Wednesday, July 12, 2017

... on a Certain Attitude to Creationism, Mainly


I was listening to this video:

Ken Ham on the Age of the Earth
Evidence Press
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-dtVrtOEdB8


It kind of nearly reconciled me some bit with my recently passed away last granny being a school principal, even if she was not the class of Ken Ham's Father, obviously.

Then I noticed a dialogue where I burst in:

François D
Ken Ham should be incarcerated in psychiatric institute

Evidence Press
+François D That is the sort of thinking that killed 6 million Jews. Really, you want to incarcerate people that think differently than you? That's the kind of world you think is right and just?

François D
+Jim Bendewald The world will never be kind and just if we let these insanity propagate and seeing your page i know you are one of the dangerous bible freaks who spread lies based on a book written by men living in the dark age of humanity, torturing and burning people because they were thinking differently and you are saying «That is the sort of thinking that killed 6 million Jews». People should more afraid of you than the germans

Frups
+Evidence Press
If Hitler would have been incarcerated in the 1920s, then 6 million Jews might have survived.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Frups, Hitler was incarcerated in the 1920's. It was after the Bierhallenputsch, a Putsch which failed.

I had an encyclopedia from gramp, the main article on Hitler ends with him in prison and harmless. Only the appendix says what came on afterwards.

And François D:

"The world will never be kind and just if we let these insanity propagate"

That is exactly what Hitler and a few more considered about certain Jewish insanities (Lenin and Rosa Luxemburg, Trotski and Bela Kun, AND the Rotschilds).

You sound like you want a "final solution".

Evidence Press, I have some reservations on the "6 million dead" but even if there were only 1 to 2 millions put in boot camps and only 200 000 to 300 000 dead as byproducts of bad hygiene in those boot camps, that is bad enough.


I wonder what exactly Jim Bendewald had said and what happened to his comment?

... on Old Norse Poetry (ft. a Jackson Crawford video)


Any response, to any of the questions, would be welcome, but most of all the one marked "at last".

The Art of Viking Poetry: A How-To (Includes Kennings)
Jackson Crawford
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FsX70ZSJkOQ


earning in yearnest .. or reverse ... this would be related to original yod sound being lost (year = år), and new yod sound coming from vowel e (jord = earth, Erde)?

Similarily, can't one alliterate v- with any back vowel, since v was lost before back vowels while still pronounced w?

How close or far is OE poetry to FYL?

The five patterns given in On Translating Beowulf, do they still hold as analysis?

Because if so, a clear "cretic" would be possible in FYL but impossible in OE poetry?

I suppose for second halfline it is still clear : only first stressed syllable alliterates? (OE) And in FYL it is not so?

13:58 any vowel alliterates with any vowel ... a vowel initial word, how close is it to beginning with knacklaut?

Could one say from Hebrew perspective aleph alliterates with aleph?

Plus, yod alliterates with aleph ...

17:46 til and frá are usually unstressed and preposed to a noun - here they are postposed to a phrase and are contrasting.

Could we be dealing with :

HEI-lir HIL-dar TIL
HEI-lir HIL-dar FRÁ

rather than with

HEI-lir HIL-dar til
and
HEI-lir HIL-dar frá?

20:57 It is rather that English has lenthened in Middle English period stressed short syllables fara = faran > faren > fare, with a long fa.

Swedish did the same, Old Swedish "skip" is either "skepp" (lengthened p, at least graphically still so) or "skep" (lengthened e instead, not the version which gave rise to standard Swedish version).

22:21 Supposing the psalms had been translated to Old Icelandic metre (didn't happen, unlike OE translation of first 50 psalms, ordered by King Alfred) - would they not have been trying sth like Dróttkvætt?

32:42 As a Tolkien fan ... Gladden fields ... the flower in question is gladiolus, right? Latin for "little sword" ..

Or wait, was gladiolus the mistranslation by Ohlmarks?

36:27 ek em at ... = I am at ... like in Celtic syntax (thá mí aig óibre or what "I am working/I am at work" is in Scots Gaelic)?

39:32 Sure almsíma refers to bow rather than to skis? Both are associated with Ullr ...

43:09 Hummingbirds are warlike? Is that a reason behind a certain character in Aztek myth?

45:12 pain of pine trees = wind?

Well, there is a Swedish pop song echoing this to this day ...

Gunde Johansson Torparvisa
lunkentuss51
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y4CyvVvRBMo


at last

Once again, a certain challenge ... try something in the metre of Beowulf or of Heliand ... put either into the Proto-Norse etymological equivalents. Check out how that metre is, if it is mostly regular, even out the mistakes. THEN get that into Old Norse (kuningaz > konungr and so on), also irrespective of whether the words exist or not. Would the metre NOW involve mostly the kind of halflines you get in 1, 2, 4, 5 of Ljóðaháttr or halflines of FYL, and sometimes things like 3, 6 in Ljóðaháttr, somewhat irregularly, like in Galdralag?

If so, Havamál could be inherited with slight "retouches" according to how to regularise the 3/6 longer lines from a poem in Proto-Norse - a language Odin must have spoken if ever he communicated with Swedes in such time that his stepgrandson Fjolner could died in the reign of Caesar Augustus.

So, how about giving it a try, you who are the linguist in Germanic esp. Scandinavian and esp. Old Norse languages?

Pretty please!

Friday, July 7, 2017

... on Time Travel, Teleportation, Bilocation (quora)


Q
Is it possible someone in history had an "impossible experience," such as traveled universe, teleported, time traveled or visted another dimension?
https://www.quora.com/Is-it-possible-someone-in-history-had-an-impossible-experience-such-as-traveled-universe-teleported-time-traveled-or-visted-another-dimension/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl


Hans-Georg Lundahl
studied at Lund University
Answered 2m ago
To God nothing is impossible.

This means, some things which are impossible for us would be possible for God as to how He deals with us, including with His prophets.

This means that time travel in the sense of briefly visiting future or past is one option for how God revealed last times to St John on Patmos (see Apocalypse) or pre-human creation days to Moses on Sinai (see Genesis 1).

Moses and St John NOT visiting past and future are also possible, since God who is eternally present in all times and beyond can also accurately describe them.

So, if St John knew ASCII it could be because God took him from Patmos to a modern bureau with computers, or because God knowing of all eternity about modern bueaux of computers was able to convey them to St John on Patmos.

It is also possible God just told him of the gematria without telling him of the details, but it is also possible God gave him details which He told him not to disclose, as they would be apparent later.

In other words, from a Christian point of view, it is perfectly possible that Apocalypse 13:18 is talking of ASCII or that Apocalypse 9:3 or 9:7 is describing helicopters which were invented near two millennia after St John was on Patmos. Or that Apocalypse 17 is describing an ecologist light show on the walls of the Vatican a few years ago.

On the item “teleported”, how about even better, bilocated?

Padre Pio bilocated from Italy and heard a confession in Chicago (the dying Italian woman could not get a good priest or perhaps even a priest at all who knew Italian, and unlike her younger family members, she had not learned English).*

This is also possible in the case just because nothing is impossible for God.

I know, atheists will prefer to blame the TARDIS, but we haven’t seen one.


* He did not have the gift of tongues and could not have heard a confession in English!

More on Anthropology


... on Anthropology concurring with Noah's Flood (a refutation of AronRa) · More on Anthropology

Remember this video?

How Anthropology Disproves Noah's Flood
AronRa
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BitwnxiPH34


Well, I got some debate under one of my comments there! It will also involve commenting on another video.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
9:14 "none of these should exist"

Not the young Earth creationist view of them.

Lucy, Arti = apes. [I meant Ardi, sorry!]

Homo erectus (or most of, Peking man and Java man dubious), Heidelbergensis, Neanderthalensis, Denisovan and Sapiens Sapiens = human, descended from Adam.

But you might be coming to a defense of the implication, waiting ...

9:27 When exactly did we Creationists say that Homo erectus cannot exist?

Especially all of us?

Velo Ciraptor
You should check out another video he did regarding the classification of different human species with regards to evolutionary ancestry. It seems that the actual science does not imply such a hard and fast division as your comment implies:

(https://www.youtube .com/watch?v=IzuKlZf1qXU)

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Will see.

About 5:22 in it.

I have seen:

  • 1) generalities and an explanation, not specifics about how it applies between Australopithecus and Homo even according to evolutionists and no proof it does so apply;
  • 2) beginning an application on Homo Sapiens and Homo Neanderthalensis or Homo Sapiens Sapiens and Homo Sapiens Neanderthalensis, as others have claimed, when most YEC anyway, including me, at least those I know of, think that Neaderthals were anyway human, were anyway descending from Adam.


Speaking of Neanderthals, the last Neanderthals disappearing c. 40 000 BP or 39 000 BP fits Noah's Flood very well, if carbon content was low enough back in 2957 BC or 3358 BC when the Flood was (St Jerome's or George Syncellus' Biblical chronologies). No Neanderthal mitochondrial DNA and no Neanderthal chromosome Y DNA surviving would suggest that for instance the wife of Japheth had Neanderthal heritage on her father's side. Since she was a she, no transmitting of chromosome Y through her, since her Neanderthal parent was not her mother, no transmitting of mitochondrial DNA of Neaderthal type through her either.

About 9:28 into it, Leakey has written to say YECs are quote miners, and Homo florensis shows traits not found in Homo erectus, but in australopithecus.

The former is not to the subject.

The latter, well, those traits could be because Homo florensis is ... sorry, floresiensis! ... is exactly one individual who could have a bone disease.

Velo Ciraptor
+Hans-Georg Lundahl So I am not entirely sure what it is you are objecting too because you seem to just be throwing out bald ass assertions. In speaking of Young Earth Creationism you are simply wrong. The entire argument is that if God created human beings in their current form then we should not see any evolutionary lineage of non-human primates or hominids developing into homo sapiens. If you are willing to grant the concession that populations of organisms neither chimpanzee nor human diverged over "time" into what we see today as two distinct species of ape (with of course a large number of transitional species in between) then I can agree with you. But it is not clear that you actually understand the science that is being discussed.

For instance when you say "generalities and an explanation, not specifics about how it applies between Australopithecus and Homo" I cannot believe that you actually watched this video. Maybe you just could not wait to actually see what he has to say because at the 10:24 mark he clearly explains what he is talking about with regards to Australopithecus afarensis having hands, teeth, feet and brain capacity (not to mention many other traits) halfway between chimpanzee and human. Specifically just to look at brain capacity you can draw a strait line between the brain capacity of Australopithecus and that of modern humans.

(http://darwiniana.org/hominid.htm)

But putting aside the strange assertions you made about what would or would not be compatible with your interpretation of an impossible story you also seem to simply be not aware of the facts in science. When you say "Homo florensis is ... sorry, floresiensis! ... is exactly one individual who could have a bone disease" that is simply false. Full stop. Not only does the chart in the video that AronRa made show this to be false (it lists 8 individuals at the time) but we currently have found bones and teeth from 12 individuals including nearly complete skeletons. So all I can say is where are you getting your information, because it seems to be completely incorrect?

(http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/human-fossils/species/homo-floresiensis)

Hans-Georg Lundahl
"So I am not entirely sure what it is you are objecting too because you seem to just be throwing out bald ass assertions."

I don't know where you get that impression from.

Maybe because there were nine hobbits? Well, ok, first check I found one, then I found another saying nine.

Or because I said the non-human traits could be due to a bone disease? That is not an assertion, it is a suggestion.

"In speaking of Young Earth Creationism you are simply wrong."

I think someone was speaking about bold assertions?

"The entire argument is that if God created human beings in their current form then we should not see any evolutionary lineage of non-human primates or hominids developing into homo sapiens."

  • 1) But we do not see an evolutionary lineage developing into Homo sapiens! That mirage is due to mistaken datings. Carbon dates can be squeezed, but K-Ar dates should be just discarded. In layers which seem to be from before the Flood, we do see both Neaderthals and Cro-Magnon carbon dated to c. 40 000 BP. We cannot by carbon dates say which is earlier. If we presume the lineage of Noah was pure, Adam was probably closer to Cro-Magnon than to Neanderthal, but Neanderthals can't have been too badly tainted by Nephelim either.
  • 2) What is true is that you say we should not see an evolutionary lineage, and discarding the K-Ar dates, we don't. What remains untrue is what AronRa said that the skeleta found should not have been found. You are attributing to AronRa a clarity of thought and expression which is your own, not his.


"If you are willing to grant the concession that populations of organisms neither chimpanzee nor human diverged over "time" into what we see today as two distinct species of ape (with of course a large number of transitional species in between) then I can agree with you."

I disagree.

I understand what diverging groups mean, but I disagree on man and chimp being two such from common ancestor.

"But it is not clear that you actually understand the science that is being discussed."

Meaning I disagree with your pseudo-science, of course.

"For instance when you say "generalities and an explanation, not specifics about how it applies between Australopithecus and Homo" I cannot believe that you actually watched this video. Maybe you just could not wait to actually see what he has to say because at the 10:24 mark ..."

I actually marked my comment with 5:22 for a reason. On that video, I commented about his allegation. For instance, if we had Australipetheci afarenses with feet, why is "their" bipedalism being investigated by Laetoli footprints, which analyse as from larger individuals than Lucy and which don't tie to any skeleta? On my view, the Laetoli footprints could be from flood and from a man not remotely like an A. afarensis. And obviously the main argument against this being a dating of them to "before H. sapiens", this dating is however K-Ar, i e fairly bogus.

"he clearly explains what he is talking about with regards to Australopithecus afarensis having hands, teeth, feet and brain capacity (not to mention many other traits) halfway between chimpanzee and human. Specifically just to look at brain capacity you can draw a strait line between the brain capacity of Australopithecus and that of modern humans."

Brain capacity is hardly an argument for evolution by itself, and the "straight line" is only such one if you accept the dates.

"But putting aside the strange assertions you made about what would or would not be compatible with your interpretation of an impossible story you also seem to simply be not aware of the facts in science. When you say "Homo florensis is ... sorry, floresiensis! ... is exactly one individual who could have a bone disease" that is simply false. Full stop. Not only does the chart in the video that AronRa made show this to be false (it lists 8 individuals at the time) but we currently have found bones and teeth from 12 individuals including nearly complete skeletons. So all I can say is where are you getting your information, because it seems to be completely incorrect?"

I took first link I found when answering, since answering in haste.

I then corrected it in a comment under that video, though I had not yet found 12 individuals, just 9.

Will look up links, though.

Looking at first link, I verified for A. africanus and afarensis.

I found Laetoli footprints, as expected.

I also found for "early afarensis" a postcranial skeleton of a child. That would imply, with feet. However, post-cranial would also imply there was no Lucy-like skull. You would supply that due to "millions of years" before any H. sapientes or even Neanderathelenses, erecti or antecessores. As per K-Ar dating. As I reject that dating, I find this argument spurious and consider the Laetoli child could have been a human child, pre-Flood, perhaps decapitated in a cannibalistic rite ("all flesh had corrputed its way over earth", Genesis 6:12).

In africanus, the bipedalism was only "proven" by bones other than feet. I wonder how many of them have clearly Australopithecus skulls attached.

Here are the sublinks I looked at, take a look if I overlooked anything:

http://archaeologyinfo.com/australopithecus-afarensis/

http://archaeologyinfo.com/australopithecus-africanus/

Your second link actually only links to one fossil of H. floresiensis, and this may be responsible for some other sites being run by someone on impression we only have one.

And now
over to the other video:

Clarifying the various Human Species
AronRa
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IzuKlZf1qXU


1:23
Raquel Welch ... One Million B.C., right?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_Million_Years_B.C.

Forgot the word "Years" in the newer title.

9:00
Leakey : "There are some things best ignored and the stupidity of these so called religious fanatics continues to astonish me."

Could this have given Leakey a motive to suppress the PBS documentary?

Leakey: "My list of publications is attached."

I suppose it did not include that documentary?

[Leakey cited as per typed letter in picture 2 below, confer the citation in picture 1, which AronRa set out to verify with him:]



9:40
You claim that A. Afarensis has been found 100's of individuals of ...

Here is a French site which seems to ignore that:

http://www.hominides.com/html/ancetres/ancetres_australo.php

And it's not creationist.

You also claim some of them have feet.

Well, news for you, perhaps, but "David Raichlen (Université de l'Arizona, département d'anthropologie)" based his study of A. Afarensis bipedalism on Laetoli footprints :

http://www.hominides.com/html/actualites/bipedie-comparaison-traces-laetoli-0290.php

On which a creationist would disagree with dating of, obviously, and say they are from the Flood. As I do here:

http://creavsevolu.blogspot.fr/2016/12/human-ancestor-or-human-during-flood.html

If you know of one or more definite skeleta attributed to A. Afarensis and found with all or sufficient footbones, how about sharing a link, instead of just saying so, no offense!

Updates
Continuing the dialogue with Velo Ciraptor.

Velo Ciraptor
+Hans-Georg Lundahl So first I want to thank you for this conversation. All to often these exchanges devolve into "You're an Asshole! No, you're an Asshole..." so it is pleasant to have a respectful back and forth. I am also pleased that you are not above correcting yourself (nor should anyone be) and I hope that I can help present information that may change your perspective. Either way I am enjoying this conversation so let us continue.

To begin I would say that you may want to spend a little more time researching information before you form a conclusion. It is my perception from our conversation so far that you have been very ill informed on these subjects. I would guess that this may be the result from your relying upon the writings of creationist apologetics or creationist websites. As an actual scientist (I have a lab coat and everything, lol) who spent seven years studying biology in college including three studying evolution at the graduate level I can say that such sources of information are uniformly terrible. Many such people actively lie to others and they do not seem to care how many times such lies are refuted. This leads to honest people being exposed to information that they believe to be accurate and therefor making them unintentional liars (because repeating a lie is still lying).

Now I am not trying to suggest that you are being intentionally dishonest but your reply was a little confusing because it seems that you stopped midway and checked the citations that I provided. So just to clear things up real quick when you previously said "Homo florensis is ... sorry, floresiensis! ... is exactly one individual who could have a bone disease" you seem to understand that this is false. Simply to be factual we have found the remains of 12 individuals but now you are hedging by saying in your last replies:

"Your second link actually only links to one fossil of H. floresiensis, and this may be responsible for some other sites being run by someone on impression we only have one."

Again, I do not care that "other sites being run by someone" may have misunderstood the science. You are the one making definitive claims based upon "other sites being run by someone" so maybe you should take more care in coming to a conclusion. But I deny your implication because you added the qualifier "who could have a bone disease". Why did you think that? Why did you think that it was a possibility? The truth is that some creationist apologist told you that and you repeated it without understanding the actual evidence available. Simply put it could not be that any individual "who could have a bone disease" is the result of our classification of H. floresiensis because that would mean 12 individuals had the same presentation of the same bone disease. But you might say How can I claim such a thing? Well, the truth is that particular argument was first presented against Homo neanderthalensis where some creationist apologists still claim that Neanderthal is just one old human with arthritis (despite the fact that we have found over 300 Neanderthal individuals including 3 year old children).

So you made a mistake with H. floresiensis and you admitted as much so I must say first "thank you" and that I respect you for admitting that you were misled. But your errors do not seem to be limited to H. floresiensis because you are making other claims about our hominid ancestors including:

"if we had Australipetheci afarenses with feet, why is "their" bipedalism being investigated by Laetoli footprints"
and
"In africanus, the bipedalism was only "proven" by bones other than feet"

Now to quickly answer the question about the "Laetoli footprints" Australopithecus afarensis fossils were found in the same sediment layer (no dating needed) so it is an inference that they made the footprints and more importantly there is a difference between looking at bones and seeing actual footprints. Data is always useful so I do not really understand why you would object to a conclusion merely because it is indirect or circumstantial evidence. That would be like saying "Yeah, the accused criminals fingerprints were on the murder weapon, but no one saw the murder happen so why are you bringing it up at trial"?

Secondly why do you think that bipedalism need only be investigated using foot bones? Do you think that the only bones affected by walking upright? For instance why would not the leg, knee, or pelvis bones not also be useful in determining bipedalism? But merely again to factually correct you we do in fact have foot bones from both Australopithecus africanus and Australopithecus afarensis. The famous Lucy skeleton did have two toe bones but other skeletons of Australopithecus have been found including nearly complete skeletons from both lineages. So not only is your argument not correct with regards to how we determine bipedalism but it is factually incorrect as well. It seems you may want to do a little more research on this...

(http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/human-fossils/species/australopithecus-africanus)
(http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/human-fossils/species/australopithecus-afarensis)

+Hans-Georg Lundahl Second reply to address your actual comment.

I think it is clear that we have a fundamental disagreement about the efficacy of radiometric dating and more importantly the concept of Deep Time in geology. I want to address this and another point you raised but I do not want to seem insincere. For the first part of my reply I am going to simply cede the issue for the purpose of addressing a comment you made. I do not want you to think that I am talking out of both sides of my mouth because there will be a clear switch in the scope of my discussion. So just to be clear in my argumentation:

  • 1) You said in your comment "But we do not see an evolutionary lineage developing into Homo sapiens!" and I really do not understand how you can say such a thing. It seems that you are deeply ignorant of science or relying upon some very bad sources of information. Part of my questioning in this conversation has been to ask where you are getting this false information. We already established that you were under dome false pretenses regarding the number of certain hominid fossil specimens. I am not trying to suggest that you can't have an opinion without being a PhD anthropologist (my educational background is in Evolutionary Ecology) but it seems that you are making claims contrary to the facts of science.

    So as I mentioned in my prologue (lol) let's just throw out the radiometric dating for this part of the discussion. Let's take a box of old bones, shake them up and say we do not know from what time they came. You still would not have an argument. We still would have an array of fossils from organisms with different sets of characteristics. We would see obvious human specimens and those that were nearly humans of today (like archaic homo sapiens) but then we would have other apes that we could not call humans. We would have an array of organisms that as I mentioned before could be laid out on a table by eyesight along to match what we propose as an evolutionary lineage.

    As i mentioned from brain capacity alone we can draw a strait line from the supposedly more ancient hominids to humans. And when you say "Brain capacity is hardly an argument for evolution by itself..." that makes no sense because I did not offer only brain capacity. I specifically said:

    "...at the 10:24 mark he clearly explains what he is talking about with regards to Australopithecus afarensis having hands, teeth, feet and brain capacity (not to mention many other traits) halfway between chimpanzee and human."

    So when you say that this is tied to dating you are again simply wrong. All we need is to examine extant chimpanzees and extant humans and compare them to Australopithecus afarensis and see an intermediate in all those listed characteristics. All this is without any date or time assumed or asserted. We would still have more than enough evidence to confirm human evolutionary lineage from the simple existence of the fossils alone. But then we can add to that bio-geography. When you say "we do see both Neaderthals and Cro-Magnon carbon dated to c. 40 000 BP" why is that a problem? Not only did we humans live at the same time as Neanderthals but many of the hominid species lived together. We can actually find fossils of different hominid species in the same layers of rocks (compared by chemical tests alone, no time asserted).

    In fact we can see a branching development from simply the fossil finds and the key problem with your proposed solution is that there are no humans anywhere. You seem to be asserted without saying it that humans are just in hiding. We can find H. neanderthalensis and H. erectus together in the same geological layers. We can find Au. afarensis and Ar. ramidus in the same geological time frame again from only the chemical layering. But oddly enough we never find Neanderthals with Ar. ramidus or Homo sapiens anywhere besides where we would expect to find them in the geological column with regards to an evolutionary lineage. So are they just missing? Is there just an impossibly precise set of conditions that preserved all there hominids (many of whom were nearly human in their traits) but somehow magically failed to preserve any human remains at all? I mean 100% no evidence at all?

    And then to this we add the genetic evidence that clearly and without any doubt confirms what the fossil evidence, comparative anatomy, and bio-geography indicates. From multiple independent lines of evidence all without even going near radiometric dating we have overwhelming evidence that human beings, chimpanzees, and all other hominid species share an evolutionary lineage. So where exactly is the point where any of this becomes as you suggested "pseudo-science"?

  • 2) On this point I want to address the issue you have with dating and probably the concept of deep time. Again and again you simply throw in a reference to the "flood" or the adam and eve mythology. I do not understand why you think any of these concepts are even remotely possible with regards to the scientific evidence we have today. Why are you so quick to throw out all different methods of radiometric dating? You dismiss K-Ar dating but you do not say why it should be thrown out? What about the myriad other methods of radiometric dating that independently confirm the timescales that science purposes?

    (http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD010.html)

    More importantly I want to take this back to a question I have raised a few times and so far I do not think you have answered. Why do you think these things about scientific understandings of nature? What has led you to reject what over 99% of all geologists accept about the earth and over 99% of physicists accept about the fundamental nature of radioactive isotopes? Perhaps more to the point is this question (and please also address the second part):

    What do you think is the age of the earth and how did you arrive at this answer?


Hans-Georg Lundahl
Starting :

"It is my perception from our conversation so far that you have been very ill informed on these subjects. I would guess that this may be the result from your relying upon the writings of creationist apologetics or creationist websites."

I was actually reading a book on anthropology ahead of my age before going creationist at ten, and try to keep up with new fossils and skeleta.

"As an actual scientist (I have a lab coat and everything, lol) who spent seven years studying biology in college including three studying evolution at the graduate level I can say that such sources of information are uniformly terrible."

As an avid reader of them, I can tell you some of your seven years of biology were misspent in your listening to your professor's resumé of some creationist argument or other and his irony and not looking into if your professor might be the misinformed one.

"Many such people actively lie to others and they do not seem to care how many times such lies are refuted."

When it comes to carbon dating, I think quite a lot on your side are lying too.

In 2015, on campus ground at Nanterre University after library closed, I had a conversation in which it was claimed the rise in carbon 14 levels needed to explain the carbon datings as resulting from real dates within a Biblical chronology would be a nuclear disaster blowing off vertebrate life off earth.

I did tables about the rise, and concluded on my best table that if C14 production mainly results from cosmic and not background radiation, if cosmic radiation is now 0.34 or sth annual milliSieverts, even a twenty times higher cosmic radiation, (more than I'd need for my latest tables, which leave more room for the rise between Flood and Babel), would still not be as great a radiation as the highest total backgroud radiations now registered on earth. Check out total background at Princeton!

I did 10 essays on a blog involving these tables, I even did print outs to make self printed books of them, and up to now I am just being ignored.

So, lying and repeating a lie after being refuted is certainly done on your side too.

"Simply to be factual we have found the remains of 12 individuals but now you are hedging by saying in your last replies:"

It was not hedging in, simply explaining that the mistake about one individual was from earlier than myself in the line of information.

"But I deny your implication because you added the qualifier "who could have a bone disease". Why did you think that? Why did you think that it was a possibility? The truth is that some creationist apologist told you that and you repeated it without understanding the actual evidence available. Simply put it could not be that any individual "who could have a bone disease" is the result of our classification of H. floresiensis because that would mean 12 individuals had the same presentation of the same bone disease."

Indeed, bone disease is one explanation I found on creation.com when looking Flores Hobbit up there.

If hereditary, even 12 individuals, i e a population starting with it, leading to those 12 and more besides, is possible.

"Well, the truth is that particular argument was first presented against Homo neanderthalensis where some creationist apologists still claim that Neanderthal is just one old human with arthritis (despite the fact that we have found over 300 Neanderthal individuals including 3 year old children)."

It seems the original Neanderthal may have had arthritis, though.

Neanderthals are now depicted otherwise than before, less hunchbacked.

BBL

"Now to quickly answer the question about the "Laetoli footprints" Australopithecus afarensis fossils were found in the same sediment layer (no dating needed) so it is an inference that they made the footprints and more importantly there is a difference between looking at bones and seeing actual footprints. Data is always useful so I do not really understand why you would object to a conclusion merely because it is indirect or circumstantial evidence. That would be like saying "Yeah, the accused criminals fingerprints were on the murder weapon, but no one saw the murder happen so why are you bringing it up at trial"?"

In my view, both foot prints and Australopithecus fossils could have been from same period (Flood, 2957 BC or 3358 BC) without being from same creature.

Unless I see upcoming one fossil with human feet and australopithecus head, in which case I will modify and go back to my teen theory, these were original trolls or orcs, some nephelim brood.

"But merely again to factually correct you we do in fact have foot bones from both Australopithecus africanus and Australopithecus afarensis."

A link with one clearly Australopithecus head and one clearly whole human or near human foot would be great.

Will look up the two links later.

"We would have an array of organisms that as I mentioned before could be laid out on a table by eyesight along to match what we propose as an evolutionary lineage."

I am actually going through, one by one, the skulls on photo on Smithsonian site.

Not yet done.

An apparent series with no time involves no proof of a lineage going one way or the other.

"When you say "we do see both Neanderthals and Cro-Magnon carbon dated to c. 40 000 BP" why is that a problem?"

I am not saying this is a problem. It is an asset for my theory, and last carbon dated Neanderthals give a carbon date for the time of the Flood (40 000 BP, corresponding to historic 2957 BC or 3358 BC).

Cro-Magnon would be Sethite line, same lineage as between Adam and Noah, Neanderthals would be related to probably Japheth's wife.

I take it up because it is an asset to my own theory. Not a problem for your theory, but perhaps for your line of proof.

BBL

Back again:

"Not only did we humans live at the same time as Neanderthals but many of the hominid species lived together. We can actually find fossils of different hominid species in the same layers of rocks (compared by chemical tests alone, no time asserted)."

With chemical, I presume you mean radioactive dating.

K-Ar is fairly worthless on my view (the one thing I did understand of creationist argumentation very well is : you can't really exclude excess argon, as you claim yourself when confronted with Mt St Helen's).

Carbon 14 is another story. I'd love to have carbon dates for all H. erectus and heidelbergenses, which I am sure are (most samples) men, but they are routinely not carbon dated, like dinosaurs are routinely not carbon dated.

My main hunch is that heidelbergensis, erectus and antecessor were pre-Flood races and therefore last of them (with different K-Ar dates depending on different amounts on excess argon, depending presumably on peripeties of lava flows) coming from Flood of Noah.

But if you showed me an erectus or antecessor getting a c a r b o n date of 20 000 BP, to me that would prove he was post-Flood, and so I might have to reassess parts of my pre- vs post-Flood distinctions in physical or anatomical anthropology. Again, if they had genetics tested to see if mitochondriae or Y-chromosomes are like ours (post-Flood) or like those of Neanderthals (presumably pre-Flood) or third (presumably also pre-Flood), I'd like to know.

"In fact we can see a branching development from simply the fossil finds and the key problem with your proposed solution is that there are no humans anywhere."

I take it a Homo habilis, whether human or not, argon dated to 1.8 million BP could very easily be contemporary to a Cro-Magnon carbon dated to 50 000 BP, since these are different methods leading to different types of error. A carbon date of 50 000 BP to me means either pre-Flood or survived to Flood, at latest. But an argon date of 1.8 million years would tell me more (once the experiments are done, next eruption) of lava flow than of time lapsed since eruptions. So it does not per se even tell me if it is a pre- or a post-Flood man.

You on your hand would take these as both being reliable methods, and as giving clearly diverse times and of the fossils as thereby being marked as non-contemporary. I don't buy that. To me the Laetoli footprints could easily have been made by a man looking Cro-Magnonish even if found close to an ape looking Austrolopithecish. Or, if Australopitheci could be proven to have had human feet, an orc looking Australopithecish.

"Again and again you simply throw in a reference to the "flood" or the adam and eve mythology. I do not understand why you think any of these concepts are even remotely possible with regards to the scientific evidence we have today."

I take history as a superior way of knowing the past over reconstruction.

"Why are you so quick to throw out all different methods of radiometric dating?"

I am not, with carbon 14 I am not throwing out, I am recalibrating.

"You dismiss K-Ar dating but you do not say why it should be thrown out?"

  • 1) excess argon ("only an issue with recent eruptions", but first prove the eruptions you are "measuring" age of at Laetoli were not recent)
  • 2) difficulty of assessing so slow a half life by lab tests.


For carbon 14 we can predict from a halflife of 5730 years that an object 2000 years old should have 78.511 % remaining carbon as compared to present proportion of C14 to C12 in atmosphere. But you have objects that are historically reliably dated to 2000 years ago, and they do show carbon content around 78.511 pmc. This confirms BOTH halflife AND the carbon content being comparable to present one as early as 2000 years ago, so, a YEC would have to set most of carbon rise between Flood and a few centuries before Christ.

But how "long ago" is an eruption if 78.511 % of the potassium is left and 21.5 % (c.) has turned to argon? Presumably on your (=mainstream scientific) view "pre-historic" = not confirmable by history. Even if excess argon were no issue.

"What do you think is the age of the earth and how did you arrive at this answer?"

  • 1) Creation 5199 BC or 5500 BC or 5508 BC (St Jerome/Liturgy of Rome, Syncellus, Liturgy of Constantinople), Flood 2242 years later.
  • 2) They arrived at it Ussher method, but using LXX text (St Jerome would have also had some other clue).
  • 3) I think history is more reliable than reconstruction.


"What has led you to reject what over 99% of all geologists accept about the earth"

Back in the day of Steno, 100 % of geologists were YECs.

99% today, if even an accurate estimate, is due to fashions in methodology, like accepting reconstruction more than history, esp. if it involves miracles.

" and over 99% of physicists accept about the fundamental nature of radioactive isotopes?"

I am NOT rejecting what they accept about fundamental nature of radioactive isotopes!

If there is truly no lying on your side, if your professor did not lie to you about YECs, why are you the umpteenth or umpteen hundredth person bringing up this strawman?

I accept what they say about c14 isotope, but only add that c14 content has risen. I accept basics of what they say on potassium 40 (not sure about their halflife, as said), but there is the issue of excess argon.

Tuesday, July 4, 2017

... to Quorans Challenging Catholicism, Creationism and Spain


Q I
Can a creationist explain the second and fourth days of the biblical creation story (Genesis 1:6-8 and Genesis 1:14-19, KJV)?
https://www.quora.com/Can-a-creationist-explain-the-second-and-fourth-days-of-the-biblical-creation-story-Genesis-1-6-8-and-Genesis-1-14-19-KJV/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl


C on Q
Explain what the “firmament” is and, especially, what the waters above it might be.

…and please deliver the explanation in a lucid, logical, vivid description -- in effect, a “word picture” -- so that anyone can form a clear mental image as to precisely what’s going on in those two passages.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Blog : "http://creavsevolu.blogspot.com". Debating evolutionists for 15 years +.
Answered Thu
On my view, the firmament is the rotating part of the ether (ether in “heaven” above the stars is not rotating, but still), which can be viewed as a fluid in which atomic nuclei are comparable to solid grains.

It is the rotation of the ether which makes the Sun, Moon and Stars rotate around us each roughly 24 hours (less for stars, more for moon).

Since firmament was created on day 2 and light started rotating around earth already on day 1, in that interval, it was light alone, a quality of the ether, not the generalised whole ether medium below the upper heaven, which rotated.

Note, rotation of Sun and Moon around earth are NOT year or month, these being changing positions between Sun and Zodiak or between Moon and Sun along Zodiak.

This would mean there is no unclarity about day 4, suffice it to say that with geocentrism the parallax measures are moot and stars are not billions of light years away.

Remain water above firmament.

I take this as mainly waters in upper (supra-atmospheric) part of firmament, namely the water molecules and hydrogen molecules observed by spectroscopy.

The implication for Genesis 6:11 would be that hydrogen layer went low on a back then higher oxygen layer of atmosphere, and the resulting Brown’s gas was lighted by lightnings into a rain water not depending on previous water cycle and afterwards resumed into greater ocean depths, as with waters of the deep.

Q II
I believe in evolution. Can you prove me wrong?
https://www.quora.com/I-believe-in-evolution-Can-you-prove-me-wrong/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl


Alex Pismenny
upvoted this :

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Studied religions as curious parallels and contrasts to Xtian faith since 9, 10?
Answered Thu
Explain the changing number of chromosomes, especially changes upward in number, if all mammals have a common ancestor.

Explain why so far land vertebrates have not been found in two layers strictly speaking above each other, except by talking of “one upper layer” on one place of a country or state, and “one other lower layer” on quite another one.

Maggie Eriksson
Thu
1 upvote including Hans-Georg Lundahl
I have been in Christian ministry for close to 50 years, but my university training and professional experience was as a research scientist in biological sciences prior to becoming Christian. On the geological time chart, land vertebrates have such a recent history, that you can’t expect them to have a major place in Earth’s history. The Earth formed 4.6 billion years ago. It took 4 billion before ANY life formed. It took 2 billion just for Earth to cool down enough to accumulate its first drop of water and first molecule of atmosphere. The first multicellular organisms did not develop until half a billion years ago, and the first land organisms until just 200 million years ago. 200 million seems like a long time in terms of building up sediment layers, but it is only 5/one-thousands’ of the time Earth has existed.

Adding chromosomes, or even creation of chromosomes was merely an advance in the stages of evolution through mutation. Additional chromosomes were added by the breaking of pre-existing chromosome-pairs.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
3m ago
  • Maggie, you forget that layers like Hadean and even Palaeozoic ones are not all layers geologists believe there are : there is plenty of late Palaeozoic, Mesozoic and Cenozoic layers where such a above and below of two beings (a dinosaur above a biarmosuchian, for instance, or a pterosaur or Tertiary big extinct mammal above a moschops) could have occurred. Specifically in Karoo, where you find Permian, Triassic, Jurassic all three side by side, but somehow you never dug through a Jurassic layer to see if there was any Triassic or Permian fossil under the Jurassic one.
  • “Additional chromosomes were added by the breaking of pre-existing chromosome-pairs.”

    Oh, you did look into it. How about explaining that mammalian chromosomes all have two telomeres and a centromere, except individual variations?


Tyler Vornberg
Thu
1 upvote including Hans-Georg Lundahl
“Explain the changing number of chromosomes”. It’s due to evolution. Individuals from the same species don’t have identical number of chromosomes. There’s always those rare variances. When those rare variances just so happen to cause an individual to be better suited to the environment they live in, that individual survives to adulthood and makes babies that also have that rare variance. They survive and have kids with the rare variant, who have more kids with the rare variant and before you know it that rare variance becomes very common.

Regarding your second point, can you elaborate? I’m having a hard time understanding what you’re trying to say.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Just now
  • “ Individuals from the same species don’t have identical number of chromosomes. There’s always those rare variances. When those rare variances just so happen to cause an individual to be better suited to the environment they live in, that individual survives to adulthood and makes babies that also have that rare variance”

    An extra chromosome is not an advantage. An extra chromosome 1 or 3, you die usually before you get born. An extra chromosome 21, you have Down’s syndrome. An extra sex chromosome (female with three X, male with YXX OR with YYX) will make you less fertile.

  • In Karoo, there are places where they find Jurassic fossils (Drakkenberg, I think). They have so far not found any Triassic or Permian fossils straight under those.


John Ruland
Fri
1 upvote including Hans-Georg Lundahl
because of the ice age the earth went through

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Just now
What does that even have to do with either?

Q III
Why doesn't Catholicism educate the laity on the scientific nature of the symbolism that they codified into the sacred scriptures and artwork?
https://www.quora.com/Why-doesnt-Catholicism-educate-the-laity-on-the-scientific-nature-of-the-symbolism-that-they-codified-into-the-sacred-scriptures-and-artwork/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl


Hans-Georg Lundahl
Studied religions as curious parallels and contrasts to Xtian faith since 9, 10?
Answered Sat
I am not even sure of what you mean by "scientific nature of the symbolism that they codified into the sacred scriptures" and would like to know what you mean by implying they are educating clergy on it.

First, Biblical history is history, before there is any symbolism in it.

Second, Catholic Church as extant today is not codifying anything into sacred scriptures but just inheriting what was codified in them prior to death of the last Apostle.

Third, the symbolism in Genesis is not symbolically accounting a history which in scientific terms would sound otherwise, it is symbolism inherent in a literal historic account and it is symbolism about later history, namely about Jesus Christ.

Fourth, while the Catholic Church is truly heir of the Jewish Church in which Moses codified Genesis, She received the Old Testament from the predecessor, from the Jewish Church, as extant up to when Kaiaphas broke the Covenant with God by plotting Crucifixion of Christ by iniquitous judgement. The Catholic Church did not codify Genesis Herself, after Pentecost, and has no liberty to recodify it.

Fifth : it sounds like you had been listening to some theory about Catholic Church being some kind of freemasonry, She is not. Laymen are not forbidden to learn Latin, laymen are not forbidden to learn Scholasticism and no learning as learning is reserved to priests, though application of some in practise is so reserved : a layman can know everything there is to know, everything the priest is taught, about Holy Mass, it is just that he cannot say Holy Mass; he can be an expert in moral theology, in canon law and on the Sacrament of Penance, but he can neither give absolution to himself (no one can, not even a priest), nor to someone else (only a priest can do that). That, and not degrees of learning, is the basic difference between clergy and laity.

EDIT : "I have written four books and two academic works and another 39-independent academic papers showing scientific with DEMONSTRABLE EVIDENCE this inexplicable esoteric (hidden) science I speak of. Go to my face book page WILLIAM JOHN MEEGAN and you can read a lot of those independent papers freely."

If there is truly scientific knowledge encoded* in the Bible, this is the work of God, in order to validate the Bible as His word.

It does not in any way detract from the normal reading of the Bible, not any more than the Bible code does.

It is not per se the work of the Church, but it is for the Church to validate, to reject or to wait and see about any such claims, whether Meegan's claim or the claims about the Bible code.

* Note : encoded, not directly visible to a normal reader not looking specifically to break such a code.

Q IV
Why is the Bible so hard for me to understand?
https://www.quora.com/Why-is-the-Bible-so-hard-for-me-to-understand/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl


Hans-Georg Lundahl
Studied religions as curious parallels and contrasts to Xtian faith since 9, 10?
Answered Mon
I think I’d be more useful if you told me exactly what you found difficult.

Two things, though.



Q V
Has Spain ever issued a formal apology to its former colonial empire?
https://www.quora.com/Has-Spain-ever-issued-a-formal-apology-to-its-former-colonial-empire/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl


Hans-Georg Lundahl
studied at Lund University
Answered 3m ago
Why should they?

They were, with the French, the best one.

They did not conquer any land really guilty of nothing prior to their arrival, Yaquis were especially not conquered, since they said they were already basically Christian, just needed some more instruction.

Catholic priests were sent, but not Spanish military.

In the taking of Tenochtitlán (now Mexico City) which was bloody, the conquering troops were more Meso-Americans fed up with Aztecs than Spaniards.

As to the misdemanours of Pizarro, which there were, he was punished for them by Spain, I think he even died as an outlaw, killed by Spanish troops, despite his undoubted bravery.

Q VI
Is there historical documentation of pagan extremism/revanchism against the Christianization of Europe?
https://www.quora.com/Is-there-historical-documentation-of-pagan-extremism-revanchism-against-the-Christianization-of-Europe/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl


Alex Pismenny
upvoted this :

Hans-Georg Lundahl
History buff since childhood. CSL & Eco added to Medieval lore. + Classics.
Answered Mon
St Erik of Sweden was going to Holy Mass before a battle against the followers of Erik Blood Axe.

He went out and was killed by an axe in his head, but this did not stop the Christianisation of Sweden.

Earlier example, Penda of Mercia.

And some have said that the Viking age was a revenge for the felling of Irminsul in Saxony after Charlemagne conquered the Saxons.

Q VII
Why do you think your sacred scriptures are right? And why aren't others right?
https://www.quora.com/Why-do-you-think-your-sacred-scriptures-are-right-And-why-arent-others-right/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl


Hans-Georg Lundahl
Studied religions as curious parallels and contrasts to Xtian faith since 9, 10?
Answered Sat
First, in so far as sacred scriptures are historical, I think the sacred scriptures of some other religions are right in many details as history : they are only wrong as theology.

Second, if we take Mahabharata, Iliad and Odyssey, Genesis, Exodus, Gospels and Acts as all historically true or close to, it is actually the Christian history which best backs up the own theological claims.

Krishna and Homeric gods are not ultrafamous for raising the dead.

As to historic connection, Iliad and Odyssey are not very good at backing up the gods believed by their author, and Mahabharata has lots less than Iliad and Odyssey, meaning Gospels have a record close relation to other history in the same time span. On the other hand, they include very direct backing up of the theological claims. Theogony and Book of Mormon and Quran were revealed with a direct backing up, but in a similar and insufficient manner, cancelling each other out in theological claims.

Q VIII
As a Christian, why do you believe it is possible for god to have come from nothing, but not the universe?
https://www.quora.com/As-a-Christian-why-do-you-believe-it-is-possible-for-god-to-have-come-from-nothing-but-not-the-universe/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl


C on Q
I am curios as to how you find it more realistic that a god has created himself/ came from nothing/ always existed. Then the possibility of the universe “coming from nothing”.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Studied religions as curious parallels and contrasts to Xtian faith since 9, 10?
Answered just now
No Christian believes God can have come from nothing.

We believe God always existed, which is sth else.

Monday, July 3, 2017

... on Anthropology concurring with Noah's Flood (a refutation of AronRa)


... on Anthropology concurring with Noah's Flood (a refutation of AronRa) · More on Anthropology

How Anthropology Disproves Noah's Flood
AronRa
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BitwnxiPH34


I intro

[He introduced the subject with an excursion on how evolution works, and used a linguistic parable, hence my first comment:]

3:20 The Original Don Quixote was certainly Spanish. It may be a Spanish a few centuries older, but saying Cervantes is between Latin and Spanish is like saying Shakespear is between supposed Proto-Germanic and English.

In a sense, there was a social event when Spanish was first written, and that came when Latin writing ceased to be the writing of the Spanish (i e Castilian) pronunciation. Which up to then had been a pronunciation and popular phraseology of the written language ... Latin.

You probably mean there never was a time when someone was born using all the new traits of Spanish when his parents had used all the older traits of Latin. There was a time when someone whose fathers had distinguished between v and b didn't bother to do that himself. There was a time when someone whose father had pronounced Caelum and Ferrum with short open e (the one which looks like a Greek epsilon in IPA) pronounced them with ie instead. There was a time when someone whose father started ferrum with ach-laut as standin for f weakened this to an h, and a later time when even the h disappeared - while the process started over for a former sh or even zh gone sh, as in Juan.

The point you are making about linguistics is, these were not the same time, and that is fair enough.

II Erectus and Florensis

5:44 Recorded history - a few thousand years. Fossil record of homo erectus - a couple million years.

And these million years are not recorded history, but a phoney dating method (often enough the K-Ar dating which is discredited since Mount St Helen's).

9:14 "none of these should exist"

Not the young Earth creationist view of them.

Lucy, Arti = apes.

Homo erectus (or most of, Peking man and Java man dubious), Heidelbergensis, Neanderthalensis, Denisovan and Sapiens Sapiens = human, descended from Adam.

But you might be coming to a defense of the implication, waiting ...

9:27 When exactly did we Creationists say that Homo erectus cannot exist?

Especially all of us?

10:52 Did you say 17 000 BP for Homo florensis?

If so, a post-Flood man, descending from Noah via Shem, Cham and Japheth.

Not meaning "flood was 40 000 / 35 000 years ago" BUT "flood would carbon date as 40 000 / 35 000 years ago", and I presume the 17 000 BP date for Hobbit would have been a carbon date.

III Genetic diversity of post-Flood man

12:28 I recall seeing a video with Cavalli Sforza (or if it was an online article, it was last year, OK) in which there was a notice that Near East was a possible alternative to Africa, genetically speaking.

Which is of course a far better fit with post-Flood humanity starting at Ararat.

12:58 "average once every 60 generations"

In a post-Babel break up with resulting genetic bottlenecks all over the place, the new markers would have broken through very much quicker than once every 60 generations, meaning this "genetic clock" is severely off.

13:30 Two little things.

"no evidence of a global flood" - outside all the fossils.

"shorelines fluctuating substantially" - sure, which would be why early post-Flood boat builders would have to be seeked out by scuba divers, by now, if even that would help.

Also, this is a solution to how cangaroos came from Ararat to Oz after the Flood.

14:11 [He had mentioned dating by supervolcano Toba] OK, potassium argon was debunked at Mount St Helen's.

Do you have any carbon date? While off, they would show a bit more about relative position within Biblical chronology.

15:53 You know, black Africans could have a recent ancestry in Kish and other parts of Sumer ... Sargon was lauded by Akkadians for expelling black heads = Sumerians, and Kish matches Kush, the ancestor of south of Egypt Africans.

I find that match fairly good.

IV Cheddar Man and Population of Britain

16:03 "The skeletal remains date to the Mesolithic (ca. 7150 BC),"

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

Now, 7150 BC is after 8600 BC - the archaeological or carbon dated end of Göbekli Tepe, which I identify with the Tower or Babel project.

So, Cheddar man came to Britain after Babel. And not 1500 years after it either, as the carbon dates would per se suggest. With fast rising carbon 14 in atmosphere, this would reduce to perhaps less than a century, perhaps a little more.

I take it there were about 400 to 450 years between Babel and Stonehenge - in real Biblical chronology. And megalithic structures were not built with 1000-year long delays as some carbon dates would suggest, but in time spans reminiscent of building of some cathedrals.

16:11 No, I'll not "ignore" mutation rates because I am a Creationist, I'll consider them as unknown because that they are.

THEN they can be roughly and on average concluded from either evolutionist or creationist scenarios, giving very different averages. But these averages cannot be used as an independent dating tool to prove either scenario.

And if carbon dated 7150 BC is before any suggested date for Flood, this carbon date presumes the C14 content was about 100 pmc (% modern carbon, as I am sure you know, some other readers of this might not know this), and if carbon content back "then" - when Cheddar man lived - c. 50 pmc, this means he has c. one half life, c. 5730 years too much in the carbon dates.

16:41 As compressing the carbon dates of Cheddar man to ... know what, I'll cite relevant portion of my dating table:

XVIII 2657 BC
55.763 pmc 7486 BC

Shelah +
2633 BC

XIX 2617 BC
58.038 pmc 7114 BC


Creation vs. Evolution : Interim III, Flood to Abraham with Syncellus
http://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2017/05/interim-iii-flood-to-abraham-with.html


7150 BC is between inflated carbon dates 7486 BC and 7114 BC (closer to the latter), and this means the real date for this would be (also closer to the latter) between 2657 BC and 2617 BC (with a Flood in 3358 BC according to the monk George Syncellus - I tend to use more St Jerome's chronology).

Of course a man who died around the time of the post-Flood patriarch Shelah could have living descendants now! No problem at all!

16:49 "this could only be the case if there was never a global Flood"

Or, significant alternative, if the Global Flood was earlier than the Cheddar Man.

Which is the normal YEC position.

17:05 I am on the contrary delighted that Cheddar man had a descendant half a mile away!

It means that Belloc was right, Anglo-Saxon invasion was not simply replacing one population with another. Nor was any (possible, but not certain) Celtic invasion prior to the Roman one, which we know involved legions and romanisation, but no major replacement of populations.

It is a complete strawman you are drawing up about creationists!

V Pacific Coast DNA marker from peopling of Americas

17:27 13 000 - 14 000 years old. Pacific coast of Americas, tools and bones.

= 11 000 - 12 000 BC.

XII 2906 BC
26.23 pmc 13 969 BC

XIII 2865 BC
33.994 pmc 11 785 BC

Shem +
2858 BC

Peleg *
2829 BC

XIV 2824 BC
44.057 pmc 9600 BC


Much closer to 2865 BC than either to 2906 BC or 2824 BC (with Flood in 3358 BC, as it is from same table as previous).

18:10 I agree with the genetic markers, I have as "whatever excuse is necessary" simply a rising carbon 14 level, meaning the datings are systematically inflated, fortunately, thanks to the mechanism in a systematically deflatable way, which makes radiocarbon dating useful as a tool for YEC too. Once you do the necessary modifications.

18:28 "took tens of thousands of years"

You know, European migrations to Americas have resulted in even greater populations of mainly European descended people and these have NOT taken 10 000 years or even 5000 years. Rather, less than 500 years, since the influx to Statten Island after 1900 is fairly marginal to the whites of the Americas.

18:32 "from only 8 people" - yes.

"in only a century or so" - not quite.

Use the LXX or Samaritan version for post-Flood patriarchs, and you have about a thousand years between Flood and Abraham.

18:54 As stated, I am very much accepting this genetic marker.

One of the things it means is that carbon dated 14 000 BP is post-Flood, a confirmation of what I was thinking anyway.

19:07 No shit Sherlock!

My dear Watson, the one thing you overlooked is that the carbon date for 14 000 BP could be in reality a post-Flood one and that because of carbon 14 levels rising in the post-Flood atmosphere.

Tuesday, June 27, 2017

... Jonah and Noah, Allegory and History and Archaeology


Q I
How did Jonah in the Bible live in the belly of the Whale for 3 days without getting digested in the Whale's stomach?
https://www.quora.com/How-did-Jonah-in-the-Bible-live-in-the-belly-of-the-Whale-for-3-days-without-getting-digested-in-the-Whales-stomach/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl


Hans-Georg Lundahl
studied at Lund University
Answered just now
We are not told in Jonah that the fish was a whale, but it is the only fish large enough (not fish in modern Linnean, but in traditional terminology) large enough to swallow a man into his belly without his being munched to pieces first.

In the New Testament I think it is either Jesus or Paul who directly says it was a whale, which either had from oral (paratextual) tradition.

We are also not told he survived in the belly Gepetto-wise, as in Pinocchio. Since Jonah was an allegoric prefiguring of Christ, it is also possible he died and miraculously resurrected.

His being in the belly three days and nights would have been known not from his own reckoning of time, but from weekday when he was rescued and either his recalling weekday of storm or people on shore doing so.

The question I find intriguing is, if the voyage was in the Mediterranean (I think he was trying to get to Tharshish, in Spain, I haven’t looked it up right now), what was a whale doing there? Were they more common then than now there?

Q II
What is the allegory about Jonah and the whale, in the Christian Bible?
https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-allegory-about-Jonah-and-the-whale-in-the-Christian-Bible/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl


Hans-Georg Lundahl
Studied religions as curious parallels and contrasts to Xtian faith since 9, 10?
Answered 1h ago
Literally Jonah was three days and nights in the belly of a whale and then was released because the whale found him no doubt somewhat indigestible.

Allegorically this signifies Jesus being inside Earth, His soul down in Sheol and most of the time his body in the grave too during three consecutive calendar nychthemera.

Q III
If Genesis is an allegory, as believed by many Christians, then why is the entire Bible not an allegory?
https://www.quora.com/If-Genesis-is-an-allegory-as-believed-by-many-Christians-then-why-is-the-entire-Bible-not-an-allegory/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl


Hans-Georg Lundahl
studied at Lund University
Answered 54m ago
The entire Bible is allegory.

Nevertheless, next to nothing (in terms of percent out of the total textmass*) in the Bible is AN allegory as literary form.

You have prophets using allegories (the literary form) to criticise the behaviours of King David against Urias the Hittite and of Ahab against Naboth. You have one pharao in the time of Joseph (possibly Djoser) and one Nebuchadnezzar in the time of Daniel dreaming and Joseph and Daniel treating their dreams as allegories (three of them, Nebuchadnezzar had two dreams, I think).

You also have visions in Daniel and Apocalypse some of which may be allegoric.

All of the private life of the prophet Hosea is an allegory about God’s relation to Israel. Its end is an allegory about the conversion of the Jews.

Genesis as a whole is allegory in the sense that the literal sense carries an allegoric sense, but not AN allegory as literary form, it is the literary form of straightforward history (most of Genesis 1 would be vision, since Adam and Eve were not yet around witnessing it : Genesis has 50 chapters).

You find allegories about Jesus all through it.

  • Eve created out of the opened side of Adam while he was sleeping (Genesis 2) = allegorically the Church born from the opened heart of Jesus on Calvary (both the Cross and the Paradise where grounds where Adam and Jesus were in a way sleeping). Before that Adam had named the animals, while Jesus before that had quoted a psalm naming his mockers and tormentors diverse animals, like lions and dogs and bulls of Bashan.
  • Melchisedech makes his sacrifice by offering up bread and wine (Genesis 14) = allegory of the Eucharist and of Christ as Eucharistic priest “according to the order of Melchisedech”.
  • Isaac carries the wood for his burnt offering (he is himself still designed as the sacrifice) (Genesis 22) = allegorically Christ carrying his cross to the same place, to Calvary (Mount Moria mentioned in Genesis comprises both the Jewish Temple and Calvary).


In other words, the allegories are not written by men in the text, they are written by God in the events of which Genesis is a history, not an allegory.

* I am not sure I was not overdoing, but the fact remains is that history is a far more prevalent genre than allegory.

Q IV
Noah lived about 1000 years old (according to the Quran and the Bible). Do we have any archeological proof that early patriarchs lived long lives?
https://www.quora.com/Noah-lived-about-1000-years-old-according-to-the-Quran-and-the-Bible-Do-we-have-any-archeological-proof-that-early-patriarchs-lived-long-lives/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl


Hans-Georg Lundahl
Studied religions as curious parallels and contrasts to Xtian faith since 9, 10?
Answered just now
How long a life Noah lived is a historic question.

How do you propose to settle this kind of historic question with archaeology?

Historical questions are mostly settled by narrative. I am not sure you could any more prove the Battle of Waterloo occurred archaeologically, at least at that large scale, and I am sure archaeological digs at Waterloo cannot prove who won the battle. Even if each corpse could be identified as having worn a French or an English or a Prussian uniform, first, this is at least three diverse national uniforms (corresponding to the troops we know from history but not archaeology at Waterloo to have been commanded by Napoleon, Wellington and Blücher - there is historic divergence on whether B or W was most operative in beating N), and archaeology, as opposed to history could not tell us who was allied to whom. THEN again, archaeology could not even tell us what side won.

The rule is not like whichever side has most men killed loses. It is rather like whichever side has most men surviving wins. And while archaeology could tell us which side lost most men (if uniforms had been very well preserved, which by now is unlikely for most), this would not automatically tell us which side had most men left. Plus even that is not totally a mathematical issue, it is normally in many battles an estimate on what risks are worth taking and also has to do with what shape the troops are in.

Archaeology could also not tell us a bit on which importance the battle of Waterloo had in the general scheme of things, that it cemented the victory of the powers of Reaction.

So, how exactly would you use archaeology as a test for life spans in the past?

I know some English or perhaps rather Scottish doctors have made conclusions about Medieval lifespans from archaeology. 60 corpses of Anglo-Saxon serfs (thus, between Roman legions leaving 410 and Arthur’s successors being beaten, and Anglo-Saxons themselves being beaten by William in 1066) have been medically investigated and conclusion have been none of them lived to 50.

But what was this conclusion based on?

Most likely, they looked at the tear and wear on the skeletons, where muscles had been attached. They calculated age from the tear and wear. This means that if they misestimated either what tear and wear a serf in agriculture was subjected to (and since farm hands were in overwhelming majority, each had so much less of the total food mass to cultivate, so they could easily have lived lazier lives than now) or what shape the bodies were originally in (they could have been a race in which tear and wear had less impact than on modern men - very theoretically and unlikely in this case), they would have miscalculated the ages.

Now, how would this impact on archaeological evidence for patriarchs?

Obviously, if you lived to near 1000, like Noah and most people back to Adam, you WERE very certainly of a sturdier race than the one we have now. This means tear and wear would have less impact, and this in turn that any medical examination of their skeleta, if identified, would be misleading and give far younger lifespans than they had.

Next, they are probably not there any more.

If the just of the Old Testament were resurrecting and ascending to Heaven during Christ’s death and resurrection, this means their corpses are no longer there. You won’t find the corpse of either King David or of Jonah, either Abraham or Noah in their graves.

When ISIS bashed the tomb of Jonah in Mossul, they inadvertently gave the Church (most directly Oriental Christians, Chaldeans or Nestorians, I think Chaldeans) a chance to test this on Jonah’s case.

For just post-Flood patriarchs, like Shem, Cham and Japheth, the lifespans were still very high (about 600 years) and it is possible the corpse of Cham would still be around.

THEN is the next question where to find them.

Have you verified that the tomb of Julius Caesar or of Alexander the Great or of Pericles or of the poet Aeschylus is still there to be identified? What is the archaeological proof that Attila and Genghis Khan lived?

You will probably NOT find most people who lived or even who are historically known. And in many cases, if you do find a historically known person in the grave, you won’t know it is he.

Even so, some have tried. A dentist Jack Cuozzo went to Paris to investigate Neanderthal skulls and concluded they were of a much more long lived race than we. Their wisdom teeth would have come out at a very late age, their puberty would have been so much slower than ours, they needed to be longlived, plus some of the thicker bone ridges on their skulls are evidence of very high age.

That is perhaps as good as you can get.

Between Flood and Babel life spans were still fairly long. According to LXX and in terms of year after flood, here is a lifespan corresponding to Babel : Peleg 529 - 868. 341 years. Near triple and at least two and a half times the present life spans.

If my own theory of correspondences between carbon dates and Biblical dates is correct, the time between Flood and Babel is the time between carbon dated 40 000 BP and the times of Göbekli Tepe.

This means the relevant material would be human skeleta from Upper Palaeolithic. Meaning of course that estimates of these having died at around 30 would be fairly bogus - or exceptional.

But that would be a question of how much of the medical evaluations of skeleta are subject to caution, as with the Anglo-Saxon skeleta.

So, my main answer is : archaeology is not the best place to start looking. You may find something, but don’t take it as definitive or as decisive. History is the right place and Genesis is history.

Update
next day:

EDIT next day:

For instance, I think that the grave at Sunghir would fit well for early post-Flood patriarchs in carbon timing, between Flood and Babel.

I think it would be the grave of perhaps Magog and his family.

The Russian Sunghir burials and skull reconstructions
Posted on September 23, 2008 : Mathilda’s Anthropology Blog.
https://mathildasanthropologyblog.wordpress.com/2008/09/23/the-russian-sunghir-burials-and-skull-reconstructions/


I also therefore think that an estimate of his having lived 60 years before dying is about 200 or 300 years too low. At 260 or 360 or sth (or perhaps some little more as yet, he was an earlier generation than Peleg) Magog would have been in the shape of a man of 60.

On the other hand, if he is Magog he can’t have lived too long either, since carbon dating 25 000 BP means he died well before Tower of Babel with its city started getting built in “carbon dated 9600 BC” at Göbekli Tepe.

And the latest estimate - counting from Flood forward - for when this was would be 534 after the Flood, when Peleg was 5, if he was born 529 after Flood (a pure LXX reading, including the “II Cainan”, as per George Syncellus and Byzantine liturgy). If this is carbon dated as 11 600 BP, a carbon date like 25 000 BP must be before 500 after Flood, I presume, and since Magog was a grandson or greatgrandson of Noah, this gives his birth as not too early after Flood either.

Earlier Update
an hour after previous Q originally posted, or so.

Q V
Do Christians really still believe in Noah's Ark, Santa Claus, and Jonah living inside the whale?
https://www.quora.com/Do-Christians-really-still-believe-in-Noahs-Ark-Santa-Claus-and-Jonah-living-inside-the-whale/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl


Hans-Georg Lundahl
Thomist after starting with CSLewis
Answered just now
I believe in Saint Nicholas of Myra who slapped Arius at Council of Nicea and threw in money through a window so three girls would not need to prostitute themselves.

I believe in Noah’s living on the Ark with seven other men.

I belive Jonah either lived or perhaps even more probably died and resurrected in the belly of the whale (not identified as such in the book, but I think in the New Testament).