbekli Tepe. I have on other occasions with more possibility of acriby by online calculators, had as much as 11 times the modern production. From Flood to Babel is lower then 10 times faster, but not much lower than that. Between Babel and Genesis 14, my scenario goes to between 6 and 5.2 times as fast depending on diverse calculations I make for it.

Gary Bates claims that the cohabitation of Neanderthals and Cro-Magnon (carbon dated to 40 - 45 000 BP) occurred after Babel.

All of CMI has a Biblical chronology of the Masoretic type.

Now, let's see what Gary Bates' view implies.

Babel would have been anytime between 101 to 340 after the Flood, and the Genesis 14 event would be 292 + 80 = 372 after the Flood. I will here presume that Babel occurs early on (even if that implies difficulties for how Neanderthals could have developed so fast), and therefore give him as long a time as possible between carbon dated 45 000 BP and carbon dated 3500 BC, the carbon age of reed mats when Amorrheans left Asason Tamar or En Gedi.

2400 BC = Flood
2299 BC = Babel, carbon date 45 000 BP
2028 BC = Genesis 14, carbon date 3500 BC.

Now, 45 000 BP = 43 000 BC.

43 000 - 2299 = 40 701 extra years => 0.727 pmC
3500 - 2028 = 1472 extra years => 83.689 pmC

2299 - 2028 = 271 actual years => decay to 96.775 % of original level (same calculator as if for 96.775 pmC), and therefore normal present production would compensate that with 3.225 pmC points.

0.727 pmC * 96.775 % / 100 = 0.70355425 pmC
83.689 - 0.70355425 = 82.98544575 pmC points produced
82.98544575 / 3.225 = 25.73192116279 times as fast.

Putting Babel in Eridu would make it at 23.97599078514 times as fast, as noted about Douglas Petrovich here:

Creation vs. Evolution : Babel in Eridu?
https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2020/07/babel-in-eridu.html

This is obviously incompatible with putting Neanderthals after Babel, when the last Neanderthal skeleton is carbon dated to 40 000 BP.

But Roger M Pearlman gets even hardier. 40 KYA = end of ice age, beginning of Abraham = rise from 1.45 pmC to 82.753 pmC in just 80 years. A speed of 84.427 times as quick production of C14 as now is normal.

HGL'S F.B. WRITINGS : Debating CMI's video with Roger M Pearlman
https://hglsfbwritings.blogspot.com/2021/09/debating-cmis-video-with-roger-m.html

It can be noted, the now normal production corresponds to a cosmic radiation of 0.34 milliSievert per year on medium height of inhabited places. It can also be noted, we can't exactly tell whether the radioactivity involved from the cosmos comes to linear, square or cubic relation to the carbon 14 production speed.

I tried to get an answer from Ilya Usoskin, and he refused to charge the computer program with parameters chosen so that 10 times as fast production were possible.

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

I think, so far, my scenario for carbon build up after the Flood is the most feasible one./HGL

CMI Again Against Geocentrism ...

"Did the V838 Monocerotis explode faster than light?" - Geocentric Solution Overlooked Again · Mechanism for Light Echo Proposed · Answering Shubinski on Proofs for Orbiting Earth · CMI Again Against Geocentrism ...

It begins to look a little like nagging ... but it's worse they are wrong.

Here is the background:

The Antikythera Mechanism / Testament to ancient human genius
by Gavin Cox | This article is from
Creation 43(4):17–19, October 2021
https://creation.com/antikythera-mechanism

Most learned Greeks at the time of the mechanism’s manufacture believed in a geocentric cosmos (with the earth stationary at the centre). Some did not; some two centuries before the Roman shipwreck off Antikythera, Greek astronomer Aristarchus of Samos argued that the earth rotates and moves around the sun. But without a detailed model nor explanation of why the earth moved, his idea was not widely accepted. So the Antikythera Mechanism reflects the then widely accepted geocentric view of the heavens.

There is a detailed model and an explanation why heavenly bodies move in part in Tychonian orbits, and this means that "detailed model" and "explanation" don't automatically imply adhesion to an idea.

Now, here we come to a new ovation to Galileo, the fact box named "Epicycles, the Bible, and geocentrism".

Here we see a statement like:

The Bible does not teach either a heliocentric or a geocentric solar system. It uses ‘phenomenological’ (descriptive) language to refer to the movement of the sun, moon, and stars.

Examples conspicuously omit Joshua 10.

However, geocentrism was taught by influential Greek philosophers, and became the ‘settled science’ of the day. This later influenced the Roman Catholic Church at the time of Galileo Galilei (AD 1564–1642).

In Tycho's time, the full version of Aristotelic Geocentrism was no longer settled science, and he died in 1601, decades before both Galileo affairs were completed, about 15 years before the first one. One can safely dismiss the idea that Greek philosophy rather than Catholic thought and Bible exegesis was the driving matter in the Galileo affairs, notwithstanding Statham's article to which Gavin refers:

The truth about the Galileo affair
by Dominic Statham Published: 8 November 2018
https://creation.com/galileo-church

and which I already answered over here:

Creation vs. Evolution : Science vs Science, Exegesis vs Exegesis
https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2018/11/science-vs-science-exegesis-vs-exegesis.html

It wasn’t until Isaac Newton (AD 1643–1727) that it was widely accepted that the earth as well as the planets really did orbit the sun.

The point is not just that he offered an explanation, he also overlooked the previously accepted one, angelic movers. And his theses were spread by the Masonic Master Desaguliers:

John Theophilus Desaguliers FRS (12 March 1683 – 29 February 1744) was a British natural philosopher, clergyman, engineer and freemason who was elected to the Royal Society in 1714 as experimental assistant to Isaac Newton. He had studied at Oxford and later popularized Newtonian theories and their practical applications in public lectures. Desaguliers's most important patron was James Brydges, 1st Duke of Chandos. As a Freemason, Desaguliers was instrumental in the success of the first Grand Lodge in London in the early 1720s and served as its third Grand Master.

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

His father was a Huguenot, too. Not a good premonition, anymore than him being a Mason.

Back to Joshua 10, which was mentioned very specifically in the arguments around the first Galileo affair, when a book was condemned (Assayer?). I debated this with a certain Vy (no longer sure at all of his full name, this is how I anonymised him) over at FB:

HGL'S F.B. WRITINGS : A "Biblical" Heliocentric Misciting Holy Scripture
http://hglsfbwritings.blogspot.com/2014/11/a-biblical-heliocentric-misciting-holy.html

And I wrote a whole essay to labour the point : when God ordered Sun and Moon to stand still, as Joshua ordered them, He made Himself a warrant for Sun and Moon being, as adressed by Joshua, the things (or at least among the things) that changed behaviour:

New blog on the kid : Columbus and Joshua (Imagine Christopher Columbus had worked a miracle)
http://nov9blogg9.blogspot.com/2014/11/columbus-and-joshua-imagine-christopher.html

Gavin Cox concludes his essay:

So the question they pose, as a potential objection to their conclusions, is: How could the ancient Greeks have achieved such precise manufacturing?

Given that they were Geocentric, and that Gavin thinks this erronous, he would have to admit that making precise achievements by Heliocentric assumptions (if operational at all) doesn't prove Heliocentrism.

Now, do Retrogrades do so?

The earth is orbiting faster than Mars and outer planets. When the earth overtakes these, the planets appear to move backwards. Think about what happens when you are in a car that overtakes a slower one. When you look out the window, the slower car seems to be moving backwards compared to you.

In the diagram, the numbers mean different times in the orbit of Earth and Mars. The curve on the right means the position of the planets as they appear against the background of the stars.

Fair enough, but with Tychonian orbits of the planets and angels making sure they don't get out of orbit, Earth standing still and Mars performing part of its oval around the Sun along with the general movement around Earth will have exactly the same effect.

So, do angelic movers make sense from the Bible? Yes, they do. CMI could rightly use Psalm 73:13 as a proof for dinos being eliminated (not necesarily all of them, but at least the biggest and most obnoxious ones) during the Flood. The genre poetry doesn't preclude literal truth of statements. Now, Judges 5 has a passage that only makes sense if either stars are alive - which would have the same effect for above argument - or stars (including in the then terminology planets) are moved by angels.

War from heaven was made against them, the stars remaining in their order and courses fought against Sisara.

Not to mention Job 38:7:

When the morning stars praised me together, and all the sons of God made a joyful melody?

Only living beings can be said to fight against Sisara or praise God together or be called "the sons of God". And only for heavenly bodies would one have "stars remaining in their order and courses".

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
St. Giles
1.IX.221

In provincia Narbonensi sancti A[e]gidii, Abbatis et Confessoris, cujus nomine est appellatum oppidum, quod postea crevit in loco, ubi ipse monasterium erexerat et mortalis vitae cursum absolverat.

Answering Shubinski on Proofs for Orbiting Earth

"Did the V838 Monocerotis explode faster than light?" - Geocentric Solution Overlooked Again · Mechanism for Light Echo Proposed · Answering Shubinski on Proofs for Orbiting Earth · CMI Again Against Geocentrism ...

Here is his article, from the March 2017 issue of Astronomy:

When Did We Realize That the Earth Orbits the Sun?
Published: Monday, January 30, 2017 | by Raymond Shubinski Contributing Editor
https://astronomy.com/magazine/ask-astro/2017/01/proof-earth-revolves-around-the-sun

Here is the double question he answered:

Q: What are the accepted proofs that Earth revolves around the Sun? When did this realization take place?
Bob James, Las Vegas

And here I will dissect the arguments of the answer:

We had no direct view of Earth until the dawn of the Space Age.

A direct view of Earth doesn't prove it even turns around its own axis, nor that it orbits the Sun. If the views that we normally have of celestial bodies as moving can be put down to Earth moving (as heliocentrics regularly do), the views of Earth as moving can be put down to the angle of observation moving, in ways not foreseen by heliocentric astronomers.

In 1610, Galileo turned his new telescope toward Venus. To his amazement, he saw the planet pass through phases just like the Moon. Galileo correctly surmised that this could happen only if Venus had an orbit closer to the Sun than Earth’s orbit.

Or closer to the Sun than Sun's orbit around Earth. See Tycho Brahe, actually cited to him, and who had given the Tychonian explanation this would need on Geocentric terms.

With improved telescopes, astronomers started looking for another proof of Earth’s motion around the Sun, stellar parallax. Earth’s orbit is huge — some 186 million miles (300,000 kilometers) in diameter. If an astronomer measures the position of a nearby star, and then measures it again six months later, the star’s apparent position against the background of more distant stars should shift a tiny amount.

Observing this would prove that Earth in fact is not stationary.

In Galileo's time, what one discussed was a uniform parallax of the shell-like "sphere of fix stars" which neither Galileo nor his judges denied, nor Copernicus either.

However, finding a "non-uniform parallax" could prove either that Earth moves and stars have very different distances from us, or that we are dealing with somewhat random movements in the stars - not totally random, as circular movements would need a voluntary agent, like angelic movers, but random as to relation to an actually uniform distance from earth, retaining the shell of fix stars.

As Earth orbits the Sun, we can detect a “tilt” of incoming starlight. English astronomer James Bradley discovered this phenomenon in 1725 by accident — while he was searching for stellar parallax! This aberration of starlight, as it is called, is a result of light having a finite speed and Earth’s motion around the Sun.

Or, of angels moving with stars, in a somewhat less random way (with "parallax" marginally randomising it, since "parallax" is measured against the background of "aberration").

So, Shubinski gives three "accepted proofs" and I find that the "accepted proofs" don't actually prove what they are supposed to prove. Observation from spacecraft can "show earth moving" due to spacecraft moving (in other ways than foreseen by astronomers), and both parallax and aberration can be proper movements, performed by angels, and there are proper movements admitted as astronomers too, namely if they are linear rather than circular, and therefore would be put down to inertia rather than angels.

In fact, Frédéric Chaberlo gave 6 reasons for Earth orbitting the Sun in one book about the Milky Way and 6 more for Earth turning around its axis in a book about Scientific Methodology, in which, not surprisingly, he cites The Sleepwalkers: A History of Man's Changing Vision of the Universe (1959 book by Arthur Koestler) and Paul Karl Feyerabend.

I have made a series of posts for each of the books, but as they are in French, so are my posts. Pour francophones tendance monoglottes, sur d'autres blogs links to one series starting with Frédéric Chaberlot n'est pas musicologue and another starting with En lisant La Voie lactée par Chaberlot : en guise de Proesme.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
St. Joseph of Calasanzi
27.VIII.2021

Sancti Josephi Calasanctii, Presbyteri et Confessoris, qui Ordinis Clericorum Regularium Pauperum Matris Dei Scholarum Piarum exstitit Fundator, atque octavo Kalendas Septembris obdormivit in Domino.

PS, Lita Cosner for tomorrow's feed back has repeated one untruth often seen on CMI:

You mock the Catholic church for believing the earth was at the center of the universe a few hundred years ago. But that view came not from the Bible but Aristotelian philosophy, and it was believed by the pre-eminent scientists of the day as well. See our Geocentrism Q&A for more if you’re interested.

Response:

• 17th C. Catholic clergy did NOT uphold an integral Aristotelic world view - a void with celestial bodies moving individually Westward was accepted, contrary to Aristotle and St. Thomas;
• early dabbling in heliocentrism had been tolerated up to Bruno suggesting one God the Son for each Solar System and up to Galileo and Foscarini suggesting a wrongful exegesis to Joshua 10;
• pretending Joshua 10 is compatible with Heliocentrism involves devaluation of the words of miracle workers who were inspired to their words, in verse 12, after having spoken to God, Joshua adresses, not earth for it to cease to turn, but Sun and Moon to cease moving.

Mechanism for Light Echo Proposed

"Did the V838 Monocerotis explode faster than light?" - Geocentric Solution Overlooked Again · Mechanism for Light Echo Proposed · Answering Shubinski on Proofs for Orbiting Earth · CMI Again Against Geocentrism ...

I may have got something wrong. But I did not miss what Scot Devlin proposed. I seem to have misunderstood it. Here is the test I did; mathematically. I made a clumsy diagram. The ray that went straight up, then down, A, went through 18 small squares. For the other three, B to D, I had to count diagonal lines by the theorem of Pythagoras. Like B, 14 down after hitting the parabola, but how many up? 3.5 sideways and 8 upwards. Square both, add together, take square root, makes 8.7321 (and some more decimals). Add to 14 = 22.7321. C, 12 down, and the diagonal is 6^2 + 5.5^2 and the square root of that is 8.14, add 12 to that, 20.14. And D, 9 down and for the diagonal, 7^2 + 3^2 is 58, the square root of which is 7.616, gives 16.616.

First visible should be A' - non-reflected, not 6 up and 12 down, just 6 down.

Next one would have D, light passing 16.616 squares, then C, light passing 20.14 ones, then B, light passing through 22.732 squares. So, first centre, then outermost, then going in from there.

In fact, this is one point where I seem to have been deluded by a bad diagram, since as Scot Devlin mentions, all paths should have equal length:

Parabolas connect reflection points of ray paths of the same lengths and therefore the same arrival times.

Now, the point is, the reason for different paths going outward is light hitting successively expanding parabolic surfaces. I wasted my time trying to see if the paths would be longer and longer along A to D on a static parabola.

But why would a parabola expand as a parabola, rather than a sphere expanding as a sphere? And how would this not involve the parabola expanding "quicker than light" if the model were true?

While this one might be possible, mine has the advantage of simplicity. The explanation offered by Scot Devlin might have the rhetoric advantage of "too complicated to check" (for most, including for me). A bit like Superman getting superpowers under the yellow sun, because born under a red one.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
St. Jeanne Françoise Frémiot de Chantal
21.VIII.2021

Sanctae Joannae Franciscae Fremiot de Chantal, Ordinis Sanctimonialium Visitationis sanctae Mariae Institutricis, cujus natalis dies Idibus Decembris memoratur.

"Did the V838 Monocerotis explode faster than light?" - Geocentric Solution Overlooked Again

"Did the V838 Monocerotis explode faster than light?" - Geocentric Solution Overlooked Again · Mechanism for Light Echo Proposed · Answering Shubinski on Proofs for Orbiting Earth · CMI Again Against Geocentrism ...

Here goes CMI with a pronouncement on a topic, where Heliocentrism or Acentrism in the modern terms is obfuscating the issue:

Because there are still questions of how and why it erupted, V838 Monocerotis is thought to be a binary star system, i.e., two stars orbiting close together. It is in the constellation of Monoceros, 19,000 light years away.

V838 Monocerotis then expanded from a visual apparent size of 4 light years to 7 light years in less than 7 months!

In 2002 it erupted, becoming 600,000 times more luminous than the sun. V838 Monocerotis then expanded from a visual apparent size of 4 light years to 7 light years in less than 7 months (see Figure 1)! This increase in visual appearance is of superluminal velocity.

Source: Faster than Light?
Feedback archive → Feedback 2021: 21 August 2021 (GMT+10)
https://creation.com/faster-than-light

Above cited words are penned by Scot Devlin.

Now, if Geocentrism is true, "parallax" is not parallactic, we do not have any trigonometric reason to believe alpha Centauri or 61 Cygni to be 11 or 4 light years away from us, hence no reason to believe apparent sizes and star types give clues for distances like thousands of light years either. In my theory, the fix stars are one light day up and this drastically reduces the distances here involved.

Now, first, the error on the subject of the distance:

19 000 * 365.2425 = 6 939 607.5 light days instead of one light day.

The error for sizes would be equal, and corrected by division through this factor, namely:

from 4 light years or from 1460.97 light days ...
(1460.97 / 6 939 607.5 = 0.000 210 526 32)
... so actually from 0.000 210 526 32 light days ...

... to 7 light years or to 2556.6975 light days ...
(2556.6975 / 6 939 607.5 = 0.000 368 421 05)
... so actually to 0.000 368 421 05 light days.

Now 0.000 368 421 05 - 0.000 210 526 32 = 0.000 157 894 73. But 16 in 100 000 of one light day in seven months is no superluminary speed, ergo ... problem solved.

I know, my own model has a superluminary speed problem too, namely in local speed. Each day (23 h 56 min etc) the fix stars go full circle, so if they are one light day up, they go 6.28 or two times π light days per day. Locally. However, my solution is, they move with the aether, which God moves around earth each day, and the cosmic speed limit refers to movement through the aether (like the proper movement analysed as a combination of aberration and parallax). That problem solved too.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
Deposition of St. Bernard of Clairvaux
20.VIII.2021

In territorio Lingoniensi deposit[i]o sancti Bernardi primi Claraevallensis Abbatis, vita, doctrina et miraculis gloriosi, quem Pius Octavus Pontifex Maximus universalis Ecclesiae Doctorem declaravit, et confirmavit.

Some of you may remember my reconstruction on how Hinduism changed memories from pre-Flood era

A little recap:

• Bharat is both Cain's son Henoch and the Sethite Henoch
• Cainite Lamech's sons are Krishna for Jubal and the fathers of Pandavas and Kauravas for the other two
• some parts of Mahabharata suggest extreme injustice, matching Genesis 6
• Bhima matches (partly) nephelim
• Kauravas match nephelim in evil behaviour
• Flood is preposed before this time, in an attempt of painting a direct connexion between Mahabharata and the own India
• Rama is the post-Flood patriarch Regma, who was helped by Nimrod (as Hanuman), was preposed before Mahabharata along with the Flood
• nothing from Tower of Babel on (after real time of Ramayana) is similarily remembered (except cultural changes anachronistically pre-posed into stories where they don't quite belong)
• divinity is falsely attributed to certain men (Krishna and Rama) and to partly also demonic manifestations (Shiva).

Remaking memories that much is a feat. In the case of Greek stories about the ancients, less is remade. Pre-Flood matters, except existence of giants or titans, are forgotten. "Men of renown" can't refer to Greek legend but does refer to some in Mahabharata.

Now, it may be somewhat hardy to suggest this, even if most changes are chronological ones and conflations. Is there anything more to suggest such a remake of memories happened?

Jean Haudry in 1981, in Les Indo-européens, the collection Que sais-je? on page 37 cites Rgveda (10.129.7) about what happened in the beginning:

"celui qui surveille ce (monde) au plus haut du firmament le sait seul - à moins qu'il ne le sache pas"

Yes, the creation hymn of the Vedas states:

6 Who verily knows and who can here declare it, whence it was born and whence comes this creation?
The Gods are later than this world's production. Who knows then whence it first came into being?
7 He, the first origin of this creation, whether he formed it all or did not form it,
Whose eye controls this world in highest heaven, he verily knows it, or perhaps he knows not.

In other words, anyone recalling Adam and Eve, anyone recalling God forming things before Adam's eyes, was simply told "shut up, we dont know" with a pseudo-pious "only God knows for sure".

With that attitude, the memories of the past can be vastly distorted in favour of reconstructions suiting the general world view of the élite - just like it was used to impose Evolutionism on Victorians and lots of Agnosticism to go with it. A bit like Dawkins or Dan Brown being told by an Anglican priest "nice boys don't ask those questions".

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
St. Agapit of Praeneste
18.VIII.2021

Praeneste natalis sancti Agapiti Martyris, qui cum esset annorum quindecim, et amore Christi ferveret, jussu Aureliani Imperatoris tentus, ac primo nervis crudis diutissime caesus, deinde sub Antiocho Praefecto graviora supplicia passus; exinde cum ex praecepto Imperatoris leonibus objiceretur, et minime laesus esset, gladio ministrorum coronandus percutitur.