More Thorough Answer to Rev. Nicanor Austriaco? OP

The Fittingness of Evolutionary Creation
Rev. Nicanor Austriaco, OP
https://cpb-us-e1.wpmucdn.com/sites.providence.edu/dist/4/182/files/2020/05/Thomistic-Evolution-22.pdf

Now, it is a greater perfection for a thing to be good in itself and also the cause of goodness in others, than only to be good in itself. Therefore God so governs things, that He makes some of them to be causes of others in government, like a master, who not only imparts knowledge to his pupils, but gives also the faculty of teaching others

(Summa theologiæ, I.103.6).

Yes, let's take the example of Apostles. God as Man chose them. He also chose to instruct for instance Sts. Barnabas or Mark through them. And this in turn means, there is a hierarchy.

God did not chose St. Mark to instruct St. Peter, though. There is a hierarchy in the not just being faithful, but also producing faith, and that hierarchy is not reversed.

However, the problem with Evolution is, it involves a reversal of what is the hierarchy of creation. God chose man to convey life or death to earthly creation below man. According to Evolution, God instead chose subhuman creation, as well as death (that's what "natural selection" means!) to produce man.

In the hierarchy as seen by a Creationist, man's sin produces mutations that lead Yersinia pestis to become mortal. In the hierarchy as seen by Evolutionists, mutations in bacteria lead up to Eucaryotes and from one-celled Eucaryotes to man. I think I have made my case and refuted the main point of Rev. Nicanor./HGL

Are Some Catholics Being Taught That Young Earth Creationism Involves the Heresy "Sola Scriptura"

French Catholics Usually NOT Young Earth Creationist - Why? · Are Normal French People Allowed to Look? · To French Fans of San Antonio · Are Some Catholics Being Taught That Young Earth Creationism Involves the Heresy "Sola Scriptura" [?] · Dear Dr. Sarfati, what does Scripture and Tradition Actually Mean?

As a Catholic, and as a former Lutheran, prior to that as a child independent and unbaptised believer in Christianity, I am no fan of the five solas.

And obviously, some Protestant organisations of Creation apologetics have tacked the question on to the first of the five solas, the sola Scriptura.

But this does not mean, Protestant "sola Scriptura" involved in Creationism adequately equals the Protestant Heresy "sola Scriptura" as condemned by the Council of Trent.

The thing is, when a Protestant affirms "sola Scriptura" only parts of what he affirms is what the Council of Trent condemned.

The Protestant affirms:

• The Bible is God's word. It cannot involve any error, at least not in the original autographs, arguably not even in all the now remaining text versions.*
• The Bible is usually clear.

We agree.

They also add:

• Nothing BUT the Bible text remains of Christ's teaching ... unless it can be confirmed fairly directly from the Bible.
• Therefore no line of tradition, and no lineage of magisterial authority can have any similar authority as the Bible, anything that purports to this needs to be carefully tested by the Bible and rejected if it doesn't fits.
• Where the Bible is not immediately clear it usually - as it would need as per previous - involves clues for those really learned people who pursue the question, and when not, we are not meant to understand, and no tradition or magisterium can foist an understanding on us, they cannot oblige as the Bible can oblige.

This is the part that we condemn. Instead we affirm:

• The Bible tells us, Christ founded a Church with a well organised hierarchy and magisterium. It is also through this Church we have access to the Bible.
• He promised to remain with His Church to Doomsday, specifically as She fulfils the Great Commission.
• The things said over the centuries, repeated again and again, by the Church, constitute a Tradition from the Apostles to which we are bound.
• This remains binding even when the Bible text as such would be unclear or open to two or three different interpretations.
• It also remains binding for the very few things that are not directly found in the Bible - like Sunday worship, sign of the Cross, words of absolution, images being licit in the New Covenant, Christ and Mary providing first examples (Shroud of Turin, Icon by St. Luke)

This is how I understand the condemnation, now let's check if the wording of the council of Trent matches my understanding.

The most pertinent part of Second Decree of Session IV is:

Furthermore, in order to restrain petulant spirits, It decrees, that no one, relying on his own skill, shall,--in matters of faith, and of morals pertaining to the edification of Christian doctrine, --wresting the sacred Scripture to his own senses, presume to interpret the said sacred Scripture contrary to that sense which holy mother Church,--whose it is to judge of the true sense and interpretation of the holy Scriptures,--hath held and doth hold; or even contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers; even though such interpretations were never (intended) to be at any time published. Contraveners shall be made known by their Ordinaries, and be punished with the penalties by law established.

Session IV, CONCERNING THE EDITION AND USE OF THE SACRED BOOKS, SECOND DECREE
Celebrated on the eighth day of the month of April, in the year 1546.
http://www.thecounciloftrent.com/ch4.htm

Is there anywhere that says that it is wrong to say "the Bible is usually clear"?

Not even "relying on his own skill" or "to his own senses" since an added condition for condemning the action is, when the interpretation conflicts with that of the Church. And the action is qualified as "wresting" ... not the same thing as a natural reading. There are indeed Protestant traditions of men, notably denial of the Holy Mass, where "wresting" is the right verb, and the natural sense of the Scripture does not warrant the interpretation of any Protestant where it conflicts with this or other Catholic dogmas.

But nevertheless, some seem to have concluded that saying "Genesis 5 and 11 are no-brainers, the first man was created 2000 to 3000 years prior to the birth of Abraham, depending on text" falls under the heading "relying on his own skill" since II Peter 3:15, f. reads:

And account the longsuffering of our Lord, salvation; as also our most dear brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, hath written to you: As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are certain things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, to their own destruction.

So, if St. Paul was somewhat hard to understand in Romans 3 and Tyndale wrested it to his own destruction** (unless he repented in the earthly flames, before arriving to eternal ones), does that mean Genesis 5 and Genesis 11 have to be unclear as well? No, of course not. Biblical history may contain a few snags, but not as many as that.

After all, a manual of Biblical history, the Historia Scholastica, was translated into popular languages, both French and Flemish, and was diffused among the people. By the Catholic Church. The tradition from back then, the magisterium from back then clearly thought that Biblical history was an edification and not a trap for the unlearned.

Cardinal St. Robert Bellarmine not only thought the miracle in Joshua 10 happened, but also that the Biblical description of it was a valid key to cosmology. Dr. Robert Sungenis has gone over those aspects of the process of Galileo, so St. Robert having or at least claiming to have Biblical support is not doubtful. It is also not doubtful that Galileo at times had expressed the theory that the Bible is only inerrant where it touches on salvation, not where it touches on science - a theory not exactly that of Fundies, and part of what he was suspected of, though neither process seems to have taken up his correspondence with Christine, Duchess of Lorraine, where he expressed that.

So, no, being a Fundie about Biblical history is simply not what the Council of Trent intended to condemn or worded the condemnation as extending to.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
Octave of Epiphany
13.I.2022

* There are two views on Emmaus that are possible : it really was sixty furlongs or stades (12 km) but was rebuilt around the tombs of Cleophas and the other disciple at a distance of hundred sixty furlongs (32 km), or, the correct text of Luke 24:13 is in fact "hundred sixty furlongs" or "stades" as one extant Syriac manuscript has. Amwaz is 32 km from Jerusalem. As you walk, you walk c. 5 km / h, and this means 12 km would take a bit more than two hours and 32 km a bit more than 6 hours at that pace.

** Latomus did not just sentence Tyndale to the stake, he also debated him fairly thoroughly previous to that:

Jacob Latomus His Three Books of Confutations Against William Tyndale
|On Web archive, page taken down by Tyndale Society, which still exists|
https://web.archive.org/web/20080517104730/http://www.tyndale.org/Reformation/1/latomus1.html

Corded Ware and Battle Axe? Predecessors?

Age of Mustatils · Corded Ware and Battle Axe? Predecessors?

I'm making a table similar to previous, based on same two tables from earlier:

Creation vs. Evolution : New Tables
https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2020/08/new-tables.html

Creation vs. Evolution : LXX without II Cainan
https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2019/12/lxx-without-ii-cainan.html

III - IV,

End of Babel to Genesis XIV (only end of)

Reu

died 2087 BC

Terah

born 2085 BC

2064 BC

75.4934 pmC, so dated as 4364 BC

Funnelbeaker culture

begins "4300 BC"

2041 BC

76.6964 pmC, so dated as 4241 BC

2019 BC

77.8962 pmC, so dated as 4069 BC

Abraham

born 2015 BC

1996 BC

79.0927 pmC, so dated as 3946 BC

1974 BC

80.2859 pmC, so dated as 3774 BC

Serug

died 1964 BC

Nahor

died 1956 BC

1952 BC

81.476 pmC, so dated as 3652 BC

1929 BC

82.6619 pmC, so dated as 3479 BC

IV - V,

Genesis 14 to Joseph in Egypt

1935 BC

82.73 pmC, so dated as 3485 BC

Pitted Ware culture

begins "3500 BC"

Isaac

born 1915 BC

1913 BC

83.1967 pmC, so dated as 3413 BC

Globular Amphora culture

begins "3400 BC"

1890 BC

83.6622 pmC, so dated as 3390 BC

Terah

died 1880 BC

1868 BC

84.1262 pmC, so dated as 3318 BC

Jacob

born 1855 BC

1845 BC

84.5892 pmC, so dated as 3245 BC

Abraham

died 1840 BC

1823 BC

85.0509 pmC, so dated as 3173 BC

1801 BC

85.5174 pmC, so dated as 3101 BC

1778 BC

85.9766 pmC, so dated as 3028 BC

1756 BC

86.4346 pmC, so dated as 2956 BC

Corded Ware culture

begins "2900 BC"

Isaac

died 1735 BC

1734 BC

86.8913 pmC, so dated as 2884 BC

Jacob

enters Egypt 1725 BC

1711 BC

87.3468 pmC, so dated as 2811 BC

Jacob

died 1708 BC

V - VI,

Joseph to birth of Moses (beginning and middle of)

1700 BC

87.575 pmC, so dated as 2800 BC

Battle Axe culture

begins "2800 BC"

Funnelbeaker culture

Globular Amphora culture

both end "2800 BC"

1678 BC

89.4653 pmC, so dated as 2598 BC

1655 BC

91.4498 pmC, so dated as 2395 BC

Corded Ware culture

ends "2350 BC"

Pitted Ware culture

Battle Axe culture

both end "2300 BC"

1633 BC

93.3283 pmC, so dated as 2203 BC

Honours to a video by the family of Nick Barksdale, which brought up the two cultures mentioned and predecessors:

The Battle Axe culture and Indo European Migrations
9th of Jan. 2022 | Study of Antiquity and the Middle Ages
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B1uZh7J0M3k

Here is to help him, if you like:

https://www.gofundme.com/f/support-nick-barksdale-his-family?utm_campaign=p_cp+share-sheet&utm_medium=copy_link_all&utm_source=customer

Age of Mustatils

Age of Mustatils · Corded Ware and Battle Axe? Predecessors?

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

The mustatils first came to the attention of researchers in the 1970s. Excavation of the platform of one mustatil revealed a chamber at the center containing pieces of cattle skulls, which are believed to be the first evidence of a cattle cult in the Arabian Peninsula. Radiocarbon dating of the skulls revealed that the mustatil, and maybe the others, was built between 5300 and 5000 BCE, during the Holocene Humid Phase, a time when the area was a grassland that went through frequent droughts. This would make the mustatils one of the oldest-known large-scale ritual landscapes in the world.[1][3][4] The research was funded by the Royal Commission for Al-'Ula.[4]

Let's find out when this really was ...

Creation vs. Evolution : New Tables
https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2020/08/new-tables.html

Creation vs. Evolution : LXX without II Cainan
https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2019/12/lxx-without-ii-cainan.html

2220 BC

68.0023 pmC, so dated as 5420 BC

Peleg

died 2217 BC

2198 BC

69.2256 pmC, so dated as 5248 BC

Eber

died 2186 BC

2175 BC

69.4483 pmC, so dated as 5175 BC

Nahor

born 2164 BC

2153 BC

70.6677 pmC, so dated as 5003 BC

Reu & Serug

alive all this time.

So, between the real dates 2220 and 2153 BC, in the lifetimes of Reu and Serug, in the partial lifetimes of Peleg, Eber, Nahor (the one who was grandfather to Abraham).

Let's recall : idolatry was invented in the time of Serug.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
Pope St. Hyginus
11.I.2022

670 Actual Years = 32 000 or 4000 Carbon Years? Both.

My C14 Calibration, Has it Any Stability? · 670 Actual Years = 32 000 or 4000 Carbon Years? Both.

I went over the article:

Φιλολoγικά/Philologica : Le premier or, chronologie des pages 42-43 récalibré
https://filolohika.blogspot.com/2017/02/le-premier-or-chronologie-des-pages-42.html

and came up with:

Φιλολoγικά/Philologica : Le premier or revisité
https://filolohika.blogspot.com/2022/01/le-premier-or-revisite.html

The time span between 2957 BC (Flood) and 1610 BC (c. 20 years before death of Sesostris III, whom I assume to be the childkilling pharao, and before birth of Moses) can be divided into nearly equal halves around 2287 BC. 670 from Flood to that year, 677 from that year to twenty years before the birth of Moses.

The former goes from "40 000 BP" to "6000 BC" and the latter from "6000 BC" to "2000 BC". "38 000 BC" - "6000 BC" = "32 000" carbon years, and "6000 BC" - "2000 BC" = "4000" carbon years.

38	000		6000		2	000
-	2957		2287		1	610
=3	5043		3713			390

But how does this work? Am I presuming the halflife was faster before, and speed of light too? No.

I am simply assuming the original carbon 14 content of samples was 1.279 pmC in 2957, 63.387 pmC in 2287 and 95.201 pmC in 1610 BC. 670 years going from 1.279 to 63.387 pmC, a net rise of 62.108 pmC points, and 677 years to go from 63.387 to 95.201 pmC, a net rise of 31.814 pmC points.

But the 62.108 points give so many more years than the 31.814 points, not just double?

Yes, once one is up in 63.387 pmC, you cannot rise to twice that, in the rise to 100 pmC. It only gives 3713 extra years, less than a halflife.

But from 1.279 to 63.387 pmC, you do more than just one doubling - meaning the original must add more than just one halflife more than those 3713 extra years.

1.279 (1) 2.558 (2) 5.116 (3) 10.232 (4) 20.464 (5) 40.928
5 * 5730 = 28 650 - not very far from 32 000. 28 650 + 3713 = 32 363.

Meanwhile, the additions of carbon 14 into the atmosphere are faster the first half than the second half. Of the first half, I consider them faster the first 401 years than later. C. 10 to 11 times as fast. Adding carbon 14 takes cosmic rays adding radioactivity, and some gets to the lower atmosphere or ground instead of forming C14 in the very high atmosphere. This time coincides with the ice age, because lower atmosphere ionising particles cause colder climate (not saying this was the only cause) and it also coincides with human lifespans degrading. Radioactivity going down to ground hurts genomes.

Now look at this:

Over-ill rejected

Most secular scientists have rejected over-ill as implausible because there is little, if any evidence, to support it. Multiple random diseases, which are in any case most often species-specific, would have affected only local to regional populations at best. This wouldn’t explain the hemisphere-wide extinctions of some animal groups.6 Some sort of global hyper-disease affecting many different species has been proposed. However, it is difficult to imagine any disease selectively killing off large animals while sparing both man and smaller animals. The only possible modern global-disease analogue, the West Nile Virus, could not selectively target the large animals and generally provides no support for over-ill.

Over-kill, over-chill, or over-ill?
Why a mass extinction at the end of the Ice Age?
by Mike Oard | This article is from
Creation 43(1):40–43, January 2021
https://creation.com/kill-chill-ill

Would seem one of the assets with being small is, you can creep under rocks and hide from radioation a bit better. And thickskinned animals survived best. Thick skin also protects the genome.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
Epiphany
6.I.20212022

My C14 Calibration, Has it Any Stability?

My C14 Calibration, Has it Any Stability? · 670 Actual Years = 32 000 or 4000 Carbon Years? Both.

The other day, I looked at a some years old essay on gold from Bulgaria.

Φιλολoγικά/Philologica : Le premier or, chronologie des pages 42-43 récalibré
https://filolohika.blogspot.com/2017/02/le-premier-or-chronologie-des-pages-42.html

And I took the dates as calibrated by me then, and I made a new calibration as per my New Tables.

I'll not give the results, I did that on a quora answer which will come to a blog of mine; I'll just say the tables have changed because ...

1) New blog on the kid : Avec un peu d'aide de Fibonacci ... j'ai une table, presque correcte
http://nov9blogg9.blogspot.com/2015/10/avec-un-peu-daide-de-fibonacci-jai-une.html
[aussi sur http://ppt.li/377 comme lien abrégé de celui en haut] *

2) New blog on the kid : Raffiner et finir ma table de Fibonacci?
http://nov9blogg9.blogspot.com/2017/02/raffiner-et-finir-ma-table-de-fibonacci.html

Et la nouvelle table selon:

New blog on the kid : Table modifiée, analysée par convergence avec l'a priori
http://nov9blogg9.blogspot.com/2017/02/table-modifiee-analysee-par-convergence.html

And it referred to this post:

Creation vs. Evolution : If Göbekli Tepe is Tower of Babel ...
http://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2017/02/if-gobekli-tepe-is-tower-of-babel.html

... in which I posed the question : Is 2733 BC a good Biblical date for Tower of Babel?

In other words, the dates that are aberrant by a few centuries in my old calibrations are so because I hadn't got a firm Biblical date for Babel, though I was already considering Göbekli Tepe as the good corresponding reality of archaeology.

Since then, I have taken and still take the stance that Babel was between Noah's death 350 after the Flood and Peleg's birth in 401 after the Flood.** This has changed the tables, I am not changing it back./HGL

PS, as to principles too, I had to update a comment section under a Kent Hovind video, and that with a dialogue from 29.IV.2022 - here are the two posts, first one being updated : ... updating Hovind on C14 · ... updating Kent Hovind on C14, part 2/HGL

* An URL burner no longer linking to any of my shortened URL's, alas ... ** In other words 2607 and 2556 BC.

Bonum Festum Circumcisionis Domini

Christifidelibus et aliquibus aliis exopto./HGL

Circumcisio Domini nostri Jesu Christi, et Octava Nativitatis ejusdem.