- What made former evolutionists doubt the theory of evolution? What made former creationists doubt the theory of creation?
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- Blog : "http://creavsevolu.blogspot.com". Debating evolutionists for 15 years +.
- Answered Apr 15
- I was an evolutionist twice over and am now a full fledged young earth creationist for the second time.
First time, I had become a Christian and learned that the Bible was the word of God and found things in the Bible that clearly didn’t match up with what I had learned to believe earlier in childhood as an evolutionist.
I gave up trying to reconcile both at about age ten, at which time I had also found some serious difficulties in evolution as such:
- origin of DNA information
- origin of mind and of language.
When I became a Catholic, I was very admiring of Jesuits, still am, and was even for some time a bit fond of Teilhard de Chardin. I was willing to give up my strong stance against evolution, which had been socially costly in my teens, and started taking in things like considering Cro-Magnon and Neanderthals as pre-Adamites.
About 12 years later, I read St Augustine’s City of God and cease that compromising, which had been already weakened while I was reading St Thomas Aquinas in a situation involving much solitude.
As to theoretical part, I’d say that the definite clinch was its inability (it is still unable) to explain human language, but there is also this external part of it conflicting with Christianity, not just with Bible but also with Church Fathers and Scholastics.
- Andy Heilveil
- 16h ago
- All evolution has to do to explain human language is demonstrate that it is beneficial to reproduction.
I step back a bit from neurophysiological understandings of how language is produced in the brain (which by itself is actual proof of the biological foundation of language) and look at how it is used in human society.
Language is used to:
- ) coordinate hunting efforts
- ) coordinate other group efforts which are beneficial to the members.
- ) influence the behaviors of others
- ) demonstrate dominance
- ) entice mates
All of the above have measurable effect on the likelihood and frequency of reproduction and hence are positively selected for by evolution.
Gorillas can learn sign language, hence language per se is not limited to humans.
What more do you need to see that human language is adequately explained by evolution?
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- 11m ago
- “All evolution has to do to explain human language is demonstrate that it is beneficial to reproduction.”
The thing is, this explains why language would survive and spread if it could be produced.
But genetic changes have no chance of explaining how it could be produced in the first place.
The rest of your answer is just elaboration on what I am anyway admitting.
“Gorillas can learn sign language, hence language per se is not limited to humans.”
Sorry, I missed this.
Gorillas or chimps have been learned basically noun series. Some verbs too.
But they cannot be taught to use a noun as subject and a verb as predicate. And especially not to negate predicate, put predicate into past tense etc.
Language is really limited to humans, as far as biology is concerned.
I just looked up your credentials a bit. You are not likely to know exactly what language means, even.
Monday, August 21, 2017
Monday, August 14, 2017
Canon, "Fanon," and Variation in Norse Myth
General sounding on general presentation:
Would you agree the present account of Rabenschlacht at least contains an element of fan fic in making Ermanerik and Theoderik meet?
Or could one of the two be homonyme, or other sources be wrong to separate them a century?
Anyway, that is the kind of variations I think tradition going wild is likely to submit accounts to. Rabenschlacht does not make Theoderik a great scholar (hint : Boethius is very distinct from Theoderik, even if contemporary). It does not make Ermanerik a saint able to raise the dead.
And you would agree historical Ermanerik and Theoderik were also warriors, as presented in Rabenschlacht?
[No answer, so far.]
Jackson Crawford makes a parallel with Christian denominations, my responses:
4:02 "most denominations" = Protestants, who are not most Christians.
4:27 beliefs : Protestant views of Sacraments and Modernist views of exegesis are off-limit.
4:38 Old Believers in Russia and Armenians are basically Catholics in sacrament theology.
In Real Presence, Armenians denying it are "odd man out", but therein also unfaithful to their own past : formerly one monk of theirs condemned the Thondrakian heresy due to among other things them denying it.
On other issues, Thondrakians were a bit more Catholic, since not considering certain sacramentals necessary.
Most issues, however, Thondrakians give an impression of in between Albigensian and Protestant.
[Sorry, Tondrakians, I think?]
4:53 Position of Hail Mary and exact wording varies between Catholics in Poland and Old Believers, but both have such - unlike most Protestant denominations. Both reflect the position All Generations shall call Her blessed, she was raised body and soul to Heaven and intercedes for us along with Her Son.
I think similar observations could be made about even Armenians and Nestorians, though the latter would obviously not have the added prayer "Holy Mary, Mother of God ..." (still a separate one among Orthodox, optionally useful as such for RC too) or the Orthodox rephrasing Theotoke Parthene Khaire. On Her, they would be the odd man out - but less so than Protestants.
5:15 "most Christians" or "most Evangelical Christians" think of both Heaven and Hell as both permanent and direct destinations?
No Catholics think of Heaven as automatically direct, they would consider those who go directly there without passing through Purgatory are fewer and better than the rest. Of the saved.
Variations in "Hell as permanent" would be confusions between Hell and Purgatory (both being unpleasant places in Sheol/Hades).
However, some Orthodox prefer thinking of soulsleep, and also ironically accuse John XXII for having been momentarily heretic - for agreeing with their theory on soul sleep. Giving real presence of sould and body in Heaven or Hell a postponement up to Doomsday.
Nevertheless, they also pray for the dead, probably because a prayer for someone not yet known to be saved or damned by us, can be taken into account by God who sees all time from an aeternal present.
Hence, that difference makes little practical difference, compared to Protestants saying "you don't need a lot of monks praying when you are dead".
5:39 Since last sentence in Creed is "et in carnis resurrectionem", it is de fide certain Heaven and Hell are local, not just states, and will contain risen bodies as well as our spirits.
Back to concept of myth:
6:15 "myth" is a very ambiguous word.
Its basic Greek meaning is "narrative" or "storyline".
The myth of Persai by Aischylos is not just historic, but undisputedly so, it is just in fleshing out that he had poetic liberty.
As a Christian I cannot give same truth value to a myth of Uranus and Gaea or Muspelheim and Niflheim being separated by Ginnungagap as to myth of Ulysses returning or of Sigurd getting killed by a brother-in-law or by a vassal of the royal b-i-l. The latter seem fairly likely.
And as to there being variations, that is minor distortions of original story, true or false. Diversity of fleshing out or forgetting part and replacing with fleshing out.
Obviously, I equally am not giving equal truth value to Odin, Vile and Vé killing Ymer and creating Earth as to Odin and a few others (probably Thor, certainly Njord and Frey) appearing in Uppsala region and founding a dynasty.
Example of extreme variation, supposed demotion of Zeus to Tyr:
7:20 Tyr = Zeus, a possible linguistic cognate, but could be mistaken, and name could refer to diverse real life persons (a king banishing his father from Crete to Italy, a man accompanying Odin to Uppsala) even if same name.
Does not prove a major variation over time in myth.
Codex Regius vs Edda = var over time (possibly), but either vs PIE myth depends on reconstruction of there being one.
Pre-Odinist religion best attested is Nerthus worship - no trace of IE connection, that I know, and Njord may back then have been her priestess.
NB, if the commonly accepted etymology is right, Tyr, or Tiwas, is Lith. Dievas.
What if instead it was a loan from Lith. Tewas (father)?
[Jackson Crawford later agrees we have no fool proof argument Tyr actually was previously Zeus.]
Friday, August 11, 2017
Who were the first Europeans?
Survive the Jive
[Where he talks about occipital bun, in Swedish equivalent to "genius bump", and two more:]
Ah, genie-knölen .... an argument for Japheth's wife having Neanderthal roots, right?
(If she was Sethite / Cro-Magnon mother and Neanderthal father, she transmitted neither Neanrthal mitichondrial DNA, since her mother wasn't Neanderthal, nor Neanderthal Y chromosome, since women can't transmit anything except X chromosomes on that pair - and both are extinct).
That leaves last pure Neanderthals = last pre-Flood Europeans. Or carbon date for Noah's Flood = "40 000 BP" (non extant date and implies lower carbon 14 content).
By the way - Neanderthals left no cave paintings to us.
Could Flood have dissolved colours from the walls, so any cave painting is post-Flood, if preserved?
Lived side by side with "Homo sapiens" (after that wise man Noah who went aboard an Ark right?) ... well, Sethites may not have been majority population in Europe by any means, but there were no natural barriers to them coming and visit here, and leaving traces (including those mix race brothers in a cave in Roumania).
Tuesday, August 8, 2017
The weekend, I was obliged to fear my account had been disconnected while trying to access it on the Georges Pompidou Library. Today that was fixed. I am now in a Paris Municipal library (of which Georges Pompidou is not part) and was trying to access a few videos.
Here is what happened on the last of these:
|Une erreur s’est produite. Veuillez réessayer ultérieurement. (ID de lecture : kP2hvvFaYY8yv5zZ)
En savoir plus
This was on:
History Summarized: Africa
Overly Sarcastic Productions
Similar things had just happened on:
History Summarized: Iroquois
Overly Sarcastic Productions
NEVER COMPLIMENT A FEMINIST
Non-Binary LAWYER Says It's ILLEGAL to Misgender Her
History Summarized: Africa
Overly Sarcastic Productions
Oops, already mentioned last one!
By similar things, I mean that the "ID de lecture" was different.
Who thinks this is just a coincidence? Who thinks someone in Paris (e g a security agent or shrink or sth) is up to sth against my liberties as internaut?
If it were (by any remote chance) a kind of shrink, he or she could be the kind of leftwinger who would describe "Overly Sarcastic Productions" (one of my fav channels) as a rightwing extremist or deep South fundie youtube channel. If I verbally agreed, that would be an overly sarcastic statement!
Or perhaps one who thinks (it could be a Muslim in the administration, medical or police or military - but also a leftwinger) that Barbara4u2c is an example of extreme islamophobia. She was just stating on the video* such people may have attacked, that she was against the concept of islamophobia - while she was not considering all Muslims are jerks (she is not retarded).
Or it could be someone concerned with my having a chance to complete listening of second half of a debate between Kent Hovind (known Young Earth Creationist) and Bill Ludlow**, and comment on what I hear? Well, that would be a direct attack on my freedom of communication, wouldn't it?
But you might perhaps think it likelier it just so happens that twice in a row in very few days two kinds of library, two libraries in both of which I am known and known as a blogger, I get trouble connecting to the account or a function of it.
I'd love to hear what you believe about this ... readers, this is for you! Awaiting your comments, eagerly!
Hans Georg Lundahl
St. Severus of Vienne***
Update, next day, Wednesday 9.VIII or Vigil of St Laurence, bug about youtube, as noted yesterday by me and above to you, is now fixed./HGL
* "Islamophobia" is a non-word!
She is also daughter of a Slovenian military, so it hardly makes sense taking her for a fanatic, militaries don't tend to get educated or educate their own in that way, in the West, as to what usually constitutes "fanaticism". For instance, she would hardly take Zlatan's Bosniak father as an Islamist menace (I'm not sure I would agree by now!)/HGL
** Kent Hovind debates Bill Ludlow: Is there evidence for human evolution. (BEST DEBATE TO DATE)
*** This morning I thought it was "9/8/2017" because someone had written so before me when checking my snail mail on Salvation Army, but I knew it was Tuesday and could grasp that the "08/08/2017" before computer I'm writing on is more logical, since Sunday was Transfiguration, August 6. Full details for the saint, in Latin:
Viennae, in Gallia, sancti Severi, Presbyteri et Confessoris; qui ex India, Evangelii praedicandi causa, laboriosam peregrinationem suscepit, et, cum ad praefatam urbem devenisset, ingentem Paganorum multitudinem verbo et miraculis ad Christi fidem convertit.
Sunday, July 30, 2017
Under video with Hovind / Ludlow debate:
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- 56:54 "samples must be younger than 50 000 years and older then 100 years"
Bill Ludlow is highlighting an article with a misleading selection. Note, it does not say "Capital S: Samples must be ... etc. Full Stop."
It says in full :
"Since there are practical limits to the age range of the method, most samples must be younger than 50,000 years and older than 100 years."
Well, this is another pair of boots altogether!
Now, practical limit about "younger than 50 000 years" means probably that after 50 000 years not enough carbon 14 is supposed to be left, distinguishable from later contamination.
But a coal sample traditionally dated to 20 million years ago was dated to 36 000 years ago - meaning that even if you find more C14 than for 50 000 years ago, by now an evolutionist would need to say contamination is possible there too.
And how mineral coal which is a very near pure sample of the C14/C12 ratio could be sufficiently contaminated by much less pure contaminations of carbon from other sources:
Dating in conflict
Which ‘age’ will you trust?
by Hansruedi Stutz
As to "older than 100 years", well, that would indicate that fluctuations smaller than 98.798 percent modern carbon could happen within atmosphere we have (the seal and the mollusk would be examples of another problem, "reservoir effect", since they have gotten lots of "old carbon" through the water they were living in).
That frame is therefore +/- 1.2 %.
Let's take the two carbon dates from same/different animal:
16.292 pmc = 15 000 years ago
7.884 pmc = 21 000 years ago
Well, the discrepancy between the two dates are a bit bigger than +/- 1.2 pmc. I'd say they are different animals.
But they were probably animals from the timespan between Flood and Babel (in which atmospheric C14/C12 ratio was rising in a few centuries from 2 pmc to c. 40 pmc).
Both have a bit more than 50 % of original carbon content left, since they are both less than one half life old. The difference between them is that the original carbon content grew in the time between them. And that means that someone presuming original carbon content to have been 100 percent modern carbon (or pmc) or close enough (variation around +/- 1.2 pmc) will date both way older than they are and also put more than one half life between them, since they differ in a ratio more than 2:1.
Well, the slide by Kent Hovind was wrong, but he could have got it from a secondary source and a bad reading.
He has been a bit too sceptic about learning anything from carbon dating, I disagree, but so what? He has put the finger on the spot (like Edgar Andrews and probably Henry Morris), that if sth originally had far less C14 than 100 pmc and the ones dating it assume it had 100 pmc, their interpretation (good that Kent insists on that word) will give the thing a way too old age.
This point remains valid even if Bill Ludlow can accurately point out that Kent Hovind has been inaccurate in an amateurish way. An argument which is logically valid does not become invalid if it is presented in amateurish ways.
Aristotle's best argument for Earth being round was Gibraltar being just East of Ganges. It is not, but logically the proof is exactly the same which was 2000 years nearly later given by Magellan. So, Magellan proved Aristotle right, even if already Eratosthenes proved him inaccurate.
- Steve McRae Owner of the GDC
- +Hans-Georg Lundahl I think the (major) point you miss here is that carbon dating will only give you a lower bound. If a sample is a billion years old and you try to carbon date it, it will come up (depending upon method you use) anywhere from 20k to 40k years old. Meaning that that is the LOWEST possible age, but it does not give you an upper bound. So the sample STILL could be billions of years old. Carbon dating of older fossils is utterly useless because of this reason. It doesn't tell us anything.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- "If a sample is a billion years old and you try to carbon date it, it will come up (depending upon method you use) anywhere from 20k to 40k years old."
1) The Creationists are using the latest method, meaning the result is not "beyond detectable carbon", but "carbon detected".If a sample dates 36 k years and the detection limit is 50 k years (or rather : corresponding carbon level), the result means "carbon detected".
This means it is indeed an upper bound, unless you presume that :
a) original carbon content was orders of magnitude higher than 100 pmc
b) or that new carbon 14 has formed within sample.
Those are the options for it not being an upper bound.
2) You are presuming the methods by which the sample or where it is from is dated to billions of years (methods other than carbon, obviously) are worth anything : I think you are wrong on any of these methods.
Carbon method is worth some, I think it needs compression to take into account that carbon levels rose drastically after Flood.
"So the sample STILL could be billions of years old. Carbon dating of older fossils is utterly useless because of this reason. It doesn't tell us anything."
How do you presume to know the fossil IS older?
As I took up coal from "20 million years old" dated to 36 k years, what is the method by which you presume the coal is from 20 million years ago rather than from Flood?
Plus, your having a point would make any carbon date moot, how does one know it isn't too old?
But seriously, the methods you use for the older dates are worthless.
- First attempt
- in a library:
Fortunately, I could get it better later, but this kind of hampering conditions is hampering my work some!
- Steve McRae (Great Debate Community)
- +Hans-Georg Lundahl There isn't an upper bound when you have a sample outside the range of what carbon dating can detect. Why creationists do not understand this is beyond me.
"Carbon method is worth some, I think it needs compression to take into account that carbon levels rose drastically after Flood."
There was no flood. There is not a single solitary shred of evidence of a flood.
"How do you presume to know the fossil IS older?"
You don't. You use other methods to valdiate such as isochron.
"But seriously, the methods you use for the older dates are worthless."
The methods are fine, your understanding of them is worthless.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- " when you have a sample outside the range of what carbon dating can detect"
Per se, the lab test is detecting carbon, not a date.
And what you evolutionists fail to understand or pretend to, is that the carbon is within what the lab test can detect.
The date is just an interpretation of that.
"There was no flood. There is not a single solitary shred of evidence of a flood."
False. Bible, other legends, fossils all over earth, land shapes all over earth.
"You don't. You use other methods to valdiate such as isochron. / The methods are fine, your understanding of them is worthless."
You have just missed the chance of making a case for the method in order to make a case againt me instead, like Ludlow does against Hovind.
How about making a case why K-Ar is not debunked after Mount St Helen's or those New Zealand volcanos? How about making a case why the original line like shape on the graph for isochrons has not been blurred by subsequent findings?
Well, perhaps you prefer ad hominems because you have no good case!
- Steve McRae
- +Hans-George Lundahl "And what you evolutionists fail to understand or pretend to, is that the carbon is within what the lab test can detect"
It is physics and geology...has nothing to do with evolution. Take sample X...carbon date it. It comes back 30k years. Now tell me how you know that it is 30k years old, or 100 million. Go ahead...
"False. Bible, other legends, fossils all over earth, land shapes all over earth."
Um, no...actually there were entire civilizations thriving in the orient during this supposed flood. And every flood story is radically different at radically different times.
"How about making a case why K-Ar is not debunked after Mount St Helen's or those New Zealand volcanos?"
It was...Dr. Steven Austin submitted samples that the lab could not K/Ar date and yet they did it anyways for him. He knew the samples were "fresh" from a volcano with inclusions. He was utterly deceptive and this has long since been debunked.
" How about making a case why the original line like shape on the graph for isochrons has not been blurred by subsequent findings? "
Evidence please? Even RATES admited that isochron dating methods indicate an old Earth. In fact I will be discussing this with Dr. Humphrey's in a week or two. Geochronological dating formulas for isochron dating work. YEC's however have tried to have an ad hoc explanation to explain it away using "accelerated decay"...which they have utterly been unable to demonstrate, as well as explain the "heat problem" it would create.
"Well, perhaps you prefer ad hominems because you have no good case!"
Clearly you don't know what "ad hominem" means, I recommend you look it up as I have directly addressed your arguments.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- "It is physics and geology...has nothing to do with evolution. Take sample X...carbon date it. It comes back 30k years"
It comes back 30k years = it shows 2.654 pmc = within detectable limit.
Impossible after 100 million, but possible after for instance 5000 years, if for instance carbon content then was close to 5 pmc, as opposed to the 20 times more which the presupposition is behind the reading 30k years.
"actually there were entire civilizations thriving in the orient during this supposed flood."
DATED to during the Flood. You don't have a complete welldocumented chronology of history saying we are year so and so after Menes united both Egypts.
A flood 5000 years ago = > Egypt started later than 5000 years ago, carbon dates are off due to lower carbon content back from the times of Buto and Hieraconopolis.
"Dr. Steven Austin submitted samples that the lab could not K/Ar date and yet they did it anyways for him. He knew the samples were "fresh" from a volcano with inclusions."
There is nothing deceptive about testing a method by tests outside usual range.
"It has been debunked" = how?
Next one, here is Snelling on isochron:
CMI : Radioactive dating method ‘under fire’
by Andrew A. Snelling
"as I have directly addressed your arguments."
This time, yes, the previous time you just pretended I don't understand isochron or K-Ar.
I understand K-Ar better than isochron, but both enough to know there is a faulty assumption somewhere, and in K-Ar I am equipped to say which one, excess argon cannot be ruled out.
Friday, July 28, 2017
How Science Works According to Creationists
Viced Rhino commented on an AiG video. I commented on his. Despite his title, he gives at least as many arguments against Christianity in general as against Creationist views on obervation vs. reconstruction./HGL
Oh, one thing more, I am of course answering him on both accounts./HGL
2:31 You just happened to show about radiometric dating that decay of C14 to N14.
I am myself not sure whether C14 decays to N14 or to C12, I have heard both, but let's assume this as irrelevant for knowing how fast the decay is.
This by itself will not tell how old a sample with 1 % as much C14 as our atmosphere (in the proportion to C12) is, unless we presume that sample started out with 100 % or close enough. In that case it is of course 38 100 years or close enough. You can check that here:
Carbon 14 Dating Calculator
But if it started out with only 50 % modern carbon, it would only have decayed to 2 % of its original C14 content (proportionally to C12), and it would be only 32 300 years old.
You could also reverse that. It could have decayed for a halflife and we have 1 % left, then it was 2 % to start with and the 32 300 years which differ from 38 100 by, in our case, 5730 real years, would be years added in analysis due to an assumption being only 2 % right about initial atmospheric content of C14.
This last is fairly close to how I think carbon dating works in those extreme cases, multiples of the real and Biblical chronology.
Can you prove the opposite from the remaining content of 1 % of modern carbon 14 (or 1 pmc)? No. I took that into account in my analysis.
Can you prove the opposite from the fixed rate of decay? No. I took that into account by using the Carbon 14 Dating Calculator which works on that principle.
So, your any attempt of proving the opposite would involve, heavily, an assumption about initial C14 content.
2:46 The repeated experiments in the present could involve observations of decay rate only very theoretically.
Or, ok, they could have set aside a piece of recent carbon tested to have then 100 pmc aside in 1950, and in 2000 it should have 99.397 pmc, now it should have 99.193 pmc. That is btw a very much clearer difference than you could hope to have with Uranium or Potassium isotopes.
But no repeated experiment in the present can per se determine the original C14 content was 100 pmc.
You could of course date a lot of organic material from the time of Tiberius. It should be independently datable to his time by history, like coins with his image and a presumption these went out of use soon after his replacement with next Emperor. You could check it is 78.511 pmc left, or close enough.
That would tell you the atmosphere in Tiberius' time was 100 pmc, if you assume both the decay rate AND that we are really exactly 2000 years away from Tiberius' 3:rd year of imperial reign.
Some recentists say we are only 1700 AD or sth (they could be so Masonic they would class this year as 1717, even, and consider the fake years of historians are exactly 300), which would mean that 78.511 pmc correponds to 1700 years instead of 2000 years. Then, either would the C14-content have been lower (96.436 pmc = 300 years), or the decay rate would be wrong.
I could imagine the opposite. There was a heroic century involving Arthur and Nibelungs, which was hidden ... so we could be 2100 years from Tiberius. And if we are not finding instead of 78.511 pmc the expected 77.567 pmc, perhaps the carbon content was higher - or the decay rate wrong.
We can know decay rate is right and that carbon content 2000 years ago was 100 pmc, by assuming that the historic evidence for us being 2000 years from Tiberius' third year is correct.
This kind of test cannot be done for determining whether the carbon 14 content in the time of the Cro-Magnon take over of Europe was 100 pmc. It could have been 2 pmc - and that would bring it within the times of Noah's Flood, according to certain versions of Biblical chronology.
3:11 "To find out how long it took the light to reach us ...."
That is assuming we know the distance.
Some part of assumed knowledge of distance involves speed of light and degree of red shift, but this is still not observational science.
We are not observing the star with supposed red shift at close hand so we can check the light is really red shifted. Also, that method is building on assuming we already know distance to "very close stars" with "measurable parallax". But the "measurable parallax" depends on certain assumptions too.
Calling it parallax involves assuming heliocentrism. No observation available for proving that one.
Calling it measurable involves assuming most stars do not show measurable parallax, only measurable "annual stellar aberration of light" SINCE the parallax is measured in relation to other stars doing also annually what is supposed to be "aberration of starlight"- which assumption in its turn depends once again on assuming - heliocentrism.
Without assuming heliocentrism, you don't know the distance. Heliocentrism is itself not observational science. You don't know the distance.
I can make a more or less wild guess the fix stars (as opposed to celestial objects moving around zodiak) are 1 light day away. You cannot prove it wrong without assuming heliocentrism.
And in case you think everyone agrees heliocentrism is observational science, no, look at Robert Sungenis and Rick DeLano and their productions "The Principle" and "Voyage to the Centre of the Universe". I only regret they don't go far enough, thinking parallax works without assuming heliocentrism. They have a technique for how it could work, but no proof that is happening. It is all stars moving in time and in pace with the sun. I presume they move in time but NOT in pace with the sun.
3:30 "when you say Jesus rose from the dead, we have no physical evidence for that"
No direct observation of the moment, though a trace of it on the Shroud of Turin.
But we have the empty grave - as physical piece of circumstantial evidence. It cannot be checked in the same way as you check water boils at 100 centigrade at air pressure of one atmosphere. It is history, not observational science. It is also historical science, and as such checkable mainly by historic evidence surrounding the scientific one.
3:35 "people who were not eyewitnesses to the events"
According to your heavily revisionist and basically non-historical assessment of authorships.
Two eye-witnesses (Sts Matthew and John), two having access to such (Sts Mark and Luke).
"who wrote at least 30 years after the events"
Not St Matthew, who - traditional authorship assignment, which has historic priority over reconstructions - wrote just after, AD 34 in Hebrew, and a bit later in own Greek translation.
"That would be like asking me to write an account of the Dupont Hotel fire in Puerto Rico in 1987."
If you have spoken to firemen and hotel personnel and guests who were around then, or looked at their left writings before they died, go ahead!
If you were in it yourself, go ahead too.
But recall that one traumatising event is not the equivalent of 3 years of study involving mostly non-traumatic ones.
"I wasn't there" - which is where you differ from Sts Matthew and John.
"Without the aid of the internet" - you know, even if some guys are actually these days enjoying social contacts mainly through internet, there are other ways too, which are at least equivalent.
Which involves the position of St Mark, long time student under St Peter, and of St Luke, student of St Paul and interviewer of lots of others in Holy Land or who had been there, including the Blessed Virgin who was still alive at the time.
3:57 the past : "speculation, circumstantial evidence" AND direct or second hand witness accounts, what we have for our religion and you don't have for yours.
4:10 "evidence is uncountable" - but pieces of evidence are countable - which is obviously what he meant.
[Some languages also use corresponding words like countables rather than collectives : Beweis, pl. Beweise and similar in Swedish : beviset = the proof, the piece of evidence, bevisen = the pieces of evidence.]
4:52 Yes a human foot print is very recognisable.
Why? Because neither the naked foot nor any shoe type I come to think of now directly looks like an animal footprint.
Also, wet mud is very recognisable as recent. That foot print was not photographed yesterday after being dried for months and then wetting up in a rain yesterday. If it was photogrpahed yesterday, the ground was wet same day and perhaps before.
5:09 You know the size of individual human beings of Laetoli footprints does not exactly match the size of the fossils without feet associated with them.
5:55 We can measure most of it, like height and how many people visit it each year.
But you cannot measure the year it was built in or who built it.
1889 and Gustave Eiffel are both known, not by historical science, i e scientific evidence in the present used to get the past, but by history proper, by historic evidence, i e accounts from back then. Preserved as narrative and as documents related to narrative.
5:58 "for the rest we have record keeping"
You claim to have it for Gustave Eiffel and 1889, we claim to have it for Genesis and Gospels.
I don't disagree with your claim, why do you disagree with ours?
If you say you need "proof" (outside records and community holding them as such) the records are really records (despite no community except that of recent sceptics taking them as not records, even Pagans considered them fake records rather than not records at all), what proof do you have for those involved in Eiffel Tower?
Essentially your trust in the community keeping the records, and a subjective one, since that community is modern, secular, "society". Which you are part of.
6:14 "there will probably be embellishments"
Most often not, more often like simplifications, mistaking one character, epoch or geographic locality for another, or inserting anachronistic details when original ones become incomprehensible.
"and these can add up to some quite ludicrous ideas"
Like King Lists in Egypt adding up to chronologies 8 times as long as Biblical record, when Church Fathers commented on it?
6:19 The Eiffel Tower is still here.
Yes, so is the Catholic Church after 2000 years minus less than two decades (33 - 2017 - Harmageddon).
So it is reasonably it was built some time - it is reasonable the Catholic Church was founded some time.
And it is more reasonable its building is recalled correctly than incorrectly - dito for Calvary, Easter Sunday, Forty Days to Ascension, Pentecost. And the 3 + years of intense study under Jesus leading up to it, for Apostles.
Same with its precursor the Ancient Hebrews (of whom the Jews are a Schismatic but still relic), it can be assumed it recalls Exodus and all before that back to Abraham - and it can also be presumed Abraham's genealogies back to Noah and Adam verify his keeping a record back to beginning of mankind. Involving fall, flood, dispersion of nations.
6:38 "it is possible Gustave Eiffel had another architect/designer locked in his basement, but there is no evidence for it, so we don't assert it"
Well, why do you assert non-evidenced anonymous authors of Gospels, then?
7:14 "when you have multiple reliable sources saying exact same thing"
Like Matthew, Mark, Luke and John?
"it is reasonable to conclude they are accurate"
Dito with Gospellers.
However, Genesis is one source. Isn't it?
Well, we have Palaeo-Jewish oral traditions too. But, the events are such that they would not have been believed except as either witnessed by original text composers (including oral ones later used by Moses) or by multiple sources reaching them (Moses was probably testing the fixed points of the tradition by interviewing many different sources).
When we have one source seeming to be result of multiple evidence, it is reasonable to believe it too.
7:23 "measurements and calculations that are not subject to human whims"
Well, any assessment of original amount of parent isotope is precisely a human whim.
"And can be checked by other scientists who can assure accuracy"
Except you are discounting those of them - see RATE project - who are not sharing a certain collective human whim on how to assess parent isotopes.
7:32 "we know the nature of human beings"
No, you don't. You don't know your own nature. You are fairly blind as moles to human nature, except when it suits you. Bring human nature up in connection with your whims, you tend to shout out about "vast conspiracy, do you believe that?"
7:56 "yep, but that is called history, not historical science"
Yes, precisely. History beats historical science, not the other way round.
8:00 "how we determine which documents are authentic" - is not a science like maths, is not a science like Bernouillis law of gasses, it is an art - involving human assessment, and yours is not the best one.
8:22 No, the repeatable calculations can be repeatably reversed with other assumptions about the unknow factors of certainly original amount of isotope, in some cases even length of halflife (K-Ar, U-Pb, Th-Pb - do you hear me?)
8:35 "the Bhagavadgita was right all along" - only if you trust divinity of Krishna.
Say I agree Mahabharata info on him is as for human observations (including Arjuna's) correct - is that an argument for his divinity? Not like Exodus or Gospels - for the divinity Moses served, for the divinity of Jesus Christ.
8:58 "if your God exists, yes"
Thank you - there are "Christians" who won't admit that!
"What evidence do you have for your God? Is it the Bible which is demonstrably wrong ..."
Actually Bible and Church - the latter guaranteeing the historical books of the Bible are real documents and not novels.
How do I know Lord of the Rings is a novel? Because the society of modern Western culture tells me it was written by Tolkien who hardly had much occasion to find and translate any Red Book of Westmarch.
How do I know Gospels are NOT novels? Because of the Church which tells me they are documents from about its foundation. Precisely as United States will tell me "Declaration of Independence" and "Bill of Rights" are documents from about their foundation as a Union free from previous colonial power.
And the part of "demonstrably wrong" presumes, perhaps, what you are trying to prove here : that "historic science" (as opposed to both history and observational science) is enough to conclude we walk on a globe which was around 4 point 5 billion years ago in a non-walkable shape.
Or, if you were adding to that ... I'm turning on the video again!
9:11 God inspired writers to write books which were compiled into a complete library called the Bible.
Well, that Protestant is using the passive voice, because Protestantism is shade on who did the compiling part, and who were also at same time evaluating authors as being inspired.
The answer is : the Church.
Not a Protestant "Church" or denomination which has a few centuries of existence, but the Church which was there from the beginning, well before Protestantism and also before certain schisms older than Protestantism.
First two Councils separate Nicenians from Arians. Arians have since then disappeared, some may have merged with Spanish Jews or Muslims rather than to become Nicenian, so Arians are no longer there. However, I think even Arians accepted the same NT books as we do as inspired.
Third council, the C. of Ephesus separated Chalcedonians and "Monophysites" from Nestorians. Each side has some kind of claim to be the real continuation of the Church, each side still exists. And each side certainly recognises the Four Gospels and the book of Genesis.
Fourth Council, of Chalcedon, separates Chalcedonians from Copts and Armenians, together often referred to as Monophysites, even if they consider that inaccurate. All three parts have some kind of claim (Nestorians would be fourth) to continue the Church for real, and all three parts also recognise the four Gospels and Genesis.
Two centuries of on and off conflict, from times of Photius to times of Caerularius, separate among Chalcedonians the Catholics from the Orthodox (usually now so called - the Catholic Church also claims the term Orthodoxy, the Orthodox National Churches also claim the term Catholic). Both parties (like the three non-Chalcedonians) have some kind of claim to be the original Church, and all five parties also do recognise the four Gospels and Genesis, and lots of books in between.
All five of these have better claims than all three to five thousand of the Protestant denominations to be the Church.
This is why the Protestant on AiG was not saying: God inspired writers to write books and showed writers and books as genuinely His by miracles before the Church, which books the Church just mentioned compiled into a complete library called the Bible.
So, my reason for believing there is not just a God in general, but One God in Three Persons, Father, Son and Holy Ghost, the God of the Bible, is that the Church historically testifies so. The Bible is the chiefest part of its testimony, along with oral tradition, or more precisely, with tradition not written by hagiographers into Bible books.
Precisely as my reason for believing there is a presidency and a power of civil movments originally not commanded by generals in US is the historic testimony of US.
9:12 Meme shown : no, religion is not infinite recursion, specifically it is not a circulus in probando as you suggest.
At least not the Catholic religion.
9:20 You seem to think the Bible is only credible if "the actual word of God", otherwise we could debunk just about everything in it. Specifically perhaps miracles.
Suspend the question of whether Genesis, Exodus and Gospels are the actual word of God. Suspend ALSO your prejudice against miracles. Evaluate historicity according to claims and to credibility of claims. I. e. we don't consider it credible Tolkien found and translated Red Book of Westmarch, since all the millennia (fall of Barad-Dûr is in a letter dated to "perhaps 25 March 4004 BC") between the events and recent publishing of Lord of the Rings, no one had heard of Red Book of Westmarch - among the plentiful evidence we have from all these centuries. Specifically in "the North West corner of the Old World" now known as BeNeLux, British Isles and perhaps Scandinavia and North German coast too.
While the Atlantis theme underlying part of it seems tied to other languages than Adunaic and to other names than Elendil - or Sauron. And even that one is far shadier in claims to facthood than the Biblical story.
9:24 "written by human beings who were not there - were you there to see that the authors of the Bible were actually talking to God?"
No, but the Church was. In Exodus we see the Church in its Old Testament form, Israel, witnessing Moses talking to God. Not all people following him up onto the Mountain, but all people witnessing phenomena indicating it was God he was talking to.
Were YOU there to see the authors were actually not seeing the events? No. That is a reconstructional claim, not a historic one. And most certainly not one of observational science either.
So it is from this flimsy and dim category of claiming to know called "historic science" by a man on AiG.
9:33 How I know the Quran is not the completed book with God having given His final revelation to Mohammed?
Well, because certain close looks at the Quran (e ge Surah 5) demonstrate a conflict with what is already known as word of God, and even admitted by the Quran as such.
Also, because Quran involves a claim of founding an "Ummah" (nation or church would be acceptable translations) which presupposes the failure of both Jewry and Church. And while such a failure of Jewry was envisaged as possible (Deuteronomy 28) and by the Church claimed as factual (speech of St Peter about their rejection of the promised one in Acts 2), a similar failure of the Church is excluded (Matthew 28).
This shortcuts any possibilities for Mohammed, Joseph Smith, Martin Luther, John Calvin and quite a few more to be founding the true and final Church. Possibilities actually claimed by Mohammed and Joseph Smith (with equal strength of evidence, i e too few and unclear miracles), and possibilities ostentatiously not claimed by Luther and Calvin, but logically necessary for the claims they did actually make.
Muslims cop out of this one typically by claiming Tawrah and Indjeel were deliberately disfigured - but the Church has not made a similar claim against Jewry of wholesale large scale forgery of OT and doesn't need to.
9:49 Rig Veda, some time between 1700 and 1100 BC ... "the oldest one still in use today"?
At least it is younger than the 11 first chapters of Genesis (yes, we claim parts of Genesis were dictated or written, confided to writing materials or learnt by heart, well before Moses finally wrote it all down as one book, a bit like first entries of Anglo-Saxon Chronicle were written well before final redaction of ASC as we have it now, except ASC is not an inspired book).
9:55 "oldest book ... actually Job ... written down ... 1000 years after Rig Veda"
No. Eleven first chapters of Genesis are all less recent than Job, and Job is certainly not from 100 BC, not even from 700 BC, but way older.
10:03 "Obviously the Rig Veda was closer to the source."
Take a look at Genesis 11.
Languages were dispersed at Babel. Indian languages, including Vedic Sanskrit are either a direct or even an indirect product of this dispersion. So is the polytheistic interpretation of things.
While older than quite a few parts of OT (a real 1700 BC, which I think wrong, would make it older than Exodus, roughly contemporary with youngest biographical entries into Genesis), that is no compensation for being from a more corrupted line of tradition.
10:16 The book of Deuteronomy is not telling you about laws in US (or UK). It was a legislation for Israel.
Here is text and then comment by a Catholic scholar.
 If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, who is not espoused, and taking her, lie with her, and the matter come to judgment:  He that lay with her shall give to the father of the maid fifty sides of silver, and shall have her to wife, because he hath humbled her: he may not put her away all the days of his life.
Ver. 29. Life. A law nearly similar occurs, Exodus xxii. 16, (Haydock) only there Moses speaks of seduction. (Menochius) --- If the father or the woman refused their consent to the marriage, the person had only to pay 50 sicles; which the woman received, if her father was not alive. But if they consented, the person who had been condemned by the judge, was bound to marry the woman, how deformed soever. (Selden, Uxor. i. 16.) (Calmet)
In other words, you don't get the point of the law. It did not give a rapist a chance to marry if he wanted, it gave the victim's family a chance of a shot gun wedding if they wanted.
And I am in favour or certain shot gun weddings after certain events. No untrustworthiness there. Any rape victim could consider this as one chance of getting back at her molester, and if she didn't, she only needed to tell her dad, she was not forced to wed him. But in cases of "friend rape" - yes, there is such a thing - part of the point was that she was given a chance of getting to bed with an attractive guy but taking it slower, her timing, not his, this time.
DEUTERONOMY - Chapter 22
Haydock's Catholic Bible Commentary, 1859 edition.
10:26 Judas' full story:
- threw down pieces of silver
- temple men bought him a field for it, Aceldama
- he hanged himself
- was cut down and consented to take up farming in Aceldama
- and there he burst open and finally died.
Yes, the Bible is trustworthy there.
10:37 Are you saying this about the "disciples":
8 But they going out, fled from the sepulchre: for a trembling and fear had seized them: and they said nothing to any man: for they were afraid.
That is actually about the
ST. MARK - Chapter 16
Haydock's Catholic Bible Commentary, 1859 edition.
10:34 For Matthew you are perhaps thinking of the women too:
28:8 And they went out quickly from the sepulchre, with fear and great joy, running to tell his disciples.
Note, however, that in Matthew you are dealing with Mary Magdalene (with another one), while in Mark you are dealing with women explicitly excluding her, since she was mentioned after them.
10:51 Your list of proposed internal inconsistencies has been debunked.
I e : GE 1:20-21, 26-27 Birds were created before man was created.
GE 2:7, 19 Man was created before birds were created.
First chapter talks about all birds in general. Second chapter either recapitulates (therefore the creation of the birds is not after that of man) or refers to specific birds being created once more before Adam's eyes, so he could see God as the Creator He was.
11:19 Sorry, but you are way overdoing the accuracy of what you would call secular records if you consider these as more trustworthy than Gospels on Quirinius (plus there are possibilities they don't contradict).
11:28 "no Roman census ever required anyone to travel to the birthplace of their ancient ancestors"
The wording as cited was "his city".
In other words, if a citizen of Naples was in Pompei, he had to travel back to Naples.
The Holy Family obviously adapted the wording "his own city" to conditions they were more familiar with. And the Roman control was not so tight (or they would not have needed the census) as to make this perhaps somewhat tongue in cheek response impossible by letting Roman police keep them back in Nazareth.
It's a bit like how C.S. Lewis would have gone to Wales, where his grandfather came from, because he was a Welshman through his grandpa. Even if born in Belfast.
11:32 "there was no empire wide census under Augustus"
Disputed, and there certainly was some kind of census under him if claimed in the Bible. I saw a suggestion it was about a census of loyalty rather than a fiscal one.
11:49 The census of Quirinius after death of Herod could be Roman sources misplacing a carreer, for some reason, in time.
Or could be another one than that of the Bible.
12:03 "one of the most important events in the Bible"
I suppose you mean politically important and therefore important for independent, Roman dependent, records.
You also seem to presume we have very detailed and well documented extrabiblical sources for Roman history. We have not, not for this period. Whoever wrote the Gospel would have known dozens more than anyone this time.
"welldocumented historical events"
Well, the possibilities are the event was ill documented too.
If "census of Quirinius", the time was ill documented. If an earlier one, it was an ill documented one or documented as sth not usually now referred to as a census (see the "census of loyalty" theory).
Either way, even those not actively seeing the Bible as word of God could do well to consider it is the best documentation we actually have for the event.
12:24 "Some God punishes at once"
[Not quoting video, but a saying.]
You saw video sound on and heard cackle and then cough, I hope?
12:33 "you almost killed me"
Well, he admits it!
12:58 You don't get why "describing universe with math means God" to someone, let me help you.
Wisdom 11: Yea and without these, they might have been slain with one blast, persecuted by their own deeds, and scattered by the breath of thy power: but thou hast ordered all things in measure, and number, and weight.
Second half of the verse indicates our Creator is a maths freak. If our creation had been just a freak event, this might not have seemed so.
13:12 No, when it comes to God of the Bible "not being logical", you get a fat F in logic.
Especially for including a list of supposed internal contradictions which aren't such.
13:19 God repenting in Genesis 6 does not mean creating was in the ordinary sense of the word "a mistake".
Anything except God Himself could on some level be a mistake, and that was the kind of "mistakes" God risked to make by chosing to create. You are profitting from it and so am I.
13:50 If there is spatial expansion, God certainly is doing it (one reading of one verse, among Christians supporting that reading of redshift phenomenon).
However, fertility is also God's domain (Ceres never made old infertile women like 90 year old Sarah or mother of Samuel give birth to any child).
Fire and lightning can certainly have been confided by God to lesser spirits.
14:05 "or if the mind evolved in a universe where understanding the universe helped with survival"
- 1) x helping with survival if there doesn't make a mindless universe or a mindless evolution capable of producing it. If men growing wings and flying would help certain men survive and have offspring, we have still not seen them do so. Dito with mind. In a mindless universe, mind would not have been favoured by survival of the fittest, it would not have been there.
- 2) Logic and understanding the universe on a theoretic level are not immediate survival values. Some people are now down playing logic and upgrading finetuned reactivity - and it is a survival value much more apparently useful.
No, God creating our mind is really and truly the best explanation for mind, and for language.
Will have a look at David Wood video too.
14:33 your own answer "how would you know" shows yourself downplaying reason.
Now, the strawberries are trusted as a foodsource, because planted from seeds with DNA able to produce the plant's own energy supply - and wild strawberries do supply energy, that is one use of food sources. They also supply some roughage, that is another use of them and also depending on the DNA which formed them.
Now, you might reply DNA is making our brains a trustworthy truth supply. But you can't even demonstrate it is our brains which to the full of each choice (theoretic or practic, like believing or disbelieving or eating or sleeping or doing sth) are doing the thinking - only that they are involved in the thinking.
14:59 "would not if your creationism hypothesis were correct"
You are bad in logic again.
15:08 - 15:11 You presume that if we observe the universe and it is 6000 (or 7500) years old, "speed of light had to have changed at some point to allow us to see galaxies that are more than 13 billion light years away"
Fair point against some Heliocentric creationists, perhaps, but as a Geocentric, I am not accepting nor needing in any way to accept the 13 or more billion light years.
If fixed stars are one light day or two light days away, created day four, Adam could see them on the evening of day six. If they are further away than that, you need to prove it. Without silently presupposing atheism or anangelism.
15:18 Decay rate changing is also not strictly implied in refuting extra-Biblical carbon or other dates.
15:24 "in order to leave the perfect geologic column"
Well, for aquatic creatures, no, the columns fairly well match what can be observed today about shell fish getting closer to bottom than real fish or aquatic reptiles or mammals (smaller shell fish can have been washed with mud slides covering these).
For land animals, we don't have geologic columns anywhere I know of - and I have looked.
Creation vs. Evolution : Archaeology vs Vertabrate Palaeontology in Geology
15:43 God ordinarily giving an angel orders to carry Sun roughly speaking just along the aether move westward around earth, but causing some delay and ordering same angel to stop following the aether move westward while Joshua commanded otherwise is in no way illogical.
Nor is it illogical to assume God could allow Joshua to speak that command (Joshua 10:12). Since Joshua is the same name as Jesus, the name God would assume at His Taking of Manhood, or Incarnation.
Miracles are NOT in any way illogical - except to those making the wrong assumptions about the nature of the universe.
15:47 "If you believe the universe behaves in a consistent manner" - I believe all angels and all mere matter involved in the working of the universe are indeed consistently obeying God and God has a consistent both routine and plan for His great exceptions to that routine.
No, atheism and anangelism (or a spirituality allowing God and angels so little activity it is about the same) are NOT needed to allow the universe to be consistent as we observe it.
Making a change of routine to mark His presence and to help His faithful is not "fucking with reality". Reality involves the routine working of the universe, but is not limited to it.
16:18 "because the guy who routinely changes the laws of the universe"
The laws of the universe are the ones God made and which allow both for the routine functioning of solar days, solar years and lunar months, and for exceptions, like Joshua's long day or - upcoming - Doomsday.
God making miracles is not changing any laws.
You get a fat F in logic again!
Monday, July 24, 2017
Kent Hovind debates Bill Ludlow: Is there evidence for human evolution. (BEST DEBATE TO DATE)
Video is 1 h 27 som min long, Bill's presentation made me want to wait, I started at 29:30 and went on to about 46:00 sth. Keep looking out for updates with second half. The same debate is also uploaded on videos by both Kent Hovind and Bill Ludlow, on their channels. This one is from the one who I think arranged the debate./HGL
29:30 While I agree with Kent Hovind that the idea of human evolution is part of the general idea of amoeba to man evolution, adressing the one is not a substitute for adressing the other.
As to human evolution, I can't dispute we are related to Neanderthals and Denisovans, I simply think they were pre-Flood races related to some inlaws of Noah. Neanderthals having been part of lineage of Mrs Japheth, and Denisovans either of Mrs Japheth or of Mrs Shem, unless you could argue South East Asians stem mainly from Ham. I think certain Christian authors who did believe table of nations considered at least the Chinese as a melting pot of diverse people from mainly Shem's lineages. On the other hand, European whites and Asiatics "yellows" form a spectrum which involves clearly Japhethic people (Scythians arguably from Magog) having clearly Asiatic features.
And I found some evidence Japs and Romans could both be related to Hittites, via Puduhepa figuring as "Venus mater" (she was an Ishtar priestess) and as "Amaterasu" (she was also priestess of the sungoddess of Arinna). But Hittites would seem to come from the oldest son of Canaan, on Ham's side.
Probably a short period - about a century or two or three - and possibly same artist.
Mr or Mrs Japheth, since many of them are in Europe. Possibly provoked by a sense (fairly obvious after the Flood) of : the world is changing, let's document it!
38:09 Yes, exactly, we don't have Neanderthal Y chromosomes and a population replacement of predominantly Neanderthals to exclusive Cro-Magnon happened in Europe between "39 000 BP" and "30 000 BP" - you just hit the nail with my argument of Neanderthals being a pre-Flood race.
38:24 I agree they were not modern humans, which means post-Flood descendants from Adam via Noah.
Also, while we have Neandethal hastags but no cave paintings, that could be because there was a Flood washing away the paint after Neanderthals doing them. No Flood after Chauvet, then.
41:37 do we or do we not need "to prove a fossil had children"?
If we can assume for a fossil it had typical traits of its population on this or that item, we can assume that the population had these traits.
However, this immediately rules out using one single fossil as proof of a population since it could be abnormally formed.
But also, when it comes to humans, I think populations of abnormally formed and perhaps not very likely to have children many more generations have existed.
In China, you have dwarf villages. I sometimes suspect tribes in the woods of trolls would have been tribes of trisomy 21, especially in Sweden or Norway (down in France or England, the Downsers as some like to call them were values as family members and once they usually died young from heart failure as praying for their families, since baptised and having all their life been incapable of committing mortal sins after baptism). But in Sweden and Norway, there is a tradition about "bortbytingar" (troll children left in normal human cradles instead of the real child) and there is some speculation these could be children with Downs syndrome. Ergo, when some recovered "their real child" by mistreating the troll child, could the troll child have gone to a secret colony of Mongos?
Seeing child welfare these times in those countries, perhaps some élite (clergy or nobles, not sure which is most suspect) would have done exchanges and instead of killing could have set up colonies, leading to stories of trolls in the woods.
Dwarf colonies are more likely to lead to reproduction, but hardly to have evolved to us, rather for a while from us. I e, from normal stature, not from humanity as such. But people with Downs can reproduce too.
So, suppose we really do have very close intermediates on every step between ourselves and Australopithecus, not saying I grant that, and we should conclude they are related to us, could they have been some kind of colony of abnormals or some kind of genetic experiment farm for "orc breeding" from men?
That is one possibility I have not entiremy thrown out.
42:02 "you didn't prove any of the Neanderthal skeletons had children"
There is however proof that Neanderthal typical genome can account for up to 5 % of the genome of a modern European, perhaps including you. This means people genetically like them had children, but since both their Y chromosome and their mitochondrial DNA is different from ours, we would be dealing with sth like a woman marrying a modern human (Seth-Noah or "sapiens sapiens") man, herself having a modern human mother. As a woman she would not carry Y-chromosomes at all, and as having our mitochondrial DNA from her mum, she would not carry Neanderthal specific mtDNA either. But she would carry Neanderthal typic DNA on one of her X and of the autosomes from her Neanderthal dad.
And this, supposing Noah did not count Neanderthals as Nephelim tainted in chosing his daughters in law, would fit the profile of one wife of one son of his very neatly.
We are not dealing with Neanderthal genes identic overall to modern human, i e post-Flood human genes.
There are plenty of those too, probably the reason why one racist theorist has concluded Europeans are Neanderthals and not Homo Sapiens.
We are dealing with genes usually found in Neaderthals and not post-Flood men, but found in a few of us, typically Europeans or Asiatics.
This means there was common offspring, so we must conclude they are the same created kind as we.
Unless you prefer to say they were elves, the first born of Iluvatar, who only rarely and against His usual laws intermarried with us. I don't believe that, I believe Silmarillion is great Christian literature by an Old Earth Creationist who unusually much made the best out of it intellectually (even squeezing in an absolute truth for Mark 10:6, which is why Silmarillion is more intelligent than Evolutionism), but I believe it is based on speculation and that one on one flawed principle, acceptance of Old Earth, which we agree is wrong.
Therefore, the Neanderthals who had children with people like us and whose descendants live among us (we are probably among these) were human, descending from Adam, like we do. And this, with the rest, fits a pre-Flood race.
43:07 sorry, you missed the point.
If ALL men share certain genes with chimps (like the damaged gene for vitamin C production), this proves a common Designer (and in case of the damaging, probably also a common one Cursing the one for the sake of the Other).
But if most men do NOT share and some men exceptionally did share a gene with chimps, that usually would either prove some of us had mated with them, or that there had been a genetic experiment. Unless of course the difference from a more typical human version of it is not very great.
We are dealing with genes here that are multiple and on more than one chromosome, and this presumably excludes a genetic experiment with Neanderthals. And we are dealing with small but very many differences between certain of us and most likely random other human alive today, which are also identical to genes found in Neanderthal bones.
We also know one gene which Neanderthals did have in common with men today and with no other primate : the FOX2P gene is a version permitting human speech, I think it is the brain capacity for learning words or acquiring actively acquired associations. They were able to learn.
So, Neanderthals, whatever might be the case for Australopithecus, most certainly were men descended from Adam and Eve.
43:42 "why don't we find a single" - Ludlow says "human ancestor" - "in the same layers" - namely as modern humans, or reverse? What is Kent Hovind's explanation to that?
Mine is this: with Neanderthals, those that are carbon dated, we most certainly DO find human remains of them with human remains of our type. While there were few modern men in Europe while Neanderthals lived, there were some and in Romania a researcher from Barcelona found two brothers (or probable such) in a cave, who were as much intermediate between us and Neanderthals as Alicia Keys is intermediate between my whiter mum and the blacker daughter of Martin Luther King, to name one black woman I respect.
The non-finding of contemporaries with Heidelbergians, Antecessors, Erecti races is due to using other dating techniques than carbon falsely suggesting they could not be carbon dated and for that reason NOT carbon dated to same time BP. Also not carbon dated to a different time either. And obviously, if these other dating techniques apart from giving much larger dates are much more worthless too, unusable even for relative dating, then the arguent of Ludlow falls apart.
44:39 "not finding humans and X together" - I'd certainly second that with certain larger questions, like man and T Rex. If I lived before the Flood, I would have liked to keep a safe distance. Hence we are not found in the coast swamps now known as Cretaceous.
But this is not about Erecti, Antecessors, Heidelbergians, as much, since the specific point of contemporaneity is not so much being settled by biostratigraphy per se as by K-Ar.
I mentioned that if the Tautavel man were carbon dated, he would probably look like the carbon dating of pre-Flood humans, just he isn't. 50 000 - 39 000 BP - instead of the ten times older obtained by ... the footnote I found links to a site which does not say.
Well, the population was anatomically corresponding to 20 (TMan himself) and around there, even younger, oldest corersponding to 50. My theory is, they were pre-Flood men, aging slower, and were therefore also older.
45:09 "if you've [n]ever found a modern human in the same layers as these more primitive species, you never have"
In general a bluff. You usually don't find lots of levels of land fossils in the same place in layers above or below each other, mussels and shellfish squids don't solve anything for human evolution, even if some are found above each other in GC.
In this particular case, if you extend the word "same layers" to mean "layers dated to same time" you do find "H. sapiens" (so named after wisdom of its surviving member Noah and his family, no doubt!) dated to early enough to overlap with Neanderthal and I think Heidelbergenses too. Earliest, recent find in Morocco, for those who believe that dating method. I think it was ... yes, quoting : "The Moroccan fossils, by contrast, are roughly 300,000 years old. "
NYT : Oldest Fossils of Homo Sapiens Found in Morocco, Altering History of Our Species
Carl Zimmer : MATTER : JUNE 7, 2017
Speaking of a bluff, I have a slight suspicion of bluff too when it comes to eyebrow bones not growing. You may have one skull of a ten year old with thicker eyebrows than one of a 90 year old, but you won't get the skull of same ten year old when he dies again at 90, or of same 90 year old when he died first time at 10. In other words, to study that on skulls, you would need to get relics like this joke (I hope it was) about relics being forged some cases "this Church has the skull of St John the Baptist" - "yeah, OK, but we have the skull of St John the Baptist as a child!"
No, and fortunately I don't think this was typical, even if Reformers pretended so.
And checking, the "layer" of 300 000 years ago (as they say) in Morocco is contemporary to presumed span of existence of Homo erectus, presumed to have died out 100 000 years ago:
Homo erectus est un représentant fossile du genre Homo, qui aurait vécu en Asie entre 1,8 million d'années et moins de 100 000 ans avant le présent.
"So a vast conspiracy is your answer" - "that is not my answer, that is a possibility"
There seems to be a very vast conspiracy to bring up the spook of "vast conspiracy" whenever someone mentions ANY conspiracy, even a small or partial one, in the field of evolution! I have heard it so often and it is so not to the point.
The Piltdown man was a forgery, and the conspiracy may of may not have included the non-Catholic Jesuit Teilhard de Chardin, but it took two or three men to do that conspiracy.
If five men find a Homo sapiens of clear Cro-Magnon feature in a boxing match with a Homo erectus, and they decide "oh, this looks like Flood biology and evolution being wrong, we can't show this", they don't need ten million collaborators to hide one of the fossils. Five diggers can do that by themselves, and there is nothing vast about such a conspiracy.
There is however something really vast about a certain culture which intimidates anything reeking of creationism, which could theoretically inspire such a small conspiracy of five diggers.
45:43 "chicken are pretty recent" - how recent is "Red junglefowl"? Considered as Gallus gallus, but without adding domesticus, here:
Wickipeejuh sez so on "Red junglefowl"
If "chicken" is Gallus gallus domesticus and "red junglefowl" is gallus gallus, perhaps Kent Hovind is also including the non-domestic gallus gallus, the now named red junglefowl? [In chicken, for which he does not consider domesticus as denoting other kind.]
How nice is it to change terminology and try to paint the other guy as ignorant because he uses an older one.
I met someone according to whom we don't have 23 chromosome pairs, but 23 chromosomes - because what comes in pairs is really chromatids, while chromosomes are now chromatid pairs ... obviously the older and more well known terminology is that we have 23 pairs of chromosomes, while chromatid is a word known more to specialists.
If you wanted to prove Kent Hovind is no specialist, congrats. You won that one, but I think it is a cheap one!
46:18 Ludlow really enjoys playing on terminology, he secretly assumes the "knowledge" that chicken only exist since 7000 and some years ago, when gallus gallus was domesticated and became gallus gallus domesticus, except those which didn't - while Kent Hovind, like most of us, is referring to red junglefowl as chickens, which fairly obviously they are.
Show a child of ten a family of red junglefowl, he will call them chicken.
46:44 comparing living things with something in the fossil record is eminently rational! It is through living things that we get a clue of what fossils might mean, either directly, as when they look much the same, or indirectly, like when fossils look plenty different from anything the researcher considers alive today.
Kent Hovind's point is that chicken (normal sense, not restrictive one as excluding red junglefowl) cannot have appeared from nothing well after man was there. It is a perfectly legitimate point, Ludlow is deliberately obscuring his point, so that people who share his fairly ill-known knowledge that chicken now only means what evolved 7000 years ago FROM the chicken no longer called chicken but just red junglefowl (probably previously known phrase to chicken farmers as name of a non-domestic race of chicken) can smirk at Hovind not knowing this.
Does not prove anything, except perhaps Ludlow being a jerk and putting science in an inaccessible ivory tower where only specialists enter. Opposite of what was considered good manners in science back when I was a amateur scientist at age 8 and believing both evolution and heliocentrism and big bang!