Suris Misrepresenting CMI and Climate Debate

Sarfati's GRIFT Could MELT the Icecaps! ATHEISM Causes Climate Change!?
Suris | 11.III.2020
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oqwtXvZziK4

I

5:46 It would in fact be impossible to ruin the earth for a long time and thoroughly ... but it's not impossible to do things that would lead up to there unless for instance Doomsday intervenes.

Apocalypse 11:18 And the nations were angry, and thy wrath is come, and the time of the dead, that they should be judged, and that thou shouldest render reward to thy servants the prophets and the saints, and to them that fear thy name, little and great, and shouldest destroy them who have corrupted the earth.

So, such and such a network, Capitalist, Communist, Gay Liberal, etc destroys or corrupt the earth, God will destroy them - before they completely destroy the earth.

Meaning, the non-intervention of God at such a point might lead to an earth that actually were destroyed. It's just that Doomsday would come first.

II

9:09 Apart from the sham medicine "psychiatry" where disbeliving evolution is a symptom, nothing in modern medicine comes from evolution.

Some things do come from observations about adaptation to environment, including observations on antibiotics resistent bacteria, but this is a very far cry from molecules to man evolution.

And when it comes to Adam, there is a very clear difference between maintaining he existed, was specially created and is in his generation unique with his wife Eve first and universal ancestor of men, including Homo erectus, Denisovans, Neanderthals, and maintaining man slowly evolved through these races and was perhaps not fully human before reaching Homo sapiens sapiens, and trying to combine these is easier given as a blanket statement than actually fleshed out into a credible scenario.

Haruhi Suzumiya

Psychiatry is medicine based
Psychologists can't prescribe pills
Psychiatrists can.
Medicine psychiatry is a oxymoron.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Haruhi Suzumiya Did you mean tautology?

I did not deny psychiatry counts as medicine, I am just pointing out it functions as a sham one.

Schizophrenia used to mean a process from hebephrenic, over paranoid, to catatonic.

To me, the only part of it that would have been there without psychiatry and psychiatrically minded non-specialists, is hebephrenic. "Not the paranoid type? That will come" - from a publicity for Stalk. Well, it comes to people exposed to stalking of psychiatry and its allies too.

III

14:13 Morris and Whitcombe were not first in the field.

Φιλολoγικά/Philologica : Les Prédécesseurs catholiques de Henry Morris (jusqu'à 1920)
https://filolohika.blogspot.com/2019/11/les-predecesseurs-catholiques-de-henry.html

Mangenot enumerates these, dismisses them 26 years after the last he enumerates, and 26 years approximately to the first cases of clerical pedophilia in France.

Romans 1:[25] Who changed the truth of God into a lie; and worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. [26] For this cause God delivered them up to shameful affections. For their women have changed the natural use into that use which is against nature.

IV

14:31 If you found a rabbit in precambrian strata, you would simply not classify them as precambrian ...

I can live with Permian creatures having different biotopes from Eocene ones in the years leading up to the Flood. And no, in land vertebrates, you never do find two fossil bearing strata one strictly on top of the other on the locations where they are fossil bearing.

In sea creatures, you do find whales over trilobites or elasmosaurs over trilobites ... for reasons perhaps easy to understand with some understanding of sea life (including the theory necessary for Flood Geology that the seas were shallower than now, since that is where the Flood water went when they deepened).

Creation vs. Evolution : Archaeology vs Vertabrate Palaeontology in Geology
http://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2016/06/archaeology-vs-vertabrate-palaeontology.html

14:55 The Flood was not an instantaneous event, during the Flood, there were plenty of occasions for layers to both form by sedimentation and then dissolve by erosion, very rapid such.

Like where there are lots of chalk and sandstone layers on top of each other.

When it comes to one layer of palaeontology in land vertebrates, we have so far one layer in each location. On locations where the pre-Flood world was land.

15:31 predictable?

Letter A
Alabama
Demopolis Formation, Alabama, US, Upper Cretaceous (Middle Campanian)
Alaska
Prince Creek Formation, Colville Group, Alaska, US, Upper Cretaceous (Upper Campanian)

Arizona

Black Prince Limestone Formation, Arizona, Upper Carboniferous (Westphalian A-B; Late Morrowan or earliest Derryan; Bashkirian)
Tecovas Formation, Chinle Group, Texas & Arizona, Upper Triassic (Carnian)
Chinle Formation, Arizona and New Mexico, Upper Triassic (Latest Carnian-Early Norian)
Moenave Formation, Arizona, Lower Jurassic (Hettangian?)
Kayenta Formation, Lower Jurassic [Hettangian-Sinemurian-Plienbaschian]
Navajo Sandstone Formation, Glen Canyon Group, Lower Jurassic [Plienbaschian-Toarcian]
Turney Ranch Formation, Arizona, Lower-Upper Cretaceous [Albian-Cenomanian]

Letter C
California

Vaqueros Formation, Early Miocene (Burdigalian)
Modelo Formation, Late Miocene (Tortonian)

Colorado

Harding Formation, Colorado, Middle-Late Ordovician (Caradoc)
Sangre de Cristo Formation, Colorado, US, Upper Carboniferous (Missourian, Kasimovian)
Morrison Formation, Colorado, Upper Jurassic (Kimmeridgian-Tithonian)
Purgatoire Formation, Colorado, Lower Cretaceous (Aptian-Albian)
Denver Formation, Colorado, Upper Cretaceous (Upper Maastrichtian)
Colorado, USA Eocene (Orellan)

Connecticut
Portland Fm, Lo. Jur. [Plienbasch-Toarc.]

Letters G to L
Georgia
Blue Buff Formation, Middle Eocene (Bartonian)

Illinois

Mazon Creek fauna, Illinois, US, Upper Carboniferous (Westphalian C-D) (Moscovian)
Modesto Formation, Illinois, Upper Carboniferous (Missourian, Kasimovian)

Kansas

Stanton Formation (formerly Admiral Formation), Kansas, Upper Pennsylvanian (Missourian)
Calhouns Shale Formation, Kansas, Upper Carboniferous (Virgilian, Gzhelian)
Niobrara Formation, Kansas, US, Upper Cretaceous (Upper Coniacian- Lower Campanian)

Louisiana

Cook Mountain Formation, Middle Eocene (Bartonian)
Yazoo Clay Formation, Upper Eocene (Priabonian)

Letter M, and here I stop:

Maryland

Arundel Clay Formation, Potomac Group, Maryland, Lower Cretaceous (Aptian)
Calvert Formation, Middle Miocene (Serravallian)
Saint Marys Formation, Late Miocene (Tortonian)

Massachusetts

Portland Formation, Massachusetts, US, Lower Jurassic (Hettangian-Plienbaschian)
Upper Portland Formation, Massachusetts & Connecticut, US, Lower Jurassic (Plienbaschian-Toarcian)

Montana

Heath Formation (Bear Gulch Limestone), Montana, Carboniferous, Mississippian, (Arnsbergian)
Morrison Formation, Colorado, Wyoming, Utah, Montana, United States, Upper Jurassic (Kimmeridgian-Tithonian)
Cloverly Formation, Montana & Wyoming, Lower Cretaceous (Aptian-Albian)
Blackleaf Formation, Upper Cretaceous (Cenomanian) Montana
Judith River Formation, Montana Group, Montana, US, Upper Cretaceous (Upper Campanian)
Two Medicine Formation, Montana, US, Upper Cretaceous (Campanian)
Hell Creek Formation, Montana, US, Upper Cretaceous (Maastrichtian)
Tullock Formation, Montana, US, Early Paleocene
Montana, USA Eocene (Chadronian)

Source, Palaeocritti:
https://sites.google.com/site/palaeocritti/by-location/united-states

Would you mind telling me what is predictable about this hotchpotch?

V

dialogue

Hans-Georg Lundahl

15:18 Plate tectonic may have been inspired by an Old Earth hypothesis, but are definitely transposable to Universal Flood theory.

Haruhi Suzumiya

I mean the pre Triassic period had a flood where it was raining for 2 million years but something as a universal flood for 41 days that wouldn't even happen as told when a pre Triassic period rains are rarely acknowledged as occurring.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Haruhi Suzumiya First, I think you consider the Flood as only based on rain.

Reread these two verses of Genesis 7:11-12 In the six hundredth year of the life of Noe, in the second month, in the seventeenth day of the month, all the fountains of the great deep were broken up, and the flood gates of heaven were opened: And the rain fell upon the earth forty days and forty nights.

all the fountains of the great deep were broken up = sth a bit reminiscent of plate tectonics?

Second, you probably consider Flood as describing a process impossible since needing to go to Mount Everest heights. We usually consider it as possible and Mount Everest and a lot of other mountains to have reached their height by post-Flood fairly rapid plate tectonics.

Third, not sure what your scenario is supposed to mean. Permian is on the Evolutionist view before Triassic, and it's a bit hard imagining land animals of Permian, even any of them, to survive 2 million years of unrelenting rain. Did you mean pre-Cambrian?

Haruhi Suzumiya

@Hans-Georg Lundahl it leads to the age of dinosaurs.

Source Chonday [sharing next video*] That Time it Rained for Two Million Years
https://www.chonday.com/30854/raintwomil6/

Pangaea became very wet,

* [this video:

That Time It Rained for Two Million Years
PBS Eons | 22.V.2018
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_1LdMWlNYS4

which I have not seen yet. But yes, it is about beginning of Triassic or just before!]

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Haruhi Suzumiya Thanks for link, but how is any animal supposed to have survived in that very wet time?

VI

15:47 It so happens, I have so far not been disappointed in the prediction that sea fauna may come in several layers in same place, land vertebrates in only one, and no mixing of sea fauna and land vertebrates, except very minor sea fauna, like one can imagine mussles or shrinmps coming with mud to bury some land vertebrates.

I recall there would have been a place in Mexico, California La Baja, where Cretaceous Ceratopsians lie under Palaeocene shrimps or crayfish.

But you might find an exception, take a look at this site:

Palaeocritti : By Location
https://sites.google.com/site/palaeocritti/by-location

And no, it is not a Creationist site!

Feel free to use this site in parallel:

Paleofieldguide : By Country
https://sites.google.com/site/paleofieldguide/by-country

VII

19:46 While Sarfati's explanation ultimately depends on the global flood, his closer explanation is an observed fact.

1200 the climate was so warm one could grow grapes in England, South of it.
5th–6th February 1658 the climate was so cold that Charles X Gustav of Sweden crossed Great Belt with an army on horseback riding over the ice.

Interesting that you are so much more interested in debating his ultimate principles which you dispute over debating his observations about known historic fact ...

VIII

20:01 Why are you not taking your tirade against the Flood on a video the CMI do about the Flood and its evidence?

Perhaps you don't care that they should be able to argue against you ...?

Or, since you would be doing it against them, arguing more effectively than you?

IX

22:14 I'd agree on your view on Greta's legitimacy, relative to that of her message.

"using a child for a political message"

First of all, at 17, Greta is legally a minor, and may not yet marry, which is a wrongdoing perpetrated in part in 1892 when the age was raised from 15 to 17, and in part 1915 when it was raised from 17 to 18. This does not make her a child.

Second, Jeanne d'Arc tried to reach the King of France at 16, and then tried again next year, after getting a refusal.

So, Puritanism on this front is Anti-French and ultimately probably indebted to an English view of St. Joan no longer held by Catholics.

X

24:46 Agreed.

In fact, some have considered the combustion engine a disaster for other reasons too ... like road kills. Hedgehogs squeezed to death under car wheels aren't pretty. Some stags have been as traumatised by cars as Bambi by a hunter, not to mention, the drivers have also not quite been in a good shape everytime.

Indeed, some people have even died in driving accidents.

Ross Hill comes to mind. Btw, he may be a saint, I think he interceded for me on an occasion, so no disrespect because he died in a car accident, please!

T H E N we have the question of what combustion engines do with trade and therefore also local production.

?

I think there was a comment where I commented on Suris presuming a viewpoint like that of a Southron Fundie as per Suris' known acquaintances.

I answered that CMI staff definitely were not rednecks, excepting the one Robert Carter.

I am not sure how it disappeared ...

• did I overlook it? or perhaps not get time to post it?
• did some internet admin imagine (or pretend to "imagine") I had gone bonkers when posting so much? (Bpi is a nice library, but librarians have some tendency to Commie leanings ...)
• or did Suris find this jarred too much with the misrepresentation he was, de facto, giving of CMI, so he removed it? That would imply the misrepresentation was intentional ...

Either way, here is the link to CMI's page

Who we are: the people involved
Australia | Canada | New Zealand | South Africa | UK/Europe | United States
https://creation.com/who-we-are

I am sad this involves not being able to give my personal assessments of some ... the main ones were Robert Carter (the one redneck) being my favourite enemy on CMI, and Russell Grigg unfortunately blocking their Catholic conversion, since he's too devoted to the Reformers.

XI

25:23 No, that is not hypocritical.

The founder of CMI is Dr Carl Wieland M.B., B.S.

Dr Carl Wieland M.B., B.S.
https://creation.com/dr-carl-wieland-cv

Here is an article from a medical perspective by him:

Your appendix … it’s there for a reason
by Ken Ham and Carl Wieland | This article is from
Creation 20(1):41–43, December 1997
https://creation.com/your-appendix-its-there-for-a-reason

Here is another article of his germain to your pov on the topic:

Algae to oil
by Jonathan O’Brien and Dr Carl Wieland | This article is from
Creation 37(3):55, July 2015
https://creation.com/algae-to-oil

XII

["it is thanks to the Industry / INdustrialism they hate"]

25:54 "that they exist in the first place"

Disagreeing with Sarfati.

It is because of Genesis 1:28 and of men and women obeying that, that they or anyone else exists.

Industry reducing child mortality by providing improved hygiene is an asset, but not the ultimate reason, and as humanity surviving in the Middle Ages proves, not a sine qua non.

"that they have a future"

In the Middle Ages, if you were willing to dig with a spade, you had a future.

In the 50's, if you were willing to stand at an assemblage line, you had a future.

Today, if you have extensive knowhow in computers, you have a future ... supposing there are too few others who have that.

XIII

27:43 Uranium is also limited quantity, much more than crude oil, if the algae experiment is correctly assessed, and on top of it, it is hasardous.

Harrisburg. Chernobyl. Fukushima.

And its byproducts are used to build Atomic bombs too.

XIV

28:03 Both are from Australia, and Australia uses Celsius.

So, assume they mean Celsius.

XV

32:13 The religious state of Soviet Union had sth to do with both economy and disasters.

They did not make Heaven their goal, they made progress their ULTIMATE goal, as Christians do with Heaven (or should).

They were too eager to get it, and this paid off in bad economic policies (Holodomor), bad manners to opponents (Katyn, and a massacre in East Carelia some are now trying to push responsibility to Finns for), and immature use of technology, specifically Uranium related one.

Soviet spies from the time when Harrisburg was being made came back with incomplete US technology with none of the safety measures, and ... well, you get the general picture. Soviets just couldn't allow US to have an upper hand in the race for nuclear progress. Obviously, where people are allowed to be Fundies, they cannot be good enough in science to compete with us true believers in Evolution, or sth like that.

XVI

32:38 That "Christian" perspective is actually not born out from Apocalypse 11:18 where the Twenty-Four ancients are adressing God "[thou] shouldest destroy them who have corrupted the earth"

On my view, part of the reason for the Flood was, nukings in the Mahabharata War had made earth uninhabitable, unless some parts sank into deep Oceanic basins and some other parts were covered in deep mud.

XVII

32:48 Stewardship thinking is common among:

• Catholics
• Orthodox
• Anglicans and Lutherans and Methodists
• Jews (Sarfati is, I have gathered, a Messianic Jew or sth?)

It is also often though not as universally seen among:

• Calvinists
• Baptists

It is also quasi universally practised by:

• Mennonites
• Amish

You know, some of the good guys in Terence Hill's They Call Me Renegade.

The other perspective you refer to is rather minoritarian.

XVIII

33:12 The nickname "Communism" usually refers to a Marxist society of the type Marxists themselves would call "Dictatorship of the Proletariat".

Marxism is pretty well devoted to Evolution and Big Bang belief (historically usually with atheism), about as much as Spain has Catholicism (or had) as state religion.

Luther and Canonicity of Maccabees (quora)

Q

Why do people such as James Hough keep telling the falsehood that Martin Luther "threw out" some books of the Bible, when in fact Luther translated them all, including the "Apocrypha"?
https://www.quora.com/Why-do-people-such-as-James-Hough-keep-telling-the-falsehood-that-Martin-Luther-threw-out-some-books-of-the-Bible-when-in-fact-Luther-translated-them-all-including-the-Apocrypha/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl-1

Answer requested by

Roy Wilson

Hans-Georg Lundahl

none/ apprx Masters Latin & Greek, Lund University

Answered 1m ago

I would second Seth Pace : Luther denied them status of canon.

I will cite a comment by Roy Wilson:

"Luther didn’t designate them as “Apocrypha”, St. Jerome did, and Luther just followed that. Until the Council of Trent, that was how they were viewed."

No, St. Jerome in his own day was a minority of one man. St. Augustine insisted, on behalf of all bishops he knew, that St. Jerome include these books. The man from Stridon had been unduly impressed by their absence from Masoretic, sorry, pre-Masoretic Jewish canon.

Updated

for some debate.

Roy Wilson

12h ago

Jerome was definitely not “a minority of one man”; scholars in both the east and west agreed with him, something the Catholic Encyclopedia acknowledges, and a situation which continued right down to Trent. Both St. Athanasius and Cyril of Jerusalem held the same view as Jerome: Athanasius does not include them in his list of what comprises the Old Testament, and Cyril counts the Old Testament books the same way the Jews did.

For that matter, Jesus explicitly references the Jewish canon with the description “from the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah”, indicating events in the first and last books of the Jewish canon — a list that matched the books written in Hebrew and did not include those written in Greek.

So Jerome was in very good company in his defining the Hebrew canon as the proper Old Testament. The real disagreement was in his use of the term “apocrypha”, as it was used in different ways by different writers. Other terms were “ecclesiastical” and “intertestamental”; “deuterocanonical” is a much later invention.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Original Author

1m ago

St. Athanasius is in the Church of Alexandria and Cyril as the name implies of Jerusalem.

Also, St. Athanasius’ presumed support for Jewish / Protestant canon is moot, since he debated at least the idea of not counting Esther as canon.

I seem to recall that St. Athanasius uses the Jewish phrase “22 books” and that is the main argument for his not accepting “apocrypha” as canon. In fact “22 books” had become a stereotyped phrase meaning Old Testament.

“Athanasius does not include them in his list of what comprises the Old Testament”

Does he give one? Where?

“and Cyril counts the Old Testament books the same way the Jews did.”

Lists them or merely counts the number to 22 books? See above for that. If he gives a list, show where.

“For that matter, Jesus explicitly references the Jewish canon with the description”

Unless the murder of Zechariah refers to some more recent event, like murdering the father of St. John the Baptist.

Or Jesus could have been aware of His speaking to Pharisees, and being aware of their more restricted canon, while disagreeing, if the Temple had (after Ezra) a wider one.

“So Jerome was in very good company in his defining the Hebrew canon as the proper Old Testament.”

Except that St. Augustine in correspondence with him references the bishops - plural -as disagreeing on the sentiment.

At least the Churches of Africa (not Egypt) and Rome would clearly have been preferring the OT canon we now have, and St. Jerome belonged to the Roman patriarchy. Unless you want to say that the lists of councils of Rome and Carthage call “I and II Maccabees” what we now call “I+II and III+IV Maccabees” (agreeing with Romanian and Greek Bibles) and “I and II Ezra” not what we now call “I and II Ezra” or “Ezra and Nehemiah” but what we count as “Russian I Ezra and Ezra+Nehemiah”. Which reminds me, a list that gives “Jeremiah” need not be just “Jeremiah” but could be “Jeremiah+Baruch”.

Anyway, St. Jerome was obliged to the customs of the Papal Patriarchy, the Latin Church, in which he was a minority of one. Making as - presumed by you - St. Cyril of Jerusalem would have been a bit as if a Latin Rite priest had wanted to celebrate the Eucharist with leavened bread. Or a Byzantine Rite priest with unleavened. Still obviously presuming you are right on St. Cyril.

“Other terms were “ecclesiastical” and “intertestamental”; “deuterocanonical” is a much later invention.”

Both intertestamental and deuterocanonical are later inventions, but “ecclesiastical” rings true, since they are books shared by the EKKLHSIA but not by the ΣYNAΓOΓH.

Luther had a motive, but no real gain, in ditching canonicity of Maccabees. II Maccabees 12 features prayers for the dead, so Purgatory, and even if it were not canonic it would have meant the idea of Purgatory / Prayers for the Dead was already around in Our Lord’s time, and we know He did not speak up against it in the Gospels.

The Process of Conversion (quora)

Q

How does someone join the Catholic Church and become a Catholic? What are the qualifications and commitments required to be considered for membership?
https://www.quora.com/How-does-someone-join-the-Catholic-Church-and-become-a-Catholic-What-are-the-qualifications-and-commitments-required-to-be-considered-for-membership/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl-1

Answer requested by

Mark Sims

Hans-Georg Lundahl

none/ apprx Masters Latin & Greek, Lund University

Answered just now

• 1) Knowing the faith. In the case of Gavin Ashenden, who had been Anglican High Church bishop (possibly with valid orders even), he was known to know sufficiently of Catholicism when a Catholic (or Novus Ordo) asked him to become Catholic, so in his case it went rapidly. In my case, RCIA was first delayed and then prolonged over two or rather three different starts, of which the last one lasted from September1987 to May 22 or 25 1988. I had already decided to become Catholic in 1984 after Christmas Day, when reading Umberto Eco, and I was actively seeking information elsewhere than at RCIA, like finding a Catechism here, a book on the rosary there, a missal for laymen with devotions, a polemic book by a faithful living in Rome (Hope 84, to Honor Our Lady’s Assumption, by Tom Zimmer, a US citizen of Irish and German heritage), going through articles in encyclopedias related to the topics, discussing with a Russian Orthodox lady who had been Roman Catholic until the Liturgic Reform shell shocked her (both about our common points against Protestantism and her Russian Orthodox against Catholicism as well).
• 2) Wanting to live the faith and therefore join the Church. IN the case of non-baptised, preparation for Baptism, in the case of non-Catholic baptised Christians, preparing to get excommunication lifted (in theory, not mentioned in the newer rite of conversion) and for first confession and communion. Part of this commitment is specifically to believe what the Church believes. In 1988, when I converted, the Novus Ordo establishment had not included Evolution acceptance and Heliocentrism acceptance, as they did early 90’s in some documents, and as these things are against Trent, which I was obviously (at least implicitly) required to accept as an Ecumenical and Infallible council, I think I am safe on this point.
• 3) Getting this validated by a Catholic priest in communion with the Pope. As I now consider “John Paul II” was not a Pope, there is some fault about this detail, but at least Pope Michael wasn’t elected yet, so it was not a flouting of his rights as the real Pope.
• 4) Proceeding to promise fidelity to the Church between First Confession and First Communion, stepping forward at Mass after the Sermon. And getting declared a Catholic.

Chesterton and Dreyfuss, Crusades and Jews (quora)

Q I

Why was G. K. Chesterton so convinced of Alfred Dreyfus's guilt?
https://www.quora.com/Why-was-G-K-Chesterton-so-convinced-of-Alfred-Dreyfuss-guilt/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl-1

Hans-Georg Lundahl

none/ apprx Masters Latin & Greek, Lund University

Answered just now

He trusted the French legal system.

Therefore he believed in Dreyfuss' guilt when he was judged guilty, and in his innocence when he was acquitted.

He also mistrusted the networking and internationalism of Jews. But not to the point of believing every Jew guilty in advance, with no evidence.

Q II

What people in Europe most often suffered during the Crusades?
https://www.quora.com/What-people-in-Europe-most-often-suffered-during-the-Crusades/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl-1

Hans-Georg Lundahl

none/ apprx Masters Latin & Greek, Lund University

Answered just now

I think you mean Jews, and I don’t think you are right.

The Jews suffered during the First Crusade, because it was largely manned by non-soldiers, by people who had imprecise ideas about whom they were supposed to fight and how. Or even they only suffered from the popular crusade.

But “during the First Crusade” (mostly just 1096) and “during the Crusades” (1095-1291) are two different concepts.

Dialogue under Same Video

Under a Creationist Video on Carbon Dating · Dialogue under Same Video

flakko4

You seem like a good guy, but I just need to say that literally every sentence you say in this video is incorrect.

I have a PhD in organic chemistry, and from that context I can say that, based on the first 15 minutes, you have no idea what you are talking about.

C14 is in ppt concentrations, yes. However, accelerated mass spectrometry can measure parts per quadrillion (at least) to parts per quintillion. The limit of detection for AMS is 1,000 to 1,000,000 times lower than C14 concentration in organic material.

And we aren’t just looking for one atom. In a 1 mg sample of carbon with 1 ppt C14 there are 50,000 C14 atoms. We have the technology to detect individual atoms, so to have 50,000 atoms/mg is extraordinarily easy to detect. Furthermore, instruments are calibrated and standardized to give exact and quantitative meaning to the data. Your arguments are completely unfounded.

And we can know the half life of C14 by simply using AMS to measure C14 content before and after suitable time. It is hard to exactly measure decay constants for beta emitters, but C14 is rock solid. That is not a problem at all. We can also know that the half life has remained unchanged because decay constants are not reliant upon any external variables. The decay rates for beta decay can be increased an insignificant amount y extreme pressure (increasing electron capture) but that type of pressure is irrelevant to terrestrial conditions. Decay rates are constants because they cannot be changed, and decades of testing has proved that.

You use the typical creationists talking point that the initial conditions must be assumed; in this case the C12/C14 ratio must be assumed to have been unchanged over time. You even say that scientists do not take into account changes in solar activity and magnetic field strength.

This is so wrong, I am convinced you didn’t look into that claim for a single second. It was known since Willard Libby invented radiocarbon dating that C14 levels fluctuate, and radiocarbon dating is calibrated to changing C12/C14 ratios over time. That is the entire purpose of the IntCal13 data.

IntCal13 used dendrochronology, lake varves, speleothems, and corals to determine the historical C12/C14 ratio over the past 50,000 years. If you look at the data you will see that the calibration curve follows the theoretical line closely. That proves there is an unbroken chain over the past 50,000 years, which eliminates any hope of a global flood interfering with the dating method. It also proves decay rate was unchanged (it can’t change anyway).

As I said, everything you said is wrong. I will discuss in another comment why carbon dating of dinosaur fossils, done by Hugh Miller, is just more creationist misinformation and lies

mutilatedjak

I appreciate your take on this! I am no radiometric dating expert... But I know a little. I assumed the PPT thing was covered by the number of atoms in a typical sample size... Like sure if you are looking for a single atom... There is a higher chance for error but if you have thousands of possible atoms to measure then it's just in the margin of error.

martifingers

Thanks for that informed take on this

Alexander Wallace

I wish I could post a slow clap GiF

Trinity Vandenacre

Mr flakko4. Thank you for your comment. I apologize for not getting back you sooner. Life just overwhelmed me for a while.

First of all, I believe you are correct that the amount of C14 can be accurately detected with modern equipment. You very well could be correct about the decay rate staying the same. Thank you for pointing that out.

I was not referring to Hugh Miller. I was referring to the work of Mary Schweitzer.

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

You state that the ratio of C12/C14 has been constant in our atmosphere for the past 50,000 years, if I am reading that right.

You also state that scientists acknowledge that the earth's magnetic field creates fluctuation in the amount of C14 in our atmosphere. After that you state that these fluctuations are accounted for in the calibration curve that is based on several other factors such as using tree rings and lake varves. How can you call this an "unbroken chain".

According to this article with referenced material, C14 has indeed fluctuated due to varying activity from the sun, nuclear bomb testing, carbon in the deep oceans being redistributed during glacial formation and ocean turnover.

I would ask if you truly believe that all of these variables can be easily "calibrated" by the gap filled guesswork associated with dendrochronology, and dating other items of unknown age.

What were the methods used to calculate the ages of the lake varves, corals, and tree ring data, which possibly only extends back 4,600 years ( farther only by playing "match the tree rings" ).

I am often told in these comments that scientists do not speak in absolutes, yet you are telling me these things as facts and using them as evidence to refute any other timescales.

I completely understand your concerns with some of what I said in my video, but I believe that your entire unbroken chain is based on a large number of assumptions that cannot be proven or disproven. This was my exact point in the video.

Also, the information for finding C14 in dinosaur bones is more regular than you seem to think. Here is a link from icr.org. If you wonder why secular scientists do not find C14 in dinosaur bones it is because they "know" they won't find it, therefore it is not tested. Seems like another assumption to me.

ICR : Carbon-14 Found in Dinosaur Fossils
BY BRIAN THOMAS, PH.D. * | MONDAY, JULY 06, 2015
https://www.icr.org/article/carbon-14-found-dinosaur-fossils

Here is a link to an article that states why scientists do attempt carbon dating on dinosaur bones. It is because they simply assume it is too old to have C14.

mutilatedjak

@Trinity Vandenacre yea.... It's well known to be regularly found... But the amount is soooooo small it's pretty must indestingueable from background c14 amounts.

Plus that source list is very lacking.

Trinity Vandenacre

mutilatedjak hey buddy. Good to hear you again.

If I am right and you are wrong, then most of the dinosaur fossils we find are from the flood. According to the Bible the atmosphere contained a great deal more water which would have made it almost impossible for C14 to be produced in our atmosphere at all. Starting from the Biblical account we should find very low amounts of C14 in any of the pre flood fossils.

We should also find evidence of lush vegetation on the polls, large amounts of volcanic ash in the ice layers from the huge amount of post flood volcanic activity.

We find all of that. Fits perfectly with the Bible. It all depends on what you start with as a belief.

mutilatedjak

@Trinity Vandenacre good to hear from ya too! Heh. I enjoy that we can keep it civil.

I don't start with a belief though. I lay alllllll the evidence out before me and without a preconceived answer. i figure out what model best fits the data, all the while having the best predictive powers.

While you start with the Bible is absolute truth and only are critical of science that doesn't fit it's limitations.

@Trinity Vandenacre say you disprove c14 dating... C14 has been crosschecked with numerous other radiometric methods, plus tree rings, ice cores, etc. They all match. So what has the higher chance of being true? They alllll coincidentally arrive at the same answer, yet are flawed, or they all in fact give us accurate dates.

@Trinity Vandenacre it's awfully convenient that the dinosaur fossils are layered by their age too. If a global flood occured, then they would all date to the same approximate age, no?

Trinity Vandenacre

mutilatedjak they only date to different ages if you use dating methods that are totally unprovable. If you look at the layers as having been laid down by the flood, then you would see different stages of one huge catastrophe. If those layers were laid down over millions of years, there would be nowhere near that many fossils, the layers would not lay down as they did. We would not find dinosaurs, crocodiles, and sea creatures all buried in the same mass graves. Some of them buried under 30 or 40 feet of mud. Just too many coincidences to believe the flood didn’t happen.

mutilatedjak

@Trinity Vandenacre because every tool has its limit. Take a meter stick and measure the width of a hair but only use meters. Or use a caliper and measure the length of montana. The tools have appropriate ranges of validity. The methods are provable...we can use documented history to test c14 dating, and then using basic physics we know what would be an acceptable limit on the method.

If the flood is true then we should find dinosaur fossils mixed with relativity modern mammals. We never find any sort of ape, horse, lion, erc with dinosaurs. If you find a single fossil like that, then you could refute modern evolutionary biology.

@Trinity Vandenacre you are skeptical of scientific assumptions. So let's try this. Does pluto orbit the sun?

Kiriel Branson

Trinity Vandenacre if you read flakko4’s original post again he doesn’t say that the ratios are constant. He says they have fluctuated and this has been known by scientists for many years. The fluctuations are caused by the very things you state in the video. Read those last few paragraphs of his again

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@mutilatedjak "But the amount is soooooo small it's pretty must indestingueable from background c14 amounts"

In fact not, since the carbon dates for dinosaurs are regularly less in age than 40 000 years which were previously supposed to be the limit.

@Trinity Vandenacre "According to the Bible the atmosphere contained a great deal more water which would have made it almost impossible for C14 to be produced in our atmosphere at all."

It doesn't actually say the pre-Flood atmosphere contained more water.

Also, it is not clear how water would have prevented N14 to become C14 in very high layers of the atmosphere, above atmospheric water.

I have another theory on what "waters above the firmament" are.

@mutilatedjak "C14 has been crosschecked with numerous other radiometric methods,"

Not really. They don't apply to same range of radiometric ages.

"plus tree rings,"

Like the other lignine based dating method, documents on paper, the material and therefore reliability decreases dramatically when you go back in time.

"ice cores,"

Presumed to be from annual fluctuations in ice layering, while the layers would probably often correspond to simple changes in weather.

"etc."

Sounds impressive, but is not specified.

Overall, while more than one method is used, this is less often the case with same sample.

@mutilatedjak "Plus that source list is very lacking."

Here you would find one - indirect - source:

Triceratops bone carbon-dated to just 30,000 years old?
Stated Casually | 26.III.2017
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eNY8xC3raDY

Trinity Vandenacre

@Hans-Georg Lundahl Thank you for your comment. As there is really no way to prove exactly what the waters above the firmament were, I would gladly hear about your theory.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Trinity Vandenacre I consider that water in the Biblical sense has five states of aggregation:

• ice
• liquid water
• water vapour

but also

• hydrogen gas
• hydrogen as plasma in the sun

In other words, waters above the firmament were made by hydrolysis on day 2, part of them was used on day 4, part reunited with oxygen at Flood (via Brown's gas) and returned to first three states, and part is still there.

mutilatedjak

@Hans-Georg Lundahl

Argon,samarium-neodymium,rubidium-strontium,uranium-thorium ,fission track dating,chlorine -36. All have been used to corroborate c14.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@mutilatedjak - one by one.

"Argon"

Checking:

"Due to the long half-life of K-40, the technique is most applicable for dating minerals and rocks more than 100,000 years old. For shorter timescales, it is unlikely that enough Ar-40 will have had time to accumulate in order to be accurately measurable."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K%E2%80%93Ar_dating

Conclusion : no sample can be dated with both potassium argon and carbon 14. NOT a cross check.

"samarium-neodymium"

"La constante de désintégration λ associée vaut 6,54 × 10^11 ans^-1, cette faible valeur fait que la méthode est adaptée à la mesure d'âges supérieurs à un milliard d'années"

https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Datation_par_le_samarium-n%C3%A9odyme

Conclusion : no sample can be dated with both samarium neodymium and carbon 14. NOT a cross check.

"rubidium-strontium"

Both English and French wiki were roundabout (to me) and technical, but a halflife of 49 billion years seems to make this another no no as to cross checking with carbon 14.

"uranium-thorium"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium%E2%80%93thorium_dating

Unlike my expectations, if English wiki wasn't meddled with, we do have possibilities of cross check, as time range for one application is 1–350 ka = 1000 to 350 000 years.

"fission track dating"

" fission-track dating is uniquely suited for determining low-temperature thermal events using common accessory minerals over a very wide geological range (typically 0.1 Ma to 2000 Ma)."

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

0.1 Ma = 0.1 * Ma (for megaannum) – a unit of time equal to one million, or 106, years = 100 000 years.

With 100 000 years minimum, no cross check possible. Wonder how much low temperature thermal events over long periods are actually hight temperature thermal events over a short one, known as the Flood ...

"chlorine -36."

" the cosmogenic isotope Cl-36. Its half-life is 301,300 ± 1,500 years"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chlorine-36

5730 : 301,300 = 0.01901759044

If the half life is or were correctly gotten, we would have a lap over of the shortest chlorine ages with the longest carbon 14 ages.

1.9 % residue or alternatively 100 - 1.9 % residue is a significant residue and can be used for dating. However, it would rather be a question of carbon 14 dates (presumed, wrongly to come from an initial 100 pmC) backing up the Cl-36 half life.

In other words, if very old carbon 14 ages are inflated, the half life of chlorine 36 would need a revision.

Under a Creationist Video on Carbon Dating

Under a Creationist Video on Carbon Dating · Dialogue under Same Video

I consider myself the main expert on this precise Creation Science Project, if not yet accepted as such by others. So, I keep up with others and see what they can contribute ...

C14 Dating - Christian Dating for Free ( CARBON DATING )
Trinity Vandenacre | 13.XII.2019
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MzpCEpVKg6M

I

0:19 When Flood of Noah happened, by adding together generations in Genesis 5 to get how long it was after Creation or in Genesis 11 to get how long it was before the birth of Abraham.

"When" that is in carbon dates ... depends on how much carbon 14 there was before the Flood, when the creatures buried in the Flood or on my view human races gone extinct in the Flood actually got their carbon from.

II

4:34 It slowly decays both in the dead animal and in the atmosphere. And in the live animal too.

It's just that in the live animal and in the atmosphere, you have factors replacing it.

Apart from that what you say so far doesn't seem to merit the consternation Viced Rhino expressed.

III

6:12 Every living animal does not have the same ratio, since some animals replace the carbon by sources of old carbon, like mussles and other shellfish, or even fish eating these.

The carbon 14 is always breaking down - in living organisms too - and this is why carbon that has gone through living organisms for 2 centuries or so, which can be the age of carbon in certain shell fish is indicated in its already ongoing breakdown of carbon 14. If you live exclusively on clams, one could carbon date your cut off finger nails to the Rococo ...

IV

8:02 In fact, C12 is not breaking down.

In carbon dating, you don't try to measure all the C14 and all the C12 in the entire atmosphere, you are measuring their proportion in vastly smaller samples.

Btw, any burning of fossil fuels with very much smaller amounts of C14 would tend to lower the C14 ratio to C12.

This means, when you carbon date the value "present ratio" is corrected to not reflect the effects of the Industrial Revolution.

V

10:20 Let's put it like this.

In a modern sample, C14 is supposed to be (I'm going with your value rather than checking for exactness) 1 in ONE trillion atoms of C12. In a sample that's supposed to be 5730 years old the C14 is supposed to be 1 in TWO trillion atoms of C12. In a sample that's supposed to be half as old as that, the C14 is supposed to be 1 in ONE POINT FOUR ONE FOUR trillions.

Somehow, modern samples and archaeology seem to be able to actually work out which is which.

10:39 A radioactive atom is not all that easy to miss.

VI

11:33 Yr yddwyf fi'n hoffi coffi.

A good lesson in Welsh to remember.

As far as I recall, it was not a question, but a statement but google translate is not agreeing (nor is it competent in meaning and language, really).

For statement, it gives "Rwy'n hoffi coffi" but as far as I can see that is just colloquial for "Yr yddwyf fi'n hoffi coffi."

Ah, this is more like what the question would be:

"Ydw i'n hoffi coffi?"

= leave out initial "yr".

VII

12:27 Half lives are not a method of measuring, they are derived from measures.

For instance, Libby had somehow determined the half life of C14 to 5568 years. It is 5730 years. How do we know? Because of measures in historically known objects.

A quarter of 5730 years is 1432 years. A half to the power of 1/4 is 84.09 %. And a quarter of 5568 years is 1392 years.

The reason we have 5730 and not 5568 years as the half life is, for instance, that 84.09 % of present ration C14:C12 is not found in objects from AD 628 but in objects from AD 588. This might be inexact as at any specific point of the past the atmospheric ratio may have been slightly above or below 100 pmC. But on average, the calibrations indicate that real halflife is not Libby's but what is called the Cambridge half life.

So, we only get a correct halflife by being able to measure the ratios in a sample.

VIII

13:15 The real problem with things supposed to be 5730 years old is, they arguably are from a time with considerably less C14 than now.

3710 BC is in pre-Flood times. Anything that old dates into tens of thousands of years, and what dates as 3710 BC is in fact from a time when - according to my tables Abraham was born. 2015 BC.

2013 BC dating as 3713 BC as per an original C14 ratio at 81.261 pmC.

This is one of the intermediate values, based on a value of Genesis 14 dating as 3200 BC when arguably I should have Genesis 14 dating as 3500 BC instead.


https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2019/08/scandinavian-stone-age-within-biblical.html

Referring back to:


https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2018/05/table-for-st-jerome-as-per-preliminary.html

IX

14:18 Assuming C14:C12 has been the same - well, confirmed by measures for recent centuries, I would think last 3000 years, from King David's time, with minor fluctuations.

B U T not confirmed by any history and infirmed by Biblical history if you date pre-dynastic Egypt to pre-Flood. So, pre-dynastic Egypt arguably had less C14:C12.

X

14:59 If a sniffer detects 0.236 pmC, meaning a carbon date of 50 000 years, I suppose it is measuring pre-Flood material that had perhaps 0.472 pmC or a bit more when living material.

That had 0.472 pmC or a bit less, I must correct myself, when there is less time since the thing was in a living organism, there must have been less of it for same amoount left, since there is a greater proportion left of what there was.

XI

16:26 Pretty well confirmed by recent C14 dates (like sth like last 3000 years).

Together they present both a stable and identic half life and a stable (for this period) C14 proportion to C12 (which is where the change is likelier to have come).

XII

16:50 You enumerated three separate "assumptions" for what is basically one: same ratio of C14:C12.

The main in-correctness in this would be changes in C14 if it built up faster in the past.

If Flood buried lots of C12, for instance, it meant it sped up the breakthrough of C14 being produced, but that happened once. Its reversal in industrial age seems to be so far marginal.

XIII

17:16 And carbon atoms in the caffeine too ... Yr yddwyf fi'n hoffi coffi and I think I am going to try to get some (don't know how you say that in Welsh).

XIV

18:12 Thank you very much for bringing up Armitage.

Not the only thing that can be said, but a very good point!

XV

19:44 About 5000 years ago ...

XVI

20:11 - 20:22 "if carbon dating is so easily messed up by contamination, that every time we measure anything that is supposed to not have carbon-14 in it, but does, it's actually contaminated"

Obviously, I do not believe contamination is that easy. The enemies of Armitage are more like desperate.

XVII

23:08 "the assumption that" C14 / C12 "has always stayed the same"

Very good point. Thing is, it should be possible to make some kind of table for how C14 was rising over Biblical / real years so that the later you go, the more accurate the C14 dates get.

I did several ones. They have one thing in common, except the contrasting one, namely, the C14 needs to have been over centuries or more than 1000 years after the Flood produced faster, up to 10 times faster, than it is produced now.

A higher amount of cosmic radiation would cause THAT and ICE AGE and MUTATIONS leading to shorter lifespans.

23:56 It is not really clear how volcanic eruptions and some more could damage the magnetic field.

On Heliocentric theory, it is supposed to exist thanks to iron core of earth rotating each day, and that would mean as long as days stayed the same, magnetic field would likely stay the same.

However, one can well imagine God putting the magnetic field on a weaker setting - how it is supposed to be formed is, to me, an untestable theory.

XVIII

26:11 As you mentioned wanting to do one for U-Pb, I have done one for K-Ar, if you are interested?

Location of Purgatory (quora)

Q

Do you think that if purgatory exists, it is located on Earth?
https://www.quora.com/Do-you-think-that-if-purgatory-exists-it-is-located-on-Earth/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl-1

Hans-Georg Lundahl

none/ apprx Masters Latin & Greek, Lund University

Answered 1m ago

Unlike the erroneous answer by James Hough (it’s application to other places called Heaven and Hell is not just erroneous, but heretical and condemned in Firmiter Credimus by Lateran III or Lateran IV, since Heaven and Hell will contain risen bodies), Purgatory definitely is a place.

I know of three theories as to its location.

My mother seems to somewhere have heard of “the holy planet purgatory” it could therefore be located on some body in the Solar System or exo-planets.

Dante considered it a mountain rising on the hemisphere antipodal to Jerusalem, but this would be debunked.

St. Thomas considered it a part of Sheol (among other things this involves Purgatory now and Purgatory under Old Testament remaining in the same place), namely below Limbus Patrum, and above Hell of the damned.

I’ll go for St. Thomas’ view, though I cannot exclude the planetary one totally.

William Kalal - Suris - Me - All on Tower of Babel

I tried to go back to the video that Suris was commenting on, comment under William Kalal's video, and take a link to it with my commments first. When I was putting comment 2 under comment 1, comment 1 disappeared after comment 2 did so.

Perhaps it's just a kind of delay, and in an hour I may see both of my comments, perhaps it was William Kalal, and perhaps it was the Georges Pompidou library. Anyway, for starters, I post Suris' video, with my comments below it.

William Kalal Thinks ONLY the Tower of Babel Explains LANGUAGE?!
25.II.2020 | Suris
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o1E8VhIJ-hw

I

2:36 I think that the video is adressing a problem internal to Creationism.

We all came from an Ark on Mountains of Ararat 3000 BC. On the Evolutionist view of language change, at least, we would now have less overall human diversity than the diversity within Indo-European family, which is supposed to have started diverging from c. 4000 BC. And there is maybe somewhat more to be said for the Evolutionist view of how languages typically evolve new values in the parameters and keep traces of earlier stages, than for Evolutionist view of other things.

We creationists therefore cannot explain a diversity which spans Niger-Congo diversity from Greenlandic by referring to a common proto-language, as Greenberg / Ruhlen confidently do.

2:54 - as said, I don't think the video you are watching is adressing the conclusions of us all coming from a mutation leading to Homo sapiens supposedly 300 000 years ago or of us all coming from a group of mutations honing out Homo erectus from Homo habilis 1 million supposed years ago.

In that time scale, the chances are ALL daughter languages to the first group of humans having and exploiting this capacity would have lost ALL concrete similarities to the earliest language, and so language diversity would not be a problem.

He is speaking about language diversity as seen in the light of coming from an Ark 5000 years ago, or on his view more probably just 4400 years ago. Obviously, in 101, 401 or 529 years from Flood to end of Babel (depending on text variety), you don't have time to evolve radical language differences.

3:41 Yes, exactly - he just stated exactly what problem he was trying to answer in the video, namely the one I outlined.

II

3:52 How certain languages come from Latin - namely around the Middle of the last 2000 years.

"And Germanic" - you mean and from *PROTO-Germanic, and no, we are probably right in deducing it's existence, but we cannot guarantee *Proto-West-Germanic and *Proto-Gothic 2000 years ago were identic to Proto-Norse (a language actually attested, therefore no asterisk behind), and thus a late form of a *Proto-Germanic supposed (and probably rightly) to have emerged c. 500 BC when Indo-European words underwent a series of phonetic changes called Grimm's law (which could theoretically have been the reverse of the real sound shift) and then Verner's law (which couldn't, plus Verner could have taken place before all of Grimm's was finished). We cannot actually trace back "himin" or "himil" to any pre-Grimm *kemen- or *kemel- nor identify what declinsion these words would have had, nor even decide how Anglo-Saxon "heafon" (English "heaven") came to diverge from medial "m" in this word.

In other words, when we trace back Germanic languageS to *proto-Germanic, we do so by inventing *proto-Germanic nearly as much as Tolkien invented Quenya. And this is even more the case when we deal with tracing *proto-Germanic, *proto-Italic (hypothetically 1000 to 1500 years prior to our Era, Terramare and Villanova archaeology) and some other *proto-languages back to *proto-indo-european. There's a PIE in the sky for the linguists, but on earth, PIE has changed faster than any other language has since 1868.

So, we definitely cannot historically trace even all Indo-European languages back to Proto-Indo-European, many believe this was spoken by the Kurgan culture supposedly 4000 BC (by carbon dates that need reduction to close to 2000 BC on my Creationist view), some fewer ones agree with Alinei it was spoken in Turkey in the Neolithic, and some others or at least one before me consider the language group a Sprachbund rather than a Family.

This is a very far cry from our historical knowledge of many stages of the process how natively spoken Latin diverged into natively spoken French and learned only Latin.

4:07 With British and American, we can definitely accept we are talking of a historic divergence actually observed.

As we are talking of British and American, that is the maximum divergence one could expect between Flood and Babel event. I. e. after Flood, 101 or 529 years later, you would not have a divergence comparable to Spanish from French or English from German even. By the way you are talking about. Yet soon after, we see languages as different as Elamite, Hebrew with Akkadian and Aramaic, Egyptian, Sumerian, and soon after Mycenaean Greek too, the earliest attested language in the loose Indo-European group.

III

5:35 As far as I know, Sargon per se is not Nimrod, even if the eye spoked out on his image may well have been a reference to Nimrod losing his right eye a bit earlier.

I find it annoying when either Genesis 10:8-12 or Genesis 11:1-8 is referred to anything Classic Mesopotamian.

Sure, we do find Classic Mesopotamian stages of Nineve, but this is later, Genesis 10:8-12 and Genesis 11:1-8 is referring to Neolithic, though some other serious Creationists (like CMI and AiG) would refer it to prior to Upper Palaeolithic ...

IV

6:13 Functionally we would insofar as no heavy genetic disease (except perhaps a mutation preventing to synthesise our own vitamin C) was common to Noah, his wife and their three daughters in law.

V

6:37 "even when they are fantastical and certainly not |...| with reality"

You are taking the criteria for when to dismiss a legend too loosely.

I dismiss the order of events between Ramayana and Mahabharata because it makes more sense to have Mahabharata in a pre-Flood and Ramayana in a Genesis 10 (prior to verses 8 and 12) setting (Hanuman being a candidate for young Nimrod, before he went too ambitious).

I dismiss Perseus and Andromeda being taken up to the sky as constellations because Bible and Catechism tell me, as they told St. Justin martyr who pointed this out, that this is not how the afterlife works.

I dismiss Hercules having Zeus for father and having suckled Hera, and I dismiss his eleventh and twelfth labour. As well as probably his real participation in Gigantomachy, but not necessarily his having an impression he had participated in it, and as well as his wrestling with Thanatos to save Alkestis. But that's about it. I don't dismiss his interaction with Centaurs since St. Anthony of Egypt interacted with a faun and a centaur when trying to get to and actually reaching St. Paul the First Hermit. I don't dismiss Aeneas leaving Troy for Italy any more or any much more than St. Augustine did so.

VI

7:17 If we read the text, we actually do not see God "was concerned" with any specified thing.

Genesis 11:5-7 And the Lord came down to see the city and the tower, which the children of Adam were building. And he said: Behold, it is one people, and all have one tongue: and they have begun to do this, neither will they leave off from their designs, till they accomplish them in deed. Come ye, therefore, let us go down, and there confound their tongue, that they may not understand one another's speech.

This is cryptic enough to allow both his guess - and mine, that Nimrod was going to use Uranium for rocket fuel when trying to reach Upstairs or Galaxity, and God wanted technology and science to progress somewhat before we could test that the plan is useless. Voyager 1 and 2 do not have enough space either of them to keep passengers alive on board for the time they have been in space, and they still have not found anywhere we could actually inhabit. But at least there was no mushroom cloud over Cape Canaveral.

VII

7:37 No one pretends anyone would suddenly lose the ability to communicate by natural means.

If you do not believe in supernatural agencies the story becomes impossible.

However, we do insist, the things we know about language do not exclude God bypassing this and changing the settings on each person's or group of persons' language competence.

VIII

7:55 "Why there are diverse languages within the human race" - as is also the case with the Greenberg Ruhlen scenario. A purpose does not equal a lack of literal truth to the story.

"and you can find similar stories"

Can we? If we could, well, so much confirmation of this one in at least general outline, but I'm afraid you don't get very far.

Greeks do not on the Homeric level of non-curiosity explain the diversity of human languages (unless you think Achaeans literally thought Luvian was merely human, but Mycenaean Greek the "language of the gods" - but Homer never bothers to flesh out an explanation and neither does as far as I know Hesiod).

IX

8:20 PIE is in fact an extrapolation.

As to Tower of Babel, we would have a "chain of remembrance" from the parents of Peleg to Abraham. Not too many generations or centuries. Even if Abraham was born 541 years after the event, in the LXX chronology.

X

9:00 "the existence of a place called Babel"

I suppose the guy is referring to 32° 32′ 31″ North, 44° 25′ 12″ East. Like the area in which Sargon was relevant.

Babylon is called Babil in Arabic.

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

I do not the least think Nimrod did anything in 32° 32′ 31″ North, 44° 25′ 12″ East except perhaps briefly passing through.

Why? Because we are dealing with Classic Mesopotamian in Babylon.

"Babylon was originally a small Akkadian town dating from the period of the Akkadian Empire c. 2300 BC."

NB, Carbon dated 2300 BC. In fact after Joseph lived in Egypt, since his pharao would have been Djoser, see Hunger Stele's reference to Imhotep, and Djoser's coffin is carbon dated to 2600 or 2800 BC for a real date around 1700 BC.

Nineveh (mentioned in Genesis 10:8-12) is older:

"Nineveh was one of the oldest and greatest cities in antiquity. The area it occupied was originally settled as early as 6000 BC during the late Neolithic period."

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

Which was, if after Babel, at least in Nimrod's post-Babel lifespan, unless Ashur lived later than Nimrod, which is also probable. Way before Classic Mesopotamian.

"Deep sounding at Nineveh uncovered soil layers that have been dated to early in the era of the Hassuna archaeological culture."

"The Hassuna culture is a Neolithic archaeological culture in northern Mesopotamia dating to the early sixth millennium BC. It is named after the type site of Tell Hassuna in Iraq. Other sites where Hassuna material has been found include Tell Shemshara."

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

This would arguably make Hassuna the later limit of Genesis 10:8-12 related archaeology.

Obviously, as Creationist I am reducing "6000 BC" carbon date to a more modest age, between Peleg's and Abraham's births.

XI

9:15 Would you mind telling what exact documented accomplishment of Alexander the Great you consider as historically non-factual?

9:37 The US story of Columbus and Mayflower is white washed, and therefore fragmentary as to original events, but each part still took place.

9:50 Amerigo Vespucci didn't discover Americas as to land, he only discovered by mapmaking these lands were not East Asia, but sth different.

Plymouth colony less friendly, granted. Doesn't make the first winter and the needed friendship from Amerindians untrue.

There is another part of the Plymouth story that is really untrue: Pilgrim Fathers coming for religious freedom ... er, no, they came to have the freedom to persecute Catholics and Baptists, something Stuarts were denying them.

William Penn came to an agreement with Charles II about religious freedom in Pennsylvania. For Anglicans, Catholics, Quakers, Baptists, even Puritans if they would like to come.

The Puritans had, though, perhaps been paranoid about Charles I admitting Catholics to the army being a first move before "reintroducing the Inquisition" (even though England never had the system called Spanish Inquisition and even though they misrepresented what the Spanish Inquisition was).

XII

10:29 Ouch ... he considered Akkadians (a post-Babel people with a post-Babel language different from Hebrew!) as the population of Nimrod ... and he also considered Akkadian cultures of Classic Mesopotamian type as contemporary with Nimrod building Babel ... ouch!

XIII

11:38 Georgia's been there since the beginning of time. Russia's been there since the beginning of time.

Is he speaking of physical Geography?

Because Kievan Rus' was founded in the centuries recently prior to 988 AD, at which time Kievan Rus' became Christian.

As to Georgia being there since the beginning of time, or post-Flood time, Shota Rustaveli, unlike Armenian chroniclers, is not tracing Georgia back to post-Flood and post-Babel events.

12:02 I was precisely thinking he can hardly have been referring to the actual communities, given what he was just saying about Babel ...

XIV

13:03 I think he was referring to this:

"Georgian is the most prevalent of the Kartvelian languages, a family that also includes Svan and Megrelian (chiefly spoken in Northwest Georgia) and Laz (chiefly spoken along the Black Sea coast of Turkey, from Melyat, Rize, to the Georgian frontier)."

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

= Georgian IS basically Kartvelian.

+ this:

"The Kartvelian family is not known to be related to any other language family, making it one of the world's primary language families."

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

Kartvelian does not come from *Proto-Indo-European or from *Proto-Afro-Asiatic, nor does anyone else have another very well established suggestion (OK Ruhlen may have considered it related to Na Dene languages* among Amerindians and to Sumerian, but that is about as loose as "Nostratic" - look it up).

13:19 Where the script is from is very irrelevant to where the language is from.

"Two inscriptions are dated AD 430 and the third one AD 532."

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

I think the gentleman is on the level of linguistic precision in which Stalin's mother tongue and the Bir el Qutt inscriptions are same language, like you are speaking the same language as Beowulf poem and I am speaking the same language Beowulf spoke ... Anglo-Saxon respectively Norse. Never mind linguists see some minor discrepancies of usage between Old English and Modern English or between Rune Norse and Swedish, or between Old Georgian and Modern Georgian.

*[I am not sure that Na Dene-Caucasian group as per Ruhlen isn't actually rather involving North Caucasian than Kartvelian, these are not the same group!]

XV

13:39 You just disqualified yourself from discussing linguistics.

No, just because Old Georgian Script comes from Greek Script does not mean Old Georgian Language comes from Greek language. And just because Greek alphabet came from Phoenician, it does not mean Greek Language came from Canaanean Language.

XVI

14:06 More to the point, perhaps, Georgians and some South Russians are basically same race type.

Nevertheless, they speak different languages. Despite common origins closer than those of mankind as a whole.

XVII

15:39 You take on William Kalal if you like, I'm taking on you.

Blog posts are less exhausting than animated videos to make.

XVIII

dialogue

Colour Blind Cross Stitch

As a linguist, that was beyond painful. That's not how ANY of that works.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

You think the story in Genesis 11 is just about explaining normal language change?

Colour Blind Cross Stitch

@Hans-Georg Lundahl Well, no. It's obviously a myth written by an ancient people to try and explain a phenomenon they didn't understand (in this case, the existance of different languages). We see myths like this in just about every culture, as far as I'm aware. But watching someone take this ancient myth literally, and try to use a modern map as "proof" was, yes, painful. Because normal language change gets you, eventually, to all the different languages that exist, and we can explain, and show that evolution from one language into another. I know this guy's working with the best information he has, but oof. He really needs a better epistemology than 'because the Bible said so'.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Colour Blind Cross Stitch You claimed to be a linguist, right?

"Because normal language change gets you, eventually, to all the different languages that exist,"

That is much more than can be proven even on the grounds accepted as proof by those who consider PIE a proven fact (I tend to take the Sprachbund or series of Sprachbünder hypothesis of IE meta-group).

You cannot trace *proto-world to *proto-indo-european and *proto-kartvelian.

"He really needs a better epistemology than 'because the Bible said so'."

You really need a better epistemology than "this is ridiculous" especially when it is so only because "this" is not what you usually think of in the question.

Colour Blind Cross Stitch

@Hans-Georg Lundahl I am a linguist, yes, but admittedly, not a historical linguist, so I'm not, perhaps, as well-read on the history of various Indo-European languages as you appear to be.

What I do know is that we've figured out many (though probably not all) factors that cause languages to change over time. And given enough time, one language can develop into a wildly different language. It is not unreasonable to extrapolate that back. And thus we have an explanation for how there are so many different languages without a God. I don't see a point in complicated that explanation by interpreting a myth literally.

Personally, I'm of the opinion that language probably developed independently in several places in the world (we know, for example, that writing developed independently in three different places), rather than there being a *Proto-World from which all other languages are derived.

It also has to be acknowledged that linguistic reconstruction is a best guess, nothing more. Until time travel is invented, and someone can go back and actually see what language they spoke back then, we just have no way of knowing for sure. After all, we have no record of what they spoke back then because they hadn't invented writing yet.

But yes, I still maintain that given enough time (i.e tens of thousands of years), and the various mechanisms for language change that linguists have already discovered, you would be able to eventually go from one language to hundreds, or even thousands.

@Hans-Georg Lundahl "You really need a better epistemology than "this is ridiculous" especially when it is so only because "this" is not what you usually think of in the question."

I'm sorry. I do not understand your point here. "This is ridiculous" is a conclusion I have come to based on years of study about how languages work. Arguing that the Tower of Babel was a real thing that happened because two countries on a modern map speak different languages is, yes, pretty ridiculous. I know that a study of European history would give me a better understanding of how that situation came to be that way, along with a study of the history of the Russian and Georgian languages, if I chose to dive in to those studies.

No, I can't give a detailed explanation of how Russia and Georgia and neighbours who speak different languages, but all the accumulated knowledge I do have suggests that it wasn't because of the events in the Tower of Babel story. If you have further evidence for the Tower of Babel beyond "the Bible said so", I'd love to hear it. I will evaluate it, and if it seems like good evidence, revise my beliefs accordingly. Because in the end, I'm not wedded to the idea that the Bible must NOT be true. I'm trying to believe as many true things, and as few false things, as possible. So far, I have not seen sufficient evidence for the fantastical claims in the Bible, but I am open to being convinced otherwise.

The man Suris is arguing against in this video is starting with "the Bible must be true" as his base assumption, and then doing his best to shoehorn the facts in to line with that assumption. That's not a good way to figure out what is true. He's starting with his conclusion already in place. I'd maintain that is absolutely some bad epistemology.

If this does not actually address your point, I'm sorry. I tried, but as I said, I'm not sure if I properly understood the point you were trying to make.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Colour Blind Cross Stitch "What I do know is that we've figured out many (though probably not all) factors that cause languages to change over time. And given enough time, one language can develop into a wildly different language."

In fact how wildly depends also on whether a written language is preserved all this time.

But yes, with 20 000 years, one could have Japanese, Greenlandic, all of Indo-European from one source, with 40 000 years or 100 000 years perhaps all of the world's languages by this process.

However, you can get wine from water via soil, vine plants, fruits called grapes, pressing of grapes and fermentation. This does not mean the miracle of Cana didn't happen. Where water came from wine* over a matter of seconds or minutes.

"The man Suris is arguing against in this video is starting with "the Bible must be true" as his base assumption,"

That he is right in, if not the best proponent for.

And as a linguist, you have precisely nothing to be said against all the languages as different as Sumerian from Old Egyptian coming in a very short time after the Flood via a miracle at Babel.

Suris pretended we have historic knowledge of opposite, as we know French and Italian are not two languages diversified at Babel, since slowly diversified since Caesar instead. Reconstruction is not historic knowledge and even reasonable reconstructions need to step beck for historic documentation of actual data.

*[correction:] Er, sorry, it was wine that came from water at Cana!

Colour Blind Cross Stitch

@Hans-Georg Lundahl I will grant that 6,000 years is not enough time to get to all the diversity of languages that we see around the world. However, we have archaeological evidence for humanity being around much longer than that, plenty of time for languages to change and diversify through completely natural means. And we have further evidence that the Earth is much older still, plenty of time for humans to have evolved language in the first place. All this evidence is stacked up again what one, single book says. I'm sorry, but I'm going to believe that overwhelming body of evidence over one, single compilation of stories. We don't have any extra-Biblical evidence for things like the Flood, the Tower of Babel, the Exodus from Egypt, &c.

Yes, the lack of evidence doesn't necessarily mean that the events definitely didn't happen (so many things don't survive for archaeologists to find later), but how complete the lack of evidence is, there is such a high probability that those things didn't happen that I'm not going to believe that they did. It's the same with Jesus turning water into wine. I can't say for certain that it definitely never happened, but extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, and someone writing it down claiming it happened is not evidence of that claim.

I would further contend, if you are willing to believe something just because someone wrote it in a book (even a fairly old book), that has the potential to get you in alot of trouble, because lots of people have put all sorts of absurd claims into books that could be detrimental to your health and well-being if you followed them. How do you determine that the Bible is the old book with the truth in it, and not, say, the Bhagavad Gita, or the ancient Egyptian Book of the Dead (to pick a couple other super old books, for example)?

This is why I think it's very important to evaluate what you believe and why, why epistemology is so important, why we need to practice critical thinking in all areas of our lives, because not doing can, and does get people into trouble (for example, the anti-vax movement and the return of measles). We need to follow the evidence where it leads, even if we don't like it, or it makes us uncomfortable. And so far, the evidence is definitely not pointing to the Bible being literally true in all particulars, the Tower of Babel story being one such example.

If you are going to insist and starting with the premise that the Bible is a true and correct historical document, I think we are just never going to agree, and will keep going around in circles, getting nowhere. But I would encourage you to always question, and doubt, because if it is the truth, it will stand up to the test of scrutiny, so let's not be afraid to apply that test. So far, for me, the Bible has not withstood that test of scrutiny, so, while I think there are many historical facts and incidents described in the Bible, it is also full of many myths and stories with no historical basis. If I am later shown to be in error, I will revise my beliefs accordingly, at the time.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Colour Blind Cross Stitch "I will grant that 6,000 years is not enough time to get to all the diversity of languages that we see around the world."

Thank you.

"However, we have archaeological evidence for humanity being around much longer than that,"

Not linguistic evidence, though.

So, as more or less linguists we are both amateurs on archaeology.

"plenty of time for languages to change and diversify through completely natural means."

Unless of course the dating is wrong.

"And we have further evidence that the Earth is much older still, plenty of time for humans to have evolved language in the first place."

Again, unless the dating is wrong, and on this one, how do you propose non-linguistic creatures could evolve language whatever the kind of time they were given?

"All this evidence"

If such.

"is stacked up again what one, single book says. I'm sorry, but I'm going to believe that overwhelming body of evidence over one, single compilation of stories."

Except that for one we have good evidence in tradition these stories are compiled from a series of factual accounts by contemporaries.

And except the evidence for an old earth is very far from overwhelming.

"We don't have any extra-Biblical evidence for things like the Flood,"

Yes, pretty plenty even.

"the Tower of Babel,"

Given the Flood and its recency and given language diversity, yes.

"the Exodus from Egypt, &c."

Ipuwer papyrus and Hyksos invasion.

"Yes, the lack of evidence doesn't necessarily mean that the events definitely didn't happen (so many things don't survive for archaeologists to find later),"

Thank you.

"but how complete the lack of evidence is,"

While it isn't.

"there is such a high probability that those things didn't happen that I'm not going to believe that they did."

There is such a high probability the traditions are correct that I am going to believe they did happen, so much more that they are also confirmed by Jesus (see next item).

"It's the same with Jesus turning water into wine. I can't say for certain that it definitely never happened,"

Well, if St. John was one of the guests he saw it happen (or if he was the bridegroom, as some have stated).

"but extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof,"

No. They require proof.

"and someone writing it down claiming it happened is not evidence of that claim."

It is indeed the main evidence we have for most if not all historic events.

"I would further contend, if you are willing to believe something just because someone wrote it in a book (even a fairly old book), that has the potential to get you in alot of trouble, because lots of people have put all sorts of absurd claims into books that could be detrimental to your health and well-being if you followed them."

We are talking of events, not about bad theories of medicine.

You can remember what you saw happen even if you are a lousy doctor.

Plus I don't think there are all that many old books of medicine where the recipes would be detrimental, it's just they had less than modern understanding of the reasons behind it.

"How do you determine that the Bible is the old book with the truth in it, and not, say, the Bhagavad Gita, or the ancient Egyptian Book of the Dead (to pick a couple other super old books, for example)?"

Bhagavad Gita and Book of the Dead happen to not be concerned with historic events, but theology, and I consider their theology as disproven by contradiction with Christian theology in some, not all particulars.

"This is why I think it's very important to evaluate what you believe and why, why epistemology is so important,"

Yes, indeed. So, why don't you evaluate how much of pagan histories (including what is often called myths) I believe?

"why we need to practice critical thinking in all areas of our lives,"

A scepticism against the main available source type of a certain truth type (written or spoken claim for past events) selectively in one particular instance or overall in instances when you really can't keep it up, is what I would not call sound critical thinking.

"because not doing can, and does get people into trouble (for example, the anti-vax movement and the return of measles)."

Yes, and getting measles is so horrible how?

"We need to follow the evidence where it leads, even if we don't like it, or it makes us uncomfortable."

I'd agree on the sentiment, but is there any relevance of it to either Bible belief or anti-vaxxers?

"And so far, the evidence is definitely not pointing to the Bible being literally true in all particulars,"

NO evidence provided so far. By you.

"the Tower of Babel story being one such example."

Except you have given no linguistic reason why it would not be true.

"If you are going to insist and starting with the premise that the Bible is a true and correct historical document,"

Several correct documentS, would be like it.

"I think we are just never going to agree, and will keep going around in circles, getting nowhere."

Except I can analyse why you pretend to reject it.

"But I would encourage you to always question, and doubt, because if it is the truth, it will stand up to the test of scrutiny,"

Doubt and scrutiny are two different things.

To me the Bible has stood up to the scrutiny of debate with several doubters and deniers.

"so let's not be afraid to apply that test. So far, for me, the Bible has not withstood that test of scrutiny,"

You have not presented to me how you conducted it. If you pretend to have linguistic reasons against the Tower of Babel, you are conducting it clumsily.

"so, while I think there are many historical facts and incidents described in the Bible,"

Thank you.

"it is also full of many myths"

What does the word "myth" exactly mean?

"and stories with no historical basis."

At least all stories from Genesis 2 onto Acts 28 have been presented within a framework allowing them to have as ample a historic basis as needed.

"If I am later shown to be in error, I will revise my beliefs accordingly, at the time."

Looking forward to your doing so next comment! Or one or two after that one.

Last 400, Including Drafts, These Have 100 or More Page Views

And those other ones, to the right, that haven't, are related in some way.

Time to Give Charles S a Separate Post		Continued from: Responding to Keith Nester's Mars / Venus Video, First Half
Holy Koolaid attacked Bible History		Continued on: HolyKoolaid Tries to Back Up his Attack Against Exodus
On the note of "born pre-1918"		See also: Robert Barron and his path
Discussion of Number of the Beast		Following : Second Half of Same Video (and Recursion to Debated Statement)
On ID vs Abiogenesis, debate part I		Previous in series: Answering Shermer
On ID vs Abiogenesis, debate part II		Previous to previous : ... on "Medical Reasons" for Late Term Abortions
... answering Apostate Prophet		Following: ... on 15 Topics about Heaven (43 QQ overall)
Ricky Gervais | Religion VS Atheism, Black and White Stand-up part		Sequel: Ricky Gervais | Religion VS Atheism, Colour TV Talk Show part + dialogue
... on Geocentrism and Heliocentrism		Sequel: ... against Another Attempt to Make History of Astronomy Proof for "Heliocentrism" of Some Sort (Beyond Tychonic)
Hemant Mehta took on the Flood ...		Same general topic, start of other series : Maths of Flood - Correcting Premisses
Two Videos on Teen Marriages		On more Fact Check Fails "for Simon Whistler"
Potholer defends Carbon dates		Debate on topic and related: Carbon Dates, Armitage and a Volcano of Hawaii
Other Dialogue under Luther Video		The "other" refers back to: Dialogue under Luther Video
Answering John MacArthur, II		Series starts here: Answering John MacArthur, I
For the Rosary		Related topic: Quora Consulted on Matthew 6:7 Early Translations of βαττο-λογέω
Extracting a Dialogue from Previous		The "previous" I'm extracting it from: And Others Are Also Wrong on Babel and on Flood
"Dark Ages" video reviewed		Previous, related topic: Standing with Nicaea II? Or falling to Hell with Iconoclasm?
When is Hislop Wrong? Everytime!		To same video channel: Some Are Wrong on Babel (and see above Babel and Flood, Extracting a dialogue)
Dr Grady McMurtry on Age of Earth - with comments, part one		Related topic, next month: ... on Genesis as History
To Yehudith Kleinman		Previous: On some confusing me with a National Socialist - questions to the Yad Vashem and one victim-survivor
On Patrick Coffin's Interview with Lizzie Reezay (first half) - Since it brings back memories of my own conversion (Bonus : Jesus Healed by Whose Authority?)		Same month, topic from previous line: ... on How I Became a Fascist