Did Noah suffer like Winston - undefeated?

1) Those REAL Old Jamborees ... , 2) Did Noah suffer like Winston - undefeated?, 3) Medieval Italian Neanderthal?

[11] And the earth was corrupted before God, and was filled with iniquity. [12] And when God had seen that the earth was corrupted (for all flesh had corrupted its way upon the earth,) [13] He said to Noe: The end of all flesh is come before me, the earth is filled with iniquity through them, and I will destroy them with the earth.

Genesis, chapter 6, from Douay-Rheims Bible Online.

'It is impossible to found a civilisation on fear and hatred and cruelty. It would never endure.'
'Why not?'
'It would have no vitality. It would disintegrate. It would commit suicide.'
'Nonsense. You are under the impression that hatred is more exhausting than love. Why should it be? And if it were, what difference would that make? Suppose that we chose to wear ourselves out faster. Suppose that we chose to quicken the tempo of human life till men are senile at thirty. Still what difference would it make? Can you not understand that the death of the individual is not death? The Party is immortal. ... We control life, Winston, at all its levels. You are imagining that there is something called human nature which will be outraged by what we do and will turn against us. But we create human nature. Men are infinitely malleable. ...'

Nineteen Eighty-Four, pp. 281 f. with omissions marked ...

George Orwell is describing a terrorising intimidator called O'Brien describing to his victim Winston the kind of totalitarian rule he proposes to make his victim accept by total fear and total surrender.

People have faced such things in Roumania, I fear in Dachau too. And a young boy called Josef Wajsblat was in a gaz chamber, but saved in the last moment by irrational anger from none other than Doctor Mengele - a fine "room 101", if you like.

The ideology of O'Brien comes out as something which is very close to what may have been what happened before the flood. "All flesh had corrupted its way" - teen girls too? Babies too? Does it say they were evil and mean in their hearts? No, it says their flesh was corrupted.

Modern education and societies in practise force girls to:

• wait marrying till 18 (legal) or, further up you get in society more like 30 it gets (social pressure),
  
• attend schools with coeducation (legal many countries) till age 16 (legal) and where flirting is considered ok years before any kind of marriage (social pressure),
  
• where not only malthusian perversions and artificial means of achieving same result, but also abortion is taught as solutions respectively all right and in worst case possible (legal induction of social pressure)
  
• and there is an acceptation of hypnosis (social pressure)
  
• and a frowning on daily prayer and weekly fasting (social pressure, in some countries legal powers of persecution)
  
• - and after that you hope they stay chaste till marriage?

The ideology of O'Brien involves society evolving into a hive. I have already written about that in Beware of Meta Man. No, the title was even braver than I remembered: Resist Meta Man.

http://hglundahl.blogspot.com/2006/08/resist-meta-man-evolutionary.html

It is exactly what Chesterton feared Evolution leads to. There are even Catholic versions of it, like the Piltdown probable forger Teilhard de Chardin, a Jesuit Father of a sort. He dreamed of a noosphere. I have seen tendencies of moral evolutionism even in St Nicolas du Chardonnet, and also in Orthodox Church. A willingness to make a newcomer suffer and surrender. A willingness even to paint God in colours that remind me of O'Brien.

It is not God who forces pregnant thirteen year olds to either abort or adopt but never even dream of simply starting a family. It is Newthink.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Georges Pompidou library of
Paris
16 - VI - 2011

PS, George Orwell made some funny allusions: O'Brien reminds me of Brian Borumha, the royal "Winston" who, like King Alfred did resist Vikings (you are more tired of victory than we are of defeat), the year 1984 is set as in Napoleon of Notting Hill where human nature does turn against totalitarianism, there is a Syme as in The Man Who was Thursday ... but here he is just a man concerned with dictionary writing (God made Tolkien a revenge for that slur on dictionary writers: a man who may yet prove more of a Gabriel Syme than a Dr Johnson drinking the usurper's health), and of course, in the pages quoted and their surroundings, Geocentric and Young Earth scenarios are set off as illogically as "2+2=5" because atheistically: in such a case it really is a kind of collective solipsism as O'Brien himself puts it. Geocentrism without Primum Movens to move outermost sphere and angels for the planets, Young Earth without Creation are obviously illogical. Kind of the funniest allusion, or most tragic, because it means the writer saw the judges of Galileo as O'Briens rather than as the courteous and logical St Robert Bellarmine in first process, the pious Urban VIII in the second./HGL

PPS, As a Geocentric I take offense at any comparison with O'Brien. I have given a method where distance or closeness of stars (which has nothing to do with navigation, practically) could be determined by watching parallax from Mars:

http://hglsfbwritings.blogspot.com/2011/04/cagasuamfobdis.html

Those who refuse that experiment are - heliocentrics, partly./HGL

Another possibility

A typical karyogram of a mammal is 2n=48.

A deviant form of karyogram will cause spontaneous abortion. At least I have verified this for humans. Trisomy can occur in chromosome pair 21, giving Downs syndrom, but trisomy in a really big chromosome like pair 1 or 3 gives spontaneous abortion. Except when it does not occur in every cell of foetus.

So what about higher karyograms, like 70 - 80 chromosomes or so, developing before this immunity reaction against deviant karyograms developed, and then after that the development of the immunity reaction?

Well, in that case the development of the immunity reaction would have happened independently in all different strands of mammals with higher, lower or same chromosome numbers. In that case, evolution might remain possible, but as with the missing link, less evidenced. Or, not evidenced at all.

This argument boils down to evolution being possible to have happened if it becomes impossible to prove: for one classic argument in favour of evolution is precisely that if two beings share the same trait, it must have developed at the latest in last common ancestor.

Here we have a deadlock for evolutionists. If immunity against deviant karyograms developed first, no chromosome numbers above that of 48 are possible. Which we know to be untrue about mammals. If karyograms above 48 developed first, and evolution somehow happened, that immunity came to develop after separation of different species, i e independently.

And if the same trait can develop without presence in last common ancestor, then community of traits is so very clearly not a proof for any common ancestor. And even if evolution were true, it would not be philosophically proven.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Boulogne-Billancourt
15 - VI - 2011

"Back when Genesis was written people could not understand concepts like millions of years" ...

Factoid.

A Christian believing Biblical story and Chronology and an Evolutionist whether Christian or not will have diverse opinions about what was too complex for people enumerated in genealogies before Noah or even whether they existed or not.

But not even evolutionists need suppose that Genesis comes from an age when man had no mental capacity for understanding a concept like "millions of years". Biblical Hebrew and its Greek translation does have expressions meaning millions. Like in Daniel ch. 7 verse 10:

A swift stream of fire issued forth from before him: thousands of thousands ministered to him, and ten thousand times a hundred thousand stood before him: the judgment sat, and the books were opened.

Thousands of thousands = millions.
Ten thousand times a hundred thousand = 1000.000.000

Vedas and Mahabharata and Upanishads are pretty old literature too. Unlike Hebrew literature not in having the concept but in applying it to years. I am not sure which one of them - maybe more than just one - states this thing about Himalayas very slowly wearing down until the world is destroyed and recreated, but that too is very clearly pre-modern writing and shows pre-modern civilisations contained men capable of grasping the concept in question.

Silmarillion, though never meant to be factually believed, also states age of earth as very old, far far older than Genesis says. And the statements have nothing like modern scientist or rationalist sound, but clearly expresses the concept in a clearly pre-modern way. Which is enough of an answer to a statement like in the title.

In a Christian Evolutionist the statement is only erroneous. He may believe Genesis simplifies the view point of the Omniscient God to adapt to people who could not grasp a concept like "millions". This is not good theology, as it makes God a kind of wellmeaning liar. But at least it is comprehensible how they reason.

An Evolutionist who was an Atheist could not say such a thing. He would have to argue Hebrews shortened genealogies before they began writing or took them up again after a long break and then their mistake was sacralised by coming to be included in a sacred book. A position which is of course not at all acceptable to a Christian.

Since in last two essays I have stated I know about but do not believe Silmarillion, I do foresee one standard question from some atheist readers. How do I know the Gospels, let alone Genesis is not fiction like Silmarillion and Lord of the Rings? The short answer is: peoples (Hebrews and Christians) have accepted them as their earliest records. None has made such a mistake about Silmarillion. A more detailed answer is not given on this blog, since it is dedicated to the special debate between Genesis and Darwin believers, with author on the Genesis side, but on another of my blogs:

somewhere else

Enjoy the reading!

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Versailles
19-V-2011

Another funny thing about mammal evolution as supposed ...

I am just watching a diagram in a book about language origin:

Aux Origines des langues
et du langage
Sous la direction de
Jean-Marie Hombert

On p. 52 we are dealing with an essay by Philippe Vernier, and he gives a phylogenetic tree of vertabrates. In fact two, the right one being a detailed tree of mammals, I transmit only the lest tree in a table, and I translate names as best I can (with a little help from wiki).

MYBP+/-*	(origin)**	first group	second group
*placed as if date of split, actually date of appearance of origin, **abbreviated if identic to second group of previous split
540	craniata	vertebrates with/	vertebrates without jaws
?	vertebrates without jaws	hagfish	lampreys
470	vertebrates with jaws	cartilaginous fishes	bone verterates
410	b. vert.	ray-finned fishes	tetrapodes
370	tetr.	amphibians	amniotes
340	amn.	mammalia	sauropsides
320	saur.	turtles	diapsides
300	diaps.	serpents, lizards	birds, crocodiles

Two funny things about this. One is: nearly every time, except for hagfish and lampreys and also except for serpent/lizard vs. bird/crocodile groups, where both emerging groups are identifiable specific types of genera, and except for first split were neither is, one is pretty particular, the other very general.

What I learned was that there were never any tetrapodes that were neither amphibians nor amniotes, but amphibians were simply the first amniotes. Never any bone vertebrates that were neither rayfinned fishes nor tetrapodes, but tetrapodes developed from rayfinned fishes. Never any amniotes that were neither ... wait a minute!

Here is the second funny thing: amniotes lead to either mammals or sauropsides. Ouch! Mammalians branching off as early as 340 million years before present! I had learned the mammals began their carreer after the demise of dinosaurs.

OK, some fossiles and datings in the eighties.

The branch-offs from amniotes which supposedly developed from amphibians are then, according to evolutionists, Anapsides, Synapsides, Diapsides, according to skull anatomy. Anapsides are supposed to have left us one branch, turtles, Synapsides also one branch, mammals, and Diapsides birds and non-turtle reptiles. Figures.

Early mammals sorry synapsides are supposed to include Dimetrodon, which counts as a Dinosaur. Sorry: Pelycosaur. Apart from Pelycosaurs there were other pre-mammalian synapsides, like therapsides, later developing into mammals. All according to recent "science".

Oh, and Reptiles is no longer a phylum. Synapsides, Anapsides and Diapsides are phyla, of which all Anapsides along with extinct Synapsides (non-extinct being non-reptilian mammals) and some but not all Diapsides count as "reptiles" which thus is a paraphylum.

Impressed?

In a way yes. Just as I am impressed by Tolkien's Silmarillion. Æsthetically and intellectually for the thought put into either of them.

Convinced?

No. Not by evolution, nor by Silmarillion. I did get curious about some ideas expressed in Silmarillion, found the spiritual as opposed to merely physical moving factors of sun and moon expressed in clear, Christian erudite non-fiction, totally predating Tolkien. And am thus a Geocentric. But I am not an evolutionist. As little as I am a silmarillionist.

There is of course ideas which I find true even in evolutionary thought: like the very probable fact that Dimetrodon existed and was according to scull anatomy a synapside. This does not prove it was ancestor of extant mammals. And since all non-soft parts are long since away, I cannot even be sure it was not a mammal, though some traits (leg anatomy) have been found or reconstructed as "reptilian". What we do not know either is when it lived. Dating methods are intellectually a hotch-potch of assumptions without proof. Make similar assumptions about diverse methods and they will tend to confirm each other, especially if you calibrate them (i e readjust datings) on each other, which I know is done between dendrochronology and Carbon 14.

English readers have easy access to Creationist sites criticising dating methods, for French readers there is at least my summary - making Carbon 14 an epitome of dating methods, well aware it is not the only one - in my essay here:

Atapuerca: 80.000 (ou encore 800.000) ans de vieux?

But, believing details found in Silmarillion because I find them confirmed by earlier Christian erudition and simple good sense does not make me a silmarillionist believer and believing details like existence of Dimetrodon does not make me a Darwinist.

My best criticism of Darwinism is not about its lack of proof, but about proof to the contrary. It is in effect as soon as there are mammals reproducing with amniotic sack joined to body of mother rather than in a shell and thus subject to immunity system of its mother. It has to do with chromosome numbers, centromeres, telomeres, geometry. In that order. All of which are real scientific data, verifiable every day in laboratories and microscopes. My essays about it are here:

Karyogrammata
I had a dream one night.
Citing, again, Ian Johnston.

So, enjoy the reading folks!

I suppose the reason French are so often attached to Evolution in general is not that they understand and believe heredity as known by Mendel and Chromosomes, but that they are very often Lamarckian while confessing to be Darwinist.

Meanwhile, making Silmarillion and Evolution parallels in this essay (which is not strictly science all way through, but a review on science) has a point: Tolkien did mean Silmarillion as a theory, though not a very realistic one, about background and beginnings of human history with explanation specifically of European mythology (Túrin story compares to Finnish Kullervo story and less in detail but more in seriousness to Greek Oedipous story) and some European but not Indoeuropean vocabulary (Quenya "ranka"="hand and arm", cf Lithuanian and Russian, Sindarin "alf"="swan", cf Icelandic "álft"). And he did modify it as new data or new light on old data came to hand. Precisely as scientists did modify the theory of how mammals evolved between back in my childhood when I learned about evolution and present when I read up on it again. That plus a wealth of detail, is not sufficient to prove either theory true or factual.

Oh, to get back to starting point: even if Silmarillion as a theory is not meant to be perfectly realistic, Tolkien did it for fun and aesthetic pleasure, when it comes to explaining why humans have speech, it clearly is less absurd than evolution. So, of course, is Genesis.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Versailles
19-V-2011

Iran heads last weeks readers here too:

Iran 13

Wonder why?

For other questions related to atheism - a new blog

somewhere else

To a man who called me "brother" today (and who reads this blog)

I leave to God whether we are brothers, both in the true Church or not.

When I was Roumanian Orthodox, I did not abjure Roman Catholicism, though I did not believe Papacy. When I went back to Roman Catholicism, I broke no oath. When Benedict XVI ended the supposed excommunication sentence of 1988, that gave me back some confidence Papacy or Tradition where the Popes are was not lost.

I say this to be neither before men, nor before God a liar, nor to be judged by your bishop, whoever he be, as such.

I still think, when we talk of bishops, that the Roumanian one fell short of truth in such a solemn moment as an Easter Pastoral back in 2008. Sin is sin. Temptation is temptation. Error is error. Madness is madness and idiocy is idiocy. Mixing the former three with the latter into a broad category like "sicknesses of the soul" which resembles too much the modern term "mental illness" did scandalise me then, and remains objectionable now.

But brothers or not, I bear you no grudge in your person. Being funny - unless at same time hurting me - and being charitable in a funny way does end grudges where I am concerned. Usually that is. Unless there is an arrière-pensée on your part.

St Thomas Aquinas, St Robert Bellarmine, pray for me, that I loose not my uprightness and Christian freedom to Orientals quicker to anger and error than to charity!

As for you, keep praying and fasting as well as you can, and if God gives you confidence in Papacy, so much the better.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Bibl. Georges Pompidou
11-III-2011

PS: "brother" I hope to be taken in a general Christian sense. I am opposed to free masons and all their lodges, from Grand Orient to P2, and - despite what seem to me to be rumours to the contrary - I am most certainly not a monk.