Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere: February 2022

Friday, February 25, 2022

Sharing

Russia/Ukraine and the Just War Theory
24th Febr. 2022 | Ali-Marie
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gX2fQU_k2gM

Konstantin Kisin: Has the media got Ukraine wrong?
24th Febr. 2022 | UnHerd
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PN5Zmq9YTUs

I'm on this - private - group, the admin shares some, very little with the general public:

1,000,000 people around the world in support of Ukraine's fight for freedom
https://www.facebook.com/groups/1millionStandForUkraine

God, have mercy on Ukraine!

Update:

The truth about Neo-Nazis in Ukraine
15th March 2022 | UnHerd
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MUgKTfe-IqA

Thursday, February 24, 2022

Also under the video with GMS and Leo Yohansen

Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : Bart answered ... · Continuing with Leo Yohansen · With Leo Yohensen, Snappy Version · Leo Yohansen is Back · somewhere else : Apostles and St. Irenaeus · Where is the First Person if Moses and some Disciples wrote Torah and Gospels? · Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : Also under the video with GMS and Leo Yohansen

Caroline Clements: Like the time Jesus was in the wilderness - alone - with God. So who was there writing it down, including Jesus's thoughts and the words God spoke to him?
Hans-Georg Lundahl: @Caroline Clements How much was Jesus alone in the wilderness?

You mean the 40 days? All we are told is what He would have told His disciples, namely that Satan tempted Him with three temptations.
Caroline Clements: @Omnitroph How on earth could you possibly know that? You are assuming things and making stuff up. Personally it is a mystery how any sane person can believe such utter rubbish!
Caroline Clements: @Hans-Georg Lundahl What he 'would' have told his disciples. But you don't know. You can't just make things up to suit what you want to believe. Whoever wrote the gospels - we don't know who. Even biblical scholars admit to that plus it was written in Greek and the disciples spoke Aramaic and were probably illiterate. Peter was actually described as illiterate. Anyway, whoever wrote the bible, probably several unknown persons, made a pretty poor job of it.
Caroline Clements: @Avant Gourd the gospel according to Mark not of Mark - a huge difference. If I wrote a book say 'The Dinner Party' I wouldn't describe my authorship as according to Caroline Clements.
Omnitroph: @Caroline Clements How could I know that? By reading the actual text of the Bible and picking up on the clear implications...
Caroline Clements: @Omnitroph You are kidding me. Implications are open to interpretation, hence all the religious wars, the suffering, the destruction of people's lives. Your God is a monster for not making things clear and, supposedly omniscient, making him even more of a monster, for knowing what will happen and doing nothing about it. I don't believe in him of course or any God. Religion is an evil invention of humans.

Knock knock
Who's there?
Jesus Christ.
What do you want?
I want to come in?
Why?
I want to save you.
Save me from what?
From what I'll do to you if you don't let me come in.
Hans-Georg Lundahl: @Caroline Clements When we study historic documents, the hypothesis that the writer could know trumps the one that he couldn't.

@Caroline Clements "plus it was written in Greek and the disciples spoke Aramaic and were probably illiterate. Peter was actually described as illiterate."

If they lived in Galilee, being illiterate was no obstacle to knowing Greek. It's more probably they were illiterate as to Torahic Hebrew - St. Peter is described as "Kephas" and not as "Kaiaphas".

St. Peter was not one of the Gospellers.

St. Matthew, the first Gospeller, wrote first in "Hebrew" (which might mean Aramaic) and then himself translated it to Greek. As he was a Levite by training, he was not illiterate.
Caroline Clements: @Hans-Georg Lundahl Setting aside the laughable notion that the Bible is historical except in the most superficial of ways, when Herodedus writes the history of the Trojan Wars we should accept Zeus and a multitude of other Gods! And of course the Koran, the Vedas, Joseph Smith's Mormon Bible, Beowulf and many others. It is quite ridiculous! I think you're a troll and just winding me up, do I'm going to block you now.

@Hans-Georg Lundahl Do you know what illiterate means? It means you can neither read nor write and the gospels were written in polished Greek by persons unknown, at least 30 to 60 years after the fact and altered over the age. All Biblical scholars accept this. Plus they are full to the brim with contradictions. In any case if I had written one of the gospels, I would not describe my authorship as 'according to Caroline Clements' The whole thing is a fake and has brought unimaginable suffering to millions of people throughout the ages whilst the various churches with differing interpretations waged wars and enriched themselves to grotesque extremes. Thankfully Christianity, in particular, the nastiest of the religions in my view, is dying out fast.
Hans-Georg Lundahl: @Caroline Clements "Setting aside the laughable notion that the Bible is historical except in the most superficial of ways, when Herodedus writes the history of the Trojan Wars we should accept Zeus and a multitude of other Gods!"

Not necessarily. Btw, I do accept that Apollon was a manifestation of the demon Apollyon.

There is a very marked difference between the kind of events for which the NT invoked God and those for which Homer invokes the gods. A man born lame, medically speaking, won't get well spontaneously - either there is surgery, or there is a miracle. But Greek or Trojan hero so and so getting confused because Apollo plays a trick on him, well, there are perfectly natural instances of warriors getting confused in battle.

"And of course the Koran,"

The Bible has 1184 chapters in Vulgate or Douay Rheims. Of these I have counted 680 as being history. The Koran has 114 Surahs and the genre is in each case sermons.

"the Vedas,"

Part of the Vedas is about things purportedly done between gods, no human witnesses. Basically corresponding part of Bible? Genesis 1, no more.

"Joseph Smith's Mormon Bible,"

You may have missed that Mormons don't claim it has been normally transmitted as history. They claim the last part of book of Mormon was written c. 400 or 450 AD and that Joseph Smith very miraculously recovered it by being given golden plates.

"Beowulf"

I count Beowulf as historic, and as historic evidence a pterosaur survived to close on modern times.

"and many others. It is quite ridiculous!"

Feel free to laugh, you may be better at that than at arguing.

"I think you're a troll and just winding me up, do I'm going to block you now."

Your choice.

"Do you know what illiterate means? It means you can neither read nor write"

In 20th C. contexts of literacy being mostly about reading and writing your native or national language, it tends to mean that. Add 19th C to this, if you like. It does not mean that in texts from 1st C. AD, necessarily.

"and the gospels were written in polished Greek"

Some would disagree on "polished" - it was not Attic.

"by persons unknown,"

On the contrary known to tradition.

"at least 30 to 60 years after the fact"

According to modern reconstructions, centuries after both fact and books.

"and altered over the age."

If you mean minor spelling and word choice variants, sure.

"All Biblical scholars accept this."

No, just all "Biblical scholars" of a certain school, the one Bart Ehrman belongs to.

"Plus they are full to the brim with contradictions."

Yeah, when did you name one?

"In any case if I had written one of the gospels, I would not describe my authorship as 'according to Caroline Clements' "

Perhaps because you have a different culture from them? Perhaps because the Church which ratified Gospels made a uniform way of referring to the authorships when it came to books treating many different ones (not all were kept, see prologue to Luke) the same subject?

"The whole thing is a fake and has brought unimaginable suffering to millions of people throughout the ages"

Like European countries abolishing slavery between St. Bathilde as queen of Franks (she died 680) and Ragusa in 14th or 15th C.? With England at Norman Conquest in or after 1066 and with Sweden in 1351?

Like Constantine forbidding abortion, setting out of infants, installing orphanages, hospitals, homes for elderly an strangers?

Like St. Louis IX making sure poor were judged with as much equity as the rich?

"whilst the various churches with differing interpretations waged wars and enriched themselves to grotesque extremes."

Would you mind telling me more about that? You are not very specific, I can't recognise any bit of genuine historic scholarship here ...

"Thankfully Christianity, in particular, the nastiest of the religions in my view, is dying out fast."

You are at least showing where your bias is ... are you Jewish?

@Caroline Clements "If I wrote a book say 'The Dinner Party' I wouldn't describe my authorship as according to Caroline Clements."

There is a book basically called that. Or two.

One according to Plato, one according to Xenophon, both of whom had studied some time under Socrates.

It is Ash Wednesday, 2.III.2022, but I publish it 24.II to keep it below my share./HGL

Wednesday, February 23, 2022

Historic-Critic Method Proponent Wrong about Historic Evidence

Evangelical Wrong about the Bible's History · Historic-Critic Method Proponent Wrong about Historic Evidence

Here too, I will only get to the beginning of a longer video, up to where the person has made the essential mistakes:

Historical Critical Method in Religion
1st July 2020 | TenOnReligion
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SpY0HR60MEo

1:50 First, you omit the fact that religious practitioners often DO have a historical view of their religion, which might be true or false.

So, you are wrong to state that they are not used to thinking historically.

A typical believing Hindu will have these historical tenets about the Mahabharata and Ramayana, and I think they are totally wrong:

Flood happened really long ago, Vishnu took the Avatar shape Rama after that, and then ten thousand years later also the Avatar shape Krishna - they met each other and died together in the Mahabharata wars, c. 3100 BC;
few survivors were left after those wars, but one child and one poet continued the lines, and the child was ancestral to specific Indian dynasties and the poet, Vyasa, took help from Ganesha to make a poem of what he and his contemoporaries had been through;
India and the transmission of the poem have a continuity reaching all through the Kali Yuga, all up to today;
and the fact that writing came later is immaterial to this.

But, I think these things totally wrong because they conflict with another history, which I do believe : Genesis. The Flood, in Genesis, happened c. 3100 BC, so I conclude the Flood was pushed backwards. I very much do think Ramayana and Mahabharata more or less happened as described, but in reverse order : Mahabharata in the Cainite dynasty before the Flood, Ramayana soon after the Flood.

I very much do not disbelieve this because - 1:52 - practitioners of the "historic-critic method" happen to analyse Krishna and Rama as "mythology".

And while literature can be said to comprise both history and mythology, you have drawn the borders very badly.

Literature is all texts that are handed down. A protocol of the Nuremberg trial is literature from the moment it's consultable in more than the original paper example in the courtroom.

It comprises "history" and it comprises "mythology" but the two overlap.

A "mythology" such as we have them from Norse pre-Christians, from Greeks and Romans, from Irish, from Sumerians and Babylonians, from Hindus too, is usually divisible into two parts:

divine myths (like Brahma creating, Vishnu upholding, Shiva destroying the world in cycles, or Apsu and Tiamat becoming ancestors to gods, one of whom killed Tiamat and made earth from her caracass);
heroic legend (like Arjuna being a neglecting husband to Parvati and a great warrior, like Gilgamesh dealing with Enkidu to civilise him).

And heroic legend is in fact one of the modes of transmission of history. History as such being a subset of literature dealing with past events seen as real and as observable from a human perspective by people who could have transmitted it to us.

Mahabharata and Ramayana, as for the main events (including a competition for overlordship and the loser regaining all in a gamble, like a wife kidnapped by a demon like creature) arguably happened, were arguably transmitted fairly accurately to Regmas' son of Kush's descendants in a community moving to India, and they managed a record in changing the transmitted story by inverting the events and putting Flood and Ramayana thousands of years before the pre-Flood Mahabharata lore and then treating this as a continued immediate background to their own situation in India, ignoring Babel.

Apart from Pagans ignoring Babel, this is record high as to how much oral transmission can deform historic facts so transmitted. With Theoderic beating Ermaneric at Ravenna, two battles were telescoped into one, and that's it, one of the victors becoming the defeated one in the rationalised "mirage" of a single battle.

By "literature" you may have meant things like narratives, including fictions. But in fact "fiction" had better be subdivided from both "history" (including legend) and from "divine myth" (revelation or serious speculation and in the former case divine or diabolic).

TenOnReligion: See my recent episode "How Does Religious Language Work?" for some clarification on what religious language is. If religious practioners have a false historical view of their religion then they do not have a historical view of their religion - they have a theological view.
Hans-Georg Lundahl: @TenOnReligion Sorry, but a false historical view is just as much a historical view as a corect historical view.

Saying Theoderic beat Ermaneric at Ravenna is just as much a historic statement as saying Ermaneric and Theoderic were involved in two different battles of Ravenna.

A view being theological does not the least invalidate it's being historical.

I don't think I'd find your recent episode very enlightening.
TenOnReligion: @Hans-Georg Lundahl I think you misunderstand what the academic discipline of history is. It is an attempt to better understand prior events based on evidence with the goal of yielding a more probable conclusion. As more evidence surfaces, the conclusion becomes more probable. It's similar to post-Enlightenment science.
Hans-Georg Lundahl: @TenOnReligion The similarity is that post-Enlightenment science also takes things for granted that simply shouldn't be.

The results, whether in non-Ricciolian astronomy or non-Scholastic history do not depend simply on more evidence but also on the false basic assumptions.

2:06 Zeus is arguably a king from Crete, who banished his father to Italy.

Hamlet is first of all a post-Frotho local king in historic Denmark (perhaps Scania, perhaps Zealand, would have to look it up) and the semi-fiction in literature by Shakespear slightly tweaks the story.

TenOnReligion: The legacy of Zeus is known by the far majority of people to be mythological. Few people (if anyone) think of him as a historical figure and the evidence for such is quite limited. Likewise with Hamlet - it's a play (thus, literature) and when people refer to Hamlet they nearly universally are referring to the play.
Hans-Georg Lundahl: @TenOnReligion You are referring to the present prejudice, not to new knowledge that has come about.

Most Christians up to the Renaissance and probably prior to meeting Buddhists and Hindoos, especially, would have agreed with lots of Euhemerism. Zeus being a Cretan king who banished his father is one such thing, and you find it in Historia Scholastica, if my memory serves me as it should right now.

Possibly already Holinshed, certainly Shakespear, deviate in some detail from the historic (or purportedly so) Amlethus. Most specially, Amlethus survived his uncle as actual ruler after the revenge and on top of that the uncle's name was Fenge (would it be Fengo in Saxo's Latin) and not Claudius.

You can consider Shakespear's play as fan fic playing around with a historic figure rather than as fiction pure and simple.

As to the quality "play" I would suggest you recall that Shakespear as much as the Greeks took the more serious plays from real or purported history. Another play by Shakespear is Julius Caesar, another one Timon of Athens, another one Henry V.
TenOnReligion: @Hans-Georg Lundahl You're equivocating on genres here. Some literary figures are inspired by historical figures but that doesn't make the literary ones the historical ones.
Hans-Georg Lundahl: @TenOnReligion Hamleth not being Amlethus is in a way correct, but the correctness does not hang on Hamleth being a play. It hangs on Shakespear or Holinshed taking too many liberties with Saxo - unless Holinshed had access to information not from Saxo and preferred it.

2:28 History is what can be established as having happened before by using historical forms of evidence - correct so far.

Now, orally transmitted legend actually is a historical form of evidence.

This is what your method misses.

2:34 Historical evidence very certainly can and usually does involve theological assumptions that some but not all people share.

And if you are from a different religion - as I am in relation to works purportedly by Vyasa - you will simply have to sort out the probable or at least possible historic information from Mahabharata or Ramayana from the wrong theological ones.

I am by the way not inclined to think anyone in the actual times of Mahabharata events (before the Flood) was worshipping Hindu gods, but I definitely see a possibility that Krishna lived (possibly as uncle to Pandavas, and if so arguably Jubal, Pandavas being arguably sons of Jabal) and was in later, post-Flood times raised to godhood by people who were turning away from the true God, namely the one that Jubal had worshipped as much as anyone else (or anyone else exceopt Satanists) before the Flood, and which the earliest people in post-Flood later in-India community had worshipped coming from the Ark.

Your second mistake is therefore to believe that historical evidence needs to be "theologically neutral" - there is just a question in the method of assessing it which should be that, namely accept the history, whenever possible, but don't buy an exotic theology unless it is really and truly backed up by the history.

TenOnReligion: This is a misunderstanding of what the academic discipline of history is. Theology involves a necessarily religious interpretation. History does not.
Hans-Georg Lundahl: @TenOnReligion If the academic discipline of history sets out as excluding a religious interpretation from the outset and goes as far as to deny miraculous claims because they would involve one, it only means the present academic discipline of history is wed to the wrong theology.
TenOnReligion: @Hans-Georg Lundahl History is not required to be wed to any theology in order for it to be history. There is no philosophical necessary connection between theology and history.
Hans-Georg Lundahl: @TenOnReligion Except truth.

Your way of looking at it de facto equals connecting history to an antimiraculous theology.

3:36 What happens if some of the rocks are pumice?

TenOnReligion: LOL, great example! Most people though would equate rocks with sinking rather than floating.
Hans-Georg Lundahl: @TenOnReligion Yeah, the "natural law" would be flawed in relation to pumice.

4:11 Here is your third mistake in methodology, namely assessing miracle as less likely to happen and more likely to be a faulty narration.

And to back it up, you claimed miracles "defy known natural law" - in fact not, they involve an agent not bound to that level of natural law.

For instance, when I type, this is not a miracle, but in some ways like it, there are certain things which can be put down to impetus of fingers, gravitation, resilience and other physical facts about the typing action. But none of these facts will explain that my writing actually involves sentences that make some kind of sense. Or, if you think they don't do so, take sentences you write instead.

Hence, there are different levels of natural law - and a human mind, as created, is bound by some of them. God by contrast binds or holds all of them. A miracle by God is like something done on a screen which the user couldn't do, but someone with "admin" privileges can do. It does not change the laws for what the users can do. These remain the same.

And as a result, you quickly have tacitly omitted your own historic narrative from your second rule - since freedom from miracles as a criterium of probability very definitely is not a theologic assumption shared by all, it is shared by some (like you), but not by others (like me).

TenOnReligion

A miracle is a religious interpretation of an event. Read some Hume to help understand this.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@TenOnReligion Hume is, of course, wrong. I'll start with what I knew of him, indirectly.

First, he pretends that we can conclude absence of miracles from the observation (very generally provided) that they don't happen.

That's like predicting pumice won't float.

Then he pretends that since this conclusion is supposedly good, we can conclude against any observation of a miracle being genuine.

That's like filtering out any account of pumice floating.

Now to your resumé of him. No, that's wrong again. A miracle is an event of which the correct interpretation is theological. This in contrast with falsely alleged miracles, where the theological interpretation is incorrect and with events that are correctly or incorrectly reported but would either way not imply theology too much. The great majority of course.

As said, your method involves taking a theological stance, and you have just told me who your theologian is, Hume. About as bad as you can get, unless you involve Kant or Schleiermacher.

TenOnReligion

@Hans-Georg Lundahl Are you familiar with any basic philosophy? Analytic propositions are those which express ideas independent of experience (referred to as "a priori)" and involve things like 2 + 2 = 4. Synthetic propositions are those which are based in experience (referred to as "a posteriori") and are empirical in nature with a greater or lesser degree of probability. Because of this they are not logically necessary. The assumption is that nature is uniform. The only way to label an event as a miracle would be to assume that nature is not uniform because there would exist random events which violate the order of nature for no apparent reason. Just because one perceives something (sense data) which cannot be classified according to one's current horizon of knowledge or past experiences (Gadamer) does not necessitate one labeling it a miracle. There are many other possible explanations. Your pumice example is a great example. If one is testing the floating capacity of rocks and predicts all rocks will sink, but then gets to pumice and it floats - this does not necessitate labeling the floating of pumice as a miracle. Only the horizon of knowledge has been extended based on such experience. What event has ever occurred where the "correct" interpretation has been theological? And for whom has this been the case? For a single person, a group, all of humanity alive at the time, all humanity for all times?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@TenOnReligion The assumption of nature being "uniform" in your sense will not hold water as an "analytic proposition" - the question is not whether the laws of nature hold during a miracle, but whether there are agencies outside those that normally show during a miracle. And atheism as well as an-angelism, if I may coin a word, are simply not analytic.

One way of deciding would be doing metaphysics really well - like St. Thomas Aquinas or C. S. Lewis.

Another way is going to experience. And obviously not presuming any "analytical propositions" which aren't such.

@TenOnReligion "What event has ever occurred where the "correct" interpretation has been theological? And for whom has this been the case? For a single person, a group, all of humanity alive at the time, all humanity for all times?"

The first question argues you have a ghastly ignorance of most of the historic record. Or you have an equally ghastly superiority complex against most who wrote historic records down. The second tries to pretend that theological interpretations are subjective. There are those very solidly anchored in the events, like divinity of Christ can hardly be bypassed if you admit His resurrection and His founding the Church forever.

TenOnReligion

@Hans-Georg Lundahl I did not say that nature being uniform was an analytic proposition. It's not.

@Hans-Georg Lundahl The divinity of Christ (assuming you are equating the "Christ/Messiah" concept with the figure of Jesus of Nazareth) developed decades after Jesus of Nazareth lived. The resurrection accounts in the gospel narratives were composed between 40-65 years after he lived. Neither are solidly anchored in the contemporary events. The earliest complete copy of the New Testament is from the 4th century. There are many places where scholars do not even know what the original words were because the various manuscripts disagree. How does one piece together events of the past from texts which were written much later than the events they describe and such available texts do not even agree? If your concern is with the early history of Christianity in particular, I have other episodes which cover those topics. There's no sense in continuing that discussion here.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@TenOnReligion "I did not say that nature being uniform was an analytic proposition. It's not."

Fine, then don't treat it like that, but conclude from either metaphysic or historic evidence!

"The divinity of Christ (assuming you are equating the "Christ/Messiah" concept with the figure of Jesus of Nazareth) developed decades after Jesus of Nazareth lived."

Your reconstruction presumes and therefore does not prove in the least, that the traditional assignments of teachings and of authorships to books are false. We have a historic view which you consider false, from a source you consider tainted. You have an opposed historic view which we consider false and it is from no ancient source at all, but from the popular pastime of reading between the lines.

"The resurrection accounts in the gospel narratives were composed between 40-65 years after he lived."

Apart from that in John, your reconstruction again presumes and therefore does not prove in the least, that the traditional assignments of teachings and of authorships to books are false. We have a historic view which you consider false, from a source you consider tainted. You have an opposed historic view which we consider false and it is from no ancient source at all, but from the popular pastime of reading between the lines.

"Neither are solidly anchored in the contemporary events."

How much of Ancient History is, according to such criteria as yours? Tacitus was three years old when Nero killed Agrippina.

"The earliest complete copy of the New Testament is from the 4th century."

But most definitely not the earliest large Gospel fragment, and no one argues (to my knowledge) that Caesar didn't write books I to VII of Bellum Gallicum because our earliest trace of any writing by Caesar is a tenth C. copy. Your criteria are not how Ancient history is done - except for one particular purpose.

"There are many places where scholars do not even know what the original words were because the various manuscripts disagree."

Yeah, was it "tweedledum" or "tweedledee"? It is usually that level.

"How does one piece together"

Why piece together rather than accept the sources?

" events of the past from texts which were written much later than the events they describe"

Do you believe in the battle of Issos? Earliest account we have would be from Diodorus Siculus. 1st C BC.

"and such available texts do not even agree?"

The analysis of disagreement between sources does not automatically trump analyses according to which they do agree.

"If your concern is with the early history of Christianity in particular, I have other episodes which cover those topics. There's no sense in continuing that discussion here."

Your choice if you want to quit.

TenOnReligion

@Hans-Georg Lundahl I do not understand what is the purpose of any of your line of thought here. Are you trying to better understand what the historical-critical method is? If not, explain to me what is to be gained from continuing? You have not understood much of what I have stated. You wrote, "Your reconstruction presumes and therefore does not prove in the least, that the traditional assignments of teachings and of authorships to books are false. We have a historic view which you consider false, from a source you consider tainted." What are the traditional assignments of teaching and authorships to books? Which books? According to whom? By what criteria? Who are "we"? I thought you were only one person. Where did I write that any historic view was false and when did I state that source was "tainted"? I'm not sure I even know what that means. The historical-critical method is based on probability, judging what is more or less probable. The least likely result cannot be the most likely result. If you want to suggest a more probable date or author for a specific text based on all of the available evidence, then make a case for it. There are plenty of religious scholars who do the same for multiple religious traditions. The HCM has at least three clearly stated criteria which are mentioned in the episode. If you believe I have misrepresented the HCM, then show me a scholar who has published on the HCM and show me on which point I misrepresented the position. If you don't think the HCM is a correct way of interpreting and understanding religion, then what is there left to discuss?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@TenOnReligion If the historic critic method is "based on probability" and in face of the Catholic tradition, what is to you "improbable" in:

divinity of Christ being held from the first;
Gospel of Matthew being written (with Resurrection account) in the thirties AD?

I hold you reject these more like because accepting them would mean two things:

good evidence for a clear miracle
historic facts being more correctly seen from one theologic view point than from another.

Is it based on anything else?

And I don't think you misrepresent the "historic-critic method" at all, you show very clearly why it is not the correct way of seeing theology in a historical perspective. Even if you won't accept that.

TenOnReligion

@Hans-Georg Lundahl I already have an episode on the composition of the New Testament gospels. The reasons for dating the gospels narratives are included there. Also, other figures from a similar time period and geographical area also claimed divinity. It's really not anything new or unprecedented. Greek and Roman culture have numerous divine figures.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@TenOnReligion The point in case being, these did not get a well documented death and resurrection.

Other case in point, you would claim they are not very well documented, and you have a specific methodology for that claim and the methodology in general is on this video.

As for your other video, it will get attention perhaps when I'm finished with this one, if that happens, as at present I am only at time signature 4:11.

Evangelical Wrong about the Bible's History

Evangelical Wrong about the Bible's History · Historic-Critic Method Proponent Wrong about Historic Evidence

How Is a Bible Made?
22 Febr. 2022 | The Ten Minute Bible Hour
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Sq3vzOFBVA

Here are two egregious errors right at the start, as indicated by my comments at time signatures within the second minute:

1:20 or something - you said something about the [Hebrew] "Bible in each household" - I think that is wrong, only a minority had even Bible books in their houses, and I mean believing Old Testament Hebrews.

You are projecting back a situation common among Protestants and today especially Evangelicals to conditions way before printing.

1:50 "They discovered they were all using the same writings"

Definitely wrong again. The 27 books came together, complete and exclusive of others, in the Councils of Carthage and Rome in the 4th C. Same councils also defining OT to include two books of Maccabees, Book of Wisdom and a few more.

It is actually from Maccabees you have the Bible proof text for creation from nothing.

I beseech thee, my son, look upon heaven and earth, and all that is in them: and consider that God made them out of nothing, and mankind also:
[2 Machabees 7:28]

Luther didn't like 2 Macc because it also includes prayers for the dead approved, chapter 12:

[43] And making a gathering, he sent twelve thousand drachms of silver to Jerusalem for sacrifice to be offered for the sins of the dead, thinking well and religiously concerning the resurrection, [44] (For if he had not hoped that they that were slain should rise again, it would have seemed superfluous and vain to pray for the dead,) [45] And because he considered that they who had fallen asleep with godliness, had great grace laid up for them. [46] It is therefore a holy and wholesome thought to pray for the dead, that they may be loosed from sins.

Monday, February 21, 2022

Someone Took Me for an Evolutionist

For context, see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_jsNHMaOJ68
by Gutsick Gibbon, a k a Erika.

Vlad Tepes: Creationists: "You can't trust the dating methods!" Also creationists: "Look at this city found in Israel that dates to the time of King David! Hooray for Bible!"
...: (omitting several, also by Kevin Johnson)
Hans-Georg Lundahl: City dating to time of King David - carbon 14.

Now, there is clearly a time from which that method is reliable. Directly.

The previous times where the direct reading is unreliable would be while C14 was building up in the atmosphere, and not bc of any inherent flaw in the theory as such. They can therefore be used with reinterpertation - one which I am proposing one version of.
Kevin Johnson: @Hans-Georg Lundahl ”any flaw in the theory…” did you not realize you call it factual and a theory at the same time? C14 works some say to 400 BC. Just what someone said. But it also dates live mosquitoes over 100k years old. Ten year old lava rock as millions of year using isotopes and some other dating methods. Not sure what your comments is trying to say but it uses equations that are fraught with assumptions.
Hans-Georg Lundahl: @Kevin Johnson The vast majority of datings are within limits reliable from a certain BC date on. Those that aren't are fairly easy to account for by either radioactive contamination (samples dating 3000 years into the future - after a nuke bomb test or at Harrisburg, forgot which) or by reservoir effect.

I used to set that date from which it is true at Babylonian captivity, a destruction of Jerusalem occurring in 593 BC and carbon dated to 593 BC. I am now pushing the limit back to Fall of Troy, in 1179 / 1185 BC. Dated historically by Eratosthenes and archaeologically at level Troy VI (a or b, I think b).

Before that, you have a majority of dates that diverge between real dates and carbon dates, because the C14 content in the atmosphere was still rising and had not yet reached the "present" level (the usual for the last 3000 years, not the one for last 200). A lower initial level = extra years, instant age before the sample starts actually aging.
Kevin Johnson: @Hans-Georg Lundahl you have some good knowledge but how do you know what the c14 was in the Earth’s atmosphere say 6,000 years ago? Big assumptions, no?
Hans-Georg Lundahl: @Kevin Johnson In Neanderthals from just before the Flood, c. 5000 years ago, there was the C14 needed for them to carbon date as 40 000 BP. This means that there was 1.4 pmC, 1.4 % of the C14 content we would have had if it hadn't been for the industrial emissions of old carbon.

And this means, there was some C14 present already before the Flood.

I would say the first C14 atom was created on day IV, when light from the Sun including the cosmic radiation shone on N in the atmosphere. But I9 can't prove it, since we don't have organic "fossils" from Creation Week. I can only assume it theologically from the fact that C14 exists and therefore should be one of the things present already in creation week.

But for Neanderthals from before the Flood, it is fairly well proven by the fact there still is c. 0.7 pmC (carbon date 40 000 years old).
Kevin Johnson: @Hans-Georg Lundahl Buddy, Neanderthals are humans, inbred that developed traits similar to aborigines in Australia. Already proven. Your whole argument is hogwash!!
Hans-Georg Lundahl: @Kevin Johnson I am sorry, but I was not aware that "pre-Flood" translates to "non-human"?

Also, suppose Neanderthals were post-Flood, and that their traits are due to inbreeding making an echo chamber for accumulating mutations, how long after the Flood would we have them, and why would that year after the Flood have a carbon age of "40 000 BP"?

It makes more sense the buildup happened slow before the Flood (slower than now) and fast after the Flood (faster than now) and Neanderthals are a pre-Flood race of which half breeds or quarter breeds came on board an essentially Cro Magnon Ark. Dito for Denisovans.

It is also a bit weird when someone says "big assumptions" about C14 being at least present on some level (perhaps not detectable now) 6000 years ago, when C14 is created and everything created needs to be present in Creation Week, but when it comes to a specific YEC scenario other than that, you say "already proven" ...
Kevin Johnson: @Hans-Georg Lundahl you use “suppose” & it “‘makes more more sense.” You assume I am saying things that I am not. You do not know the oxygen levels before the Flood or the “Ice Age” (for you) and therefore all your assumptions are wrong. Carbon dating puts a live seal at 1,300 years, go figure. You cannot prove, only assume c14 half-life is 5,730 unless you use unprovable equations! How convenient. Your whole worldview FAIRH is based upon ASSUMPTIONS, GUESSES, and IT SEEMS or is PROBABLE. You believe a State-Funded religion, your interpretation of data is NOT science but your opinion. You do not see that?

@Hans-Georg Lundahl you may be misunderstanding me as far as c14. Of course c14 was here at Creation. But at what level.

You all claim life started with oxygen! Impossible but you evolutionists claim it.

If the Earth is as old as you assume, why have we not reach c14 equilibrium?!?!
Hans-Georg Lundahl: @Kevin Johnson "Carbon dating puts a live seal at 1,300 years, go figure"

Yeah - the seal ate lots of shellfish that got lots of old carbon from chalk in the water.

"You cannot prove, only assume c14 half-life is 5,730 unless you use unprovable equations!"

A halflife of 5730 years means a remainder of 90.776 % after 800 years. And if 800 years ago - 1220 - the pmC was 100, the pmC in samples from 1220 should have 90.776 pmC. I think that is exactly what they have, according to my look at ...

High-Precision Decadal Calibration of the Radiocarbon Time Scale, AD 1950–6000 BC
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 18 July 2016
Minze Stuiver and Bernd Becker

The mathematics is 0.5 to the power of (800/5730) and the calculator makes that 0.90776070536.

Of course, the carbon level could theoretically have been lower and that would mean the halflife were longer, or higher and that would mean the halflife were shorter. But evidence from things not involving reservoir effect tend to show a great probability of C14 having the named halflife. As confirmed back to the Fall of Troy, a bit before King David.

"You believe a State-Funded religion,"

I do not believe Evolution, not even OEC, and I don't think Pope Michael's Vatican in Exile gets state funding from federal or state of Kansas.

"Of course c14 was here at Creation. But at what level."

Arguably close to zero. 0.000 and some zillion more zeros before you get to ... 001 of present amount. Even so it would with present relative production rate have reached c. 12 - 13 pmC at the Flood 2242 years later. It only reached 1.4 pmC, if Neanderthals are from just before the Flood.

"You all claim life started with oxygen! Impossible but you evolutionists claim it."

I'm not an Evolutionist, I'm a YEC.

"If the Earth is as old as you assume, why have we not reach c14 equilibrium?!?!"

If the Earth is as young as I presume (7200 years) why have we. Because arguably we have. Supposing we were still rising, the halflife would be longer. For instance, with twice the halflife, the level at Fall of Troy would have been around 81 pmC, not 100. Longer halflives still = lower levels at Troy. And lower levels at Troy = longer halflives. The easiest is, we did reach equilibrium at Fall of Troy, 1179 BC.

The reason it took so fast is, after the Flood, it rose with a production 10 times the present one. The cosmic rays for that also helped to produce the post-Flood Ice Age and decrease human lifespans.
Kevin Johnson: @Hans-Georg Lundahl you were raised on Piltdown & Nebraska man, should I expect anything less?!?!
Hans-Georg Lundahl: @Kevin Johnson You are getting a bit too edgy to actually see whom you are talking to.

No, when I was raised on Evolution prior to ma raising me Christian, with occasional homeschooling, Nebraska and Piltdown were already out of fashion.

I was after that raised on, among other things, Edgar Andrews From Nothing to Nature - as you may know, first a Swedish edition and then the English original versions combined a book from two earlier writings in English by the author.

Now, as said, I cannot rule out totally C14 is still rising, but that would mean the halflife is longer than the apparent, tested from historically known samples, halflife of 5730. If Fall of Troy saw an atmosphere of 82.727 pmC instead of c. 100 pmC, for us to get 68.438 pmC (which is about what we get from the relevant level), the halflife can't be 5730 but must be 11 460 years.

Obviously this makes the rise from Flood to Troy (1772 years in the Biblical chronology of Roman martyrology) less steep, but not all that much, assuming halflife 5730 and Troy 100 pmC, the 1772 have in medium 5.124 as fast a production of C14 as now, but assume 11 460 and Troy 82.727 pmC, the C14 production over same 1772 years would in medium be 4.239 times as fast - not much gained.

I disagree with people who say "Diamonds are a Creationist's best friend" - but carbon dating is not as bad ... it actually does give a relative dating of events between Flood and Fall of Troy, even if the "absolute dates" need a translation to get into the correct and Biblical timescale.

@Kevin Johnson Little question, when you see a long comment ending in "See More" - do you click those words? Otherwise you could miss what I'm saying, as I am long winded.
Kevin Johnson: @Hans-Georg Lundahl I figured you were raised by religious parents that forced you to join the evolution religious cult.

You use the word “tested” but should really say FAITH IN cause you cannot really test them without a baseline. You cannot prove anything except BELIEVE it is real sir. You do not know the oxygen levels of the Earth at 6,000 but can assume, guess, or BELIEVE. Just realize, you have FAITH in a RELIGION… no proof.
Hans-Georg Lundahl: @Kevin Johnson Nope, you were wrong.

My father was absent, but 7DA. My stepfather was Evolutionist, so were my grandparents. He didn't last, gramp died, ma moved away from granny when I was 8 1/2, raised me Christian and allowed my to ditch Evolution at my own time - achieved at age 10.

When a Yoruba statue in wood from 1400 is more valuable than a recent one, they do use C14 to see the age of it.

I get my carbon levels for the past from identifying Biblical events in remains, comparing carbon dates with real dates, and taking the carbon level back than that explains exactly the excessive "instant age". Evolution has nothing, zilch, nada, nothing - wait, I already said nothing - and nihil at all to do with it. I am not the least "deep time".

Sunday, February 13, 2022

Continuing with Kevin

Kevin R. Henke: @Hans-Georg Lundahl The Carthaginians minted contemporary coins that included the image of an elephant to commemerate Hannibal's victory over Rome. The Romans also had coins at that time celebrating their eventual victory against Hannibal. Why would either side mint coins at the time for a myth? As another example, for Alexander the Great we have contemporary written records (including records from his Babylonian enemies), statues, coins, mosaics, inscriptions and other contemporary artifacts mentioning and sometimes describing him. The remains of the causeway that Alexander the Great constructed to siege Tyre still exists today. All of these artifacts confirm the histories about Carthage and Alexander the Great. There's absolutely nothing like any of this for Genesis 3. Yet, people want to believe in a Talking snake. Why? How is it justified? If you have a relative expertise in history, explain why anyone would trust Genesis 3 more than the records and artifacts about Hannibal?

@Hans-Georg Lundahl Most certainly there are letters from 1815 from soldiers descrbing the Battle of Waterloo with DATES. If the letters also mention places, businesses back home, people, military leaders, etc. - all that can be checked and confirmed to rule out error or forgeries. Events mentioned in letters can be cross-checked and compared with newspaper accounts and any available census, criminal or other available government records. We can check the paleography, vocabulary and the composition of the paper for the letters to see if they're from the early 19th century. None of this can be done with Genesis 3.

I only care about Livy's work if it's supported by comtemporary archeological and other evidence, see my comments on the Carthagian and Roman coins in my other post in this section. Augustine was not a contempoary of Hannibal and I don't care about his opinion. Augustine lived centuries after these events. There's no reason to trust what he says without conformation.

How do you know that ceratopian dinosaurs are being described in the Bible? The Bible mentions beasts with horns -re'em. How do you know that they are dinosauars and not antelopes, aurochs or rhinos, which were known to exist in that area at that time? Do you have any Pleistocene or Quarternary dinosaur fossils to support your claims? Again, we have numerous dinosaur fossils from the Mesozoic, why do you believe in a Talking Snake without a shred of evidence? Why do you believe in Holocene dinosaurs when you don't have a single fossil? Where's your contemporary evidence that Moses even existed and that he received any information of God? Joseph Smith and Mohammed also claimed to have received visions from God. Do you believe them too? Why or why not?

The Haydock quotation assumes that Adam and Eve even existed and that God had any interest in inspiring Genesis 3. Where's your evidence from back then to support that?

Certainly, the ancients made up stories about their gods and their descendants believed them. The Greeks and Romans did. So did the Hebrews. And until you can produce evidence of a Talking Snake, there's no justification to believe anything in Genesis 3. Produce that evidence and I'll admit that I'm wrong.

Again, I'm willing to accept what Livy, Homer and other ancient writers say IF it's supported by contemporary evidence - such as coins, plaques, statues, written records that unambiguously name individuals and conform the historical claims. Otherwise, I'm skeptical.

So again, why then do you believe that Genesis 3 is history? What is your justification? Where's your evidence for a magical talking snake? I keep asking this and you keep coming up empty handed.

@Hans-Georg Lundahl So, the evidence that the Battle of Waterloo occurred and that Hannibal somehow used an army with elephants to attack Rome is reasonably verified. Instead of trying to divert attention away from Genesis 3 and onto Hannibal and the Battle of Waterloo that are reasonably verified, concentrate on your real problem. You have no evidence for believing in Genesis 3 and just admit it rather than going off on tangents of historical events that actually have reasonable evidence.
Hans-Georg Lundahl: @Kevin R. Henke "The Carthaginians minted contemporary coins that included the image of an elephant to commemerate Hannibal's victory over Rome. The Romans also had coins at that time celebrating their eventual victory against Hannibal. Why would either side mint coins at the time for a myth?"

There are coins for Noah's Ark - which you consider a myth. There are coins for Pallas Athena, which we agree is a false goddess.

Are you suggesting we did not know Hannibal was a true character until archeologists very recently dug up these coins?

And if both sides had elephants on the coins, is a conflict the only way to explain that? How would we know the coins referred to a conflict without the evidence from history, earliest narrative we access being Livy?

"for Alexander the Great we have contemporary written records (including records from his Babylonian enemies)"

I'd very much like to see those referenced! Akkadian was not being read between 1st C and 19th C. AD. And I bet that Akkadian cuneiform tablets featuring Alexander are even more recently dug up than that. To the best of my knowledge, the authors featuring the stories of Alexander are on either Greek or Babylonian sides as little recent as Hannibal was in Livy's time.

Are you suggesting Alexander was not known until a recent dig-up of Edessan clay tablets? Or that he was as known by coins depicting him with two horns, like coins of Athena prove her historicity? Again, we would know nothing without a narrative that is in non-contemorary sources:

"Apart from a few inscriptions and fragments, texts written by people who actually knew Alexander or who gathered information from men who served with Alexander were all lost.[18] Contemporaries who wrote accounts of his life included Alexander's campaign historian Callisthenes; Alexander's generals Ptolemy and Nearchus; Aristobulus, a junior officer on the campaigns; and Onesicritus, Alexander's chief helmsman. Their works are lost, but later works based on these original sources have survived. The earliest of these is Diodorus Siculus (1st century BC), followed by Quintus Curtius Rufus (mid-to-late 1st century AD), Arrian (1st to 2nd century AD), the biographer Plutarch (1st to 2nd century AD), and finally Justin, whose work dated as late as the 4th century.[18] Of these, Arrian is generally considered the most reliable, given that he used Ptolemy and Aristobulus as his sources, closely followed by Diodorus.[18]"

WIKI, now, back to you:

"statues, coins, mosaics,"

Coins don't prove people more than gods. The statue that is so well known is centuries younger. The Alexander mosaic is from 100 BC.

In other words, you really don't know your stuff, you have no more an idea how to prove Alexander than how to prove Hannibal.

@Kevin R. Henke "The remains of the causeway that Alexander the Great constructed to siege Tyre still exists today."

The bridge Caesar ordered built over Lake Geneva doesn't, and without the history we would know nothing of the purpose of that causeway, or if evident it was for a siege, not who did it. We can only assign it to Alexander because the dating coincides with the historic - that is later narrative - dates for Alexander.

"There's absolutely nothing like any of this for Genesis 3."

We have later narrative for Genesis (based on the original one by Adam and Eve, not separately extant), as we have later narrative for Livy or for Rufus (based on the ones by Scipio Africanus and Alexander's generals, not separately extant).

"Most certainly there are letters from 1815 from soldiers descrbing the Battle of Waterloo with DATES. If the letters also mention places, businesses back home, people, military leaders, etc. - all that can be checked and confirmed to rule out error or forgeries."

How many of these, when were they exhibited to the public? Would people have known these back in 1950 when schoolbooks I read about Waterloo were written? I'd argue, the narrative we have is mainly second hand, though first hand accounts by generals involved are certainly preserved - and they are biassed sources. However, for antiquity, be it Hannibal or Alexander, the first hand accounts even of biassed sources are lost.

And the dates on letters from 1815 only mean anything if you can by narrative confirm that AD dating was already in use 200 years ago. Again, the knowledge we have depends on narratives from the past - as with Adam and Eve.

"Events mentioned in letters can be cross-checked and compared with newspaper accounts and any available census, criminal or other available government records. We can check the paleography, vocabulary and the composition of the paper for the letters to see if they're from the early 19th century. None of this can be done with Genesis 3."

The check-ups are only possible with reference to artefacts we know to be from the early 19th C. by narratives from the past. Most of these do not apply to most events known from the history of antiquity. So it is in the same boat, more or less, as Genesis 3. Not quite, but almost.

@Kevin R. Henke "I only care about Livy's work if it's supported by comtemporary archeological and other evidence, see my comments on the Carthagian and Roman coins in my other post in this section. Augustine was not a contempoary of Hannibal and I don't care about his opinion. Augustine lived centuries after these events. There's no reason to trust what he says without conformation."

Same as with Livy, then. But the problem is, your interpretation of the confirmation is totally dependent on Livy.

"How do you know that ceratopian dinosaurs are being described in the Bible? The Bible mentions beasts with horns -re'em. How do you know that they are dinosauars and not antelopes, aurochs or rhinos, which were known to exist in that area at that time?"

I thought that it was clear there was a single horn on the tip. I'd go against rhinos in favour of ceratopsians because Job says the ... oops, no, it wasn't Job that considered unicorns tameable by virgins, very much on the contrary. Well, rhinos would be an option too. However, ceratopsians would have been around at the time of the Flood, 1447 years before the Exodus.

"Do you have any Pleistocene or Quarternary dinosaur fossils to support your claims?"

I've actually conducted a survey of the fossil evidence, and it doesn't support (outside marine biota) the "geological column". It is very well compatible with all fossils being from the Flood of Noah. In each place where we deal with land vertebrates, we deal with one level of fossils. And yes, I know Karoo or Karroo has both Permian and Triassic, and some Jurassic too, but they aren't tens or hundreds of meters higher and lower in the same holes, they are kilometers to the East or West or North or South of each other, compatible with these critters having had neighbouring habitats in the time of the Flood. I specifically asked palaeontologists in Karoo, and they said there were no exceptions - even if only because one hadn't bothered to look.

@Kevin R. Henke "Why do you believe in Holocene dinosaurs when you don't have a single fossil?"

I don't believe Holocene starts before 2957 BC, so I don't believe in Holocene fossils, obviously.

"Where's your contemporary evidence that Moses even existed (1) and that he received any information of God (2)?"

1) In this case, he wrote the Pentateuch. And if you like to deny this on account of us lacking manuscripts from his time, that would cut out against our main source for Caesar too. Oldest manuscript of Corpus Caesareum is from after 900 AD. I told you, this question is my field, you are out of your depth here.

2) If he could divide the Red Sea, he arguably had divine assistance, which suggests divine vision for Genesis 1, and inspiration preventing error from what he left.

"Joseph Smith and Mohammed also claimed to have received visions from God. Do you believe them too? Why or why not?"

They didn't part the Red Sea, they didn't raise dead, they didn't give blind their eye-sight .... and I know this from what Muslims and Mormons claim of them.

"The Haydock quotation assumes that Adam and Eve even existed and that God had any interest in inspiring Genesis 3. Where's your evidence from back then to support that?"

The Haydock quotation proves Adam and Eve existed from the stories they handed down to their descendants. Like we normally prove Hannibal or Alexander existed. Remember your failures a bit higher up this turn?

"Certainly, the ancients made up stories about their gods and their descendants believed them."

Example?

"The Greeks and Romans did. So did the Hebrews."

Prove it for Greeks and Romans, before you assume a parallel for Hebrews ... once again, Greeks and Romans are way more my expertise than yours. Oh, someone "made up" Ouranos and Gaia? Possible, or also possible that Hesiod had a reveletion by nine muses - that were not sent by God, and that didn't help him raise any dead to life.

You have not proven there is such a thing as the psychology of a man who makes up a story and tells it to his descendants in a way making them believe him. I'm not presuming it about Greeks and Romans any more than about Hebrews.

"So again, why then do you believe that Genesis 3 is history? What is your justification? Where's your evidence for a magical talking snake? I keep asking this and you keep coming up empty handed."

Narratives are words in the mouth (or pen), not artefacts in the hand. You are as empty handed about Hannibal and Alexander.

"So, the evidence that the Battle of Waterloo occurred and that Hannibal somehow used an army with elephants to attack Rome is reasonably verified. Instead of trying to divert attention away from Genesis 3 and onto Hannibal and the Battle of Waterloo that are reasonably verified, concentrate on your real problem."

I am not diverting, I am showing a real parallel and insofar as either of us has a real problem, it is you, you have not studied ancient hisory or how it is known. I have
Kevin R. Henke: @Hans-Georg Lundahl Oh really? Coins of Noah's ark? Which one of Noah's sons minted them? By now, you should know that I'm only interested in contemporary artifacts. Just stop with the diversions (Matthew 7:3-5) and your vain attempts to equate Hannibal and Alexander the Great with a Talking Snake and magical fruit trees. Just have the courage to admit that the foundation of your religion, Genesis 3, has no historical evidence whatsoever. After you honestly answer my question, email me like you said you would and I can give you links for the references that you want to see about dinosaurs, Alexander the Great, Hannibal, etc. in the level of detail that YouTube comment sections won't permit.
Hans-Georg Lundahl: @Kevin R. Henke "Oh really?"

Whichever remark that one was for - arguably yes. I don't recall any tongue in cheek remark.

"Coins of Noah's ark? Which one of Noah's sons minted them?"

I didn't say they were from the Ark. My point is, coins do not uniformly refer to only real people and real events, giving one example where we would disagree (the Ark) and one where we would agree (Pallas Athena).

"By now, you should know that I'm only interested in contemporary artifacts."

Harry Potter took place starting the year Nicolas Flamel would have been 665 years old, supposing he had found the Philosopher's Stone. The coins of Harry Potter and Hermione from the mint of Paris are sufficiently contemporary to 1995 to warrant credibility on your view of evidence.

On mine, we can of course consider that the oldest known public to Harry Potter considers it made up, but the oldest known public to Balkan War narratives consider them as news stories of real events.

This kind of specification is what you can't get from an ancient coin. Even if contemporary.

"Just stop with the diversions (Matthew 7:3-5)"

Didn't give any, strictly only gave relevant equations.

"and your vain attempts to equate Hannibal and Alexander the Great with a Talking Snake and magical fruit trees."

Not as events, Hannibal and Alexander were infinitely (nearly) less important, but as to the mode we have of knowing them.

"Just have the courage to admit that the foundation of your religion, Genesis 3, has no historical evidence whatsoever."

Just have the courage to admit that I give a tit for that follow up to each of your arguments, while you prefer handwaving my actual words, resuming them very casually, not to say glibly, and step out of detailed argument.

You gave a very clear challenge to my religion, I gave a very clear backchallenge, you haven't answered it. You have given no examples of one generation of Greeks inventing stories and the next one believing them as history.

"After you honestly answer my question,"

I have honestly answered question after question, argument after argument. You are the one who bailed out of honesty, so far.

"email me like you said you would"

Haven't got her reply last time I checked my inbox, so can't yet.

"and I can give you links for the references"

You can give titles and authors. I can search. Oh, nothing that Researchgate offers only for members to read, unless the argument is simply in the pre-view.

"that you want to see about dinosaurs, Alexander the Great, Hannibal, etc."

You pretend that I was enquiring, when I was actually giving you answers .... drink a coffee, get new spectacles, or stop being a hypocrite, whichever best applies to your failure to answer squarely! Fatigue, bad eye-sight, dishonesty ... whatever!

"in the level of detail that YouTube comment sections won't permit."

There is not much detail to give as to the fact that Alexander the Great is known from no narrative that is directly preserved in the narrators own words earlier than Diodorus Siculus, 1st C. BC, lesser but comparable to Homer from Troy. Given the longer longevity in pre- and early post-Flood times, comparable to at least Adam to Abraham. And given the greater chapter length, after Genesis 11, the sources are arguably written, not just preserved orally.
The three following: exchanges come in the order I answered them.
1)
Kevin R. Henke: @Hans-Georg Lundahl I just got an email from Erika (2:22 pm Eastern Time 12 Feb 2023) and she says that she has not heard from you. You told me two days ago that you were going to email her to get my email address. Why didn't you do what you say you're going to do?
Hans-Georg Lundahl: @Kevin R. Henke I did, but she may have forgot to look at the spam filtered mail.
2)
Kevin R. Henke: @Hans-Georg Lundahl I managed to send you my email address through messager to your Facebook account. Now, you have no more excuses for not emailing me as you said you would. Now finally answer my question by email: what is your historical evidence for a Talking Snake and magic fruit trees? After you answer my question honesty and directly without further diversions about Hannibal, the Battle of Waterloo, dinosaurs, Alexander the Great etc. I want to see all of your references for your claims about them - list the authors and other vital information of peer-reviewed journals, any URLs of websites that you may use, etc. . I'll provide references and attachments by email to support my claims. Best, Kevin
Hans-Georg Lundahl: @Kevin R. Henke What you call diversions aren't such. They are very pertinent to the case.

Peer reviewed journals aren't.
3)
Kevin R. Henke: @Hans-Georg Lundahl Just stop your dishonest diversions, email me, finally admit that you have no historical evdience for a Talking Snake and magic fruit trees and that you can't equate them to the historicity of Hannibal or Alexander the Great. We can then discuss the issues in proper detail in emails and with proper referencing and attached articles. As long as you don't edit out or edit in material without my knowledge, you can even post our discussions on your blog as far as I'm concerned. If you're really interested in knowning history and geology, EMAIL me.
Hans-Georg Lundahl: @Kevin R. Henke I was nearly "editing out" one comment of yours by overlooking it.

But I know history better than you. As a Latinist, partly Grecist, I can with confidence say I know it better than any Geologist.
That's the three I meant.

CMI on Human Fossils

Where Are All the Human Fossils?
10th Febr. 2022 | Creation Ministries International
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jHKdC0n_EJg

1:26 "therefore obviously humans and Neanderthals lived together"

1) Neanderthals are human, but I suppose you mean the Homo sapiens race
2) whatever the race on board the Ark, it would have lived with other races, with a possibility of mixigenation.

Ergo, Neanderthals could very well have been pre-Flood from that evidence.

13:56 "where you draw the ... boundary"

Flood fossils or from closely before are:

* Norian in Ankerschlag (a pterosaur)
* Chattian in Linz (a kind of whale)
* Pleistocene in Heidelberg (Heidelberg man, probably same pre-Flood race as Denisovan, since Atapuerca's Antecessor shares morphology with Heidelberg and genes with Denisova, more than with Neanderthal or Sapiens race).

Lithologically, Chattian can indirectly be suporposed on Norian or even directly at some point or diverse points between Linz and Ankerschlag, but this doesn't mean you find any Chattian fossils above Norian fossils. As in straight above.

14:10 I never held to it anyway.

KT boundary is an Iridium layer. In one specific place, Yacoraite, there are gastropods of same type below and above it.

But last K or first T periods, Maastrichtian and Danian, they were simply different places in the fauna of the pre-Flood world.

16:02 This idea was in Edgar Andrews, but after my work in up to 9th June 2015, when I posted my correspondence with Karoo, it should be laid to rest. Where you find several layers of fossils above and below each other, they are marine. Drill holes and GC, you very much do get several layers of fossils now, but so you had back in the Flood.

Karoo, you arguably had no marine organisms in the Flood, but neither do you get superposition (except as re-defined creatively by geologists) of Permian and Triassic fossils.

16:20 God will reconstitute all human bodies from material remains of them on Doomsday.

But a good deal of Nodian men could be buried under Himalayas or Alps and things. And especially Nodian artefacts.

17:58 A challenge.

Neanderthals in El Sidrón cave have carbon dates c. 40 000 BP (actually a bit earlier). They cannot be all twelve from first two decades after the Flood. When would the atmosphere have had the appropriate C14 level, and how fast did it rise, on your view, if these were post-Flood?

[Has been sent to CMI, 11.II.2022, along with link to video]

"Debunked" and Leicester University Give Fake News on Noah's Flood

How BIG Would NOAH'S ARK Actually Need To Be?! DEBUNKED
24th July 2021 | Debunked
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wL9eo9QaJb4

0:56 NIV translated "gopher tree" as "cyprus wood"?

Do you know the reason for this retranslation?

3:41 If the Ark had tried to navigate against the waves, it arguably would have broken into half.

However, what stops it from staying intact if it had its length along the dip between two waves?

And no, as "arca" means "box" it was meant to float, not to be humanly speaking navigated.

God was directing it to mountains of Armenia through the moving waves, not by moving it across them.

Your animé shows the ark as navigating across the waves. Make the wrong assumption, get the wrong result!

4:02 Nope, you've made it very explicit. The ark stayed safely in the troughs.

4:28 There is no Biblical trace of any keel. Assume the bottom was flat, and we get trees supporting each other side by side.

4:39 I have assumed the walls of the Ark as well as floors from bottom to roof were very thick. Not too much scaffolding needed.

I have also assumed the water line is at 15 cubits high, so no water pressure, usually, for top half.

4:58 The Wyoming was a ship, it needed to navigate, hence to be actually light in the hull.

The Ark had no such need. And, as said, resting in troughs all along the way, was not put to the same stress as the Wyoming.

6:16 My calculation for the cargo capacity, assuming different cubits, different thickness of the actual tree contraptions (half or whole cubit proportionally to extremes) and different densities of wood (between pine and rose wood) would (with a waterline half way up) give "between 13,257.381 metric tons and 47,740.844 metric tons" according to my calculation from 5.X.2021

Leicester University was more generous.

8:18 I actually need only c. 2032 animal kinds or 4064 individual animals.

Take the species and divide the number by 17 - since there are 17 species in Linnean terms for the one hedgehog kind.

10:11 "all the species on earth right now"

A totally different question.

Interesting no doubt, but not too important for the credibility of the Bible. Species diversified after the Flood. And unless you speak of "hyperevolution" - is an Indian Long Eared Hedgehog all that much different from an Erinaceus Europaeus?

11:33 Insofar as the species after the ark breed much and spread out wide, the effects of inbreeding are avoidable.

This is how the fauna came off not too bad after the real Flood.

11:59 Over time, obviously, the kinds after the Ark did diversify.

Hedgehogs are now diversified into 5 genera and 17 species.

12:14 Has John Moore taken into account Pitcairn Islanders?

The Mutiny on the Bounty happened about 230 years ago, the population on PItcairn is still thriving.

And no, they were not 160 men and women when starting out. They were 46 men, the women were Islanders, and the population sank lower than that since then.

14:03 28,500 species / 17 species/kind = 1676 kinds - a bit fewer than the 2032 kinds in my own calculation.

14:20 2032 kinds * 2 individuals per kind * 0.34 cb m per individual = 1381.76 cb m.

50 * 30 * 300 = 450000 cb cubits
18*0.0254 meters = 0.4572
24*0.0254 meters = 0.6096

0.4572 cubed = 0.09556935725
0.6096 cubed = 0.22653477274

450000 * 0.09556935725 = 43006.21 cb m
450000 * 0.22653477274 = 101940.65 cb m

43006.21 / 1381.76 = 31.124 times the space needed

15:22 The calculation on invertebrates is otiose.

They diversify or are diversely classified even quicker than vertebrates, no way one would need that many.

15:52 The 43 000 + cubic meters of the Ark would have been well enough for all.

16:21 And actually, there will never be a "next great flood" ... Genesis 9:15

[The final consideration on food already dealt with.

Baraminological Note · For Sea-Farers .... · Rolling Period of Ark? · Ark : empty weight and freighted weight, number of couples on the Ark. · Small Tidbits on Ark, Especially Mathematical]

Thursday, February 10, 2022

Sharing

What Jesus really thinks about Vaccines & mandates!
9th Febr. 2022 | Cameron Fradd
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QDYvATgUsrM

THE TANGO: VACCINE - A Randy Rainbow Song Parody
7th Febr. 2022 | Randy Rainbow
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-bXUWJEUWd0

Cameron : "I don't know what this is all about" - Randy : "so I'm guessing, this mess is longterm"

Like on to Harmageddon?

Wednesday, February 9, 2022

Geologic Column : Absent from Land Vertebrate Palaeontology

Richard Thomas: Have human bones ever been found among the pile of dinosaur remains?
Hans-Georg Lundahl: In response to you and diverging from the guys in the video, I'd state, no, but that's because they didn't live along them.

I consider much more was buried in situ than they think, and asking for human bones among dino ones would be like asking for them among lion ones, if the Flood were to occur in today's Africa : we don't live among lions, we rather avoid them.
Richard Thomas: @Hans-Georg Lundahl Thank you. Your input was an interesting answer that I will ponder.
ozowen: No, humans were not around when the dinosaurs were.
Hans-Georg Lundahl: @ozowen When - or where?

If you knew of a herd of T. Rex 100 km W, would you head West?
ozowen: @Hans-Georg Lundahl
I don't understand your post. I said humans were not around when dinosaurs were around.
Hans-Georg Lundahl: @ozowen Yes, and I suggested, what if it was rather "where" that they weren't around?

The evidence of not finding human bones with dino bones could be explained both ways, you know.

A distance of 100 km or a distance of a few decades to centuries of millions of years ... both would give the result of not finding bones together. Or so rarely the discovery could be still just upcoming.

What makes you prefer the "when" interpretation?
ozowen: @Hans-Georg Lundahl
They would have to be in the same strata, same time periods. Since they are never found in those periods, the question is more than a little redundant.
Hans-Georg Lundahl: @ozowen So, your criterium for periods is strata.

In Anckerschlag in Tyrol, you have a stratum that has a pterosaur. In Lienz in Upper Austria you have a stratum that has a whale. There have been found no pterodactyls below the whale.

In Heidelberg, there is a man or some ... there is no whale stratum below him and also no pteordactyl stratum below him.

How do you know the different strata, named and defined for differences in fauna, partly also flora, represent different periods?
ozowen: @Hans-Georg Lundahl
Evidence please.
I found nothing to support those claims.
Two weeks: later on:
ozowen: @Hans-Georg Lundahl
OK, so claims but no evidence.
I can shelve that as nonsense then.

Btw, why would a whale need a pterasaur below it?

I just posted an answer - and it didn't appear on the thread. (11:42 Paris time, 8.II.2022) and it is possible I did so two weeks ago too. Now, next day, 9.II.2022, it succeeds:

Hans-Georg Lundahl: @ozowen I tried to post an answer yesterday. I clicked and my work just disappeared from the thread. As I am making a blog post out of this exchange, I am taking precautions, like saving a copy before posting it as comment.

Now, the Austriacodactylus is Middle Norian. Norian overall is 227 to 208.5 MYA. Obviously, according to your school, which is what I am discussing the problems of. Middle of that is 217.75 MYA.

Cetotheriopsis lintianus is Chattian. Around 25.565 MYA.

217.75 - 25.565 = 192.185 MY.

Time enough for what was land to become sea, right? Especially since Chattian seas have in a much shorter time become land. But there is no Norian critter found under the Chattian whale in Linz, either land or sea, and there is no Chattian critter found above the Pterosaur in Tyrol, either sea or land. So, the thing is not just that there are no Norian critters under the Chattian in Linz or Chattian above the Norian ones in Tyrol. There are no such superpositions anywhere, except marine ones. Obviously, in marine environments, you find different critters at different levels, but as whales and plesiosaurs would occupy about same depth, in Flood geology you would not find a whale above a plesiosaur, in uniformitarian, you arguably sooner or later would, as depth of sediment are supposed to reflect depth of time. This has not yet happened. To the best of my knowledge.

Disappears again ... something like youtube censorship ...

Tuesday, February 8, 2022

Gutsick Gibbon on Overturning Paradigms and Castile Formation

Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : Gutsick Gibbon on Cross Disciplinarity Outlawed in Academia, Heat Problem, Gate-Keeping · Gutsick Gibbon's Five Points Answered, I, Heat Problem and Extra on Absence of Solutions As Criterium · Gutsick Gibbon on Overturning Paradigms and Castile Formation · Geologic Column : Absent from Land Vertebrate Palaeontology · Continuing with Kevin · Creation vs. Evolution : Could Guy Berthault Conduct a New Experiment, Please? · Correspondence of Hans Georg Lundahl : Correspondence with Gutsick Gibbon (Erika) and with Kevin R. Henke

Same video as in the first one.

27:42 Overturning paradigms has nothing to do with being a formal expert anyway.

A new paradigm is by definition made by people amateurs in that new discipline.

In case you pretend that Kepler and Harvey overturned paradigms, that is only in a certain way.

Harvey found a certain fact which was on one point contrary to the previous paradigm, but he did not place medicine as a whole on a new foundation.

And Kepler on his part, for all his expertise in observational astronomy (he was of course a disciple of Tycho) overturned the Tychonian paradigm partly because it was new and partly because he wrote captivating science fiction involving points of view of Lunarians - Moon Dwellers.

But when we talk of Geology, we talk of Lyell - who was an amateur geologist but regular law student and took up geology precisely to follow up Hutton's new paradigm. Yes, he had attended some lectures in geology too, but he didn't follow a geology curriculum and went out to field work with little preparation but ideas - and botany. His father was a botanist.

You may have heard of this or that or sundry academic who says (could it be in this precise context?) what you said about overturning paradigms, but historically speaking that is not true. We are not inaugurating a new era when henceforward "overturning paradigms" becomes an academic exercise demanding obviously academic routine. If you try and especially in attacking Young Earth Creationism, this era will be shortlived, God will see to it.

But first of all, the fact that you are saying this on youtube shows even some men are seeing to it to end this kind of Soviet Nomenklatura approach to academic and para-academic debate. The exact ones you try to intimidate.

As to getting the basics wrong, you as a non-geologist could be somewhat easy to fool on something being "basics" when it is in fact contestable.

I
Kevin R. Henke: @Hans-Georg Lundahl I'm a geologist. At least two geologists reviewed this video for accuracy. The information that she presents is correct. Flood geology doesn't explain the Castile and Green River Formations.
Hans-Georg Lundahl: @Kevin R. Henke The geologist she is relying on and the two reviewing it are presuming as uncontroversial - which it is not in debates with YEC - that wharves are annual layers.

In the case of normal sediment, I would unhesitatingly say hydrostatic layering, which with strong streams and hypersaturated water happens before the water calms down, while it is still running, as has been shown on an experiment on a youtube which would seem to have been taken down - flume experiments on hydrostatic sorting.

Ah yes, found it,
Guy Berthault.
https://sedimentology.fr/

In this case, the creationist has spoken of another type of sorting. I have no clue per se how that one has been documented, but since that would also be a near instantaneous sorting, we would expect similar results to, not "annual layers" (something not shown to exist) but hydrostating sorting.

For my part I have not seen the paper or video talking of volcanic implication, I have no doubt you would consider it bogus, and I have also no doubt that you are more or less swayed, perhaps even in a dishonest way, by your Evolutionist bias.

I am dealing with the arguments as arguments, I could deal with yours on a basis of correspondence - hgl@dr.com if you like to see more of us arguing on my correspondence blog - but I am not backing down just because you are a geologist and I am strictly amateur.

In case you wonder, my email doesn't mean to imply my making any claims to be a Med Dr, I simply could not get a "mail.com" and I thought a "me.com" was too egocentric.

@Kevin R. Henke I also note, I gave Gibbon an opposition between "basics" and "contestable" - you deftly answered instead on "accurate" vs "inaccurate" - I was not pretending any geologist would have fooled her about calling something accurate if generally considered inaccurate.

You switched the question.
Kevin R. Henke: @Hans-Georg Lundahl No. The video is correct. What Heerema and other young-Earth creationists say are inconsistent with the laws of chemistry and physics, as I explained in my original videos. Look at the 2006 issue of the Journal of Creation where YEC John Whitmore refutes a Flood origin for the Green River Formation. Also, look at the further comments on the numerous problems with both Oard''s and Whitmore's ideas in my original Green River video. Best to you, Kevin
Hans-Georg Lundahl: @Kevin R. Henke You are referring to works I cannot access.

One more.

If all young earth creationists were today doing bad explanations on Castile and Green River, that would not prove YEC wrong, it would prove YEC:s are bad YEC:s as far as Creation science goes.

Btw, as long as you are just doing "correct" vs "incorrect" you remain in a switch of the question. My statement was about "basics" vs "contestable" which is something else.
II
Kevin R. Henke: No. Most of those that overturn paradigms as experts in their fields, such as Einstein and the discoverers of plate tectonics. It's clear from his earlier articles and presentations that Heerema did not know the difference between a lava and a magma, and other basics in geology and chemistry. He does not have the expertise .
Hans-Georg Lundahl: @Kevin R. Henke My experience with Dutch is they can be very dense - expertise or not. Was his non-distinction between lava and magma relevant for the discussion?

Your examples are from the XXth C.

And Heerema is anyway not "trying to overturn the paradigm" but contributing (as I on my own level) to one of two already competing ones. Yours and YEC.

Here Kevin changed the comment after I had already answered it, and not to just correct a typo or an early button push. Here is what it looks like now, and I will include answers after that:

II b
Kevin R. Henke: No. Most of those that overturn paradigms as experts in their fields, such as Einstein and the discoverers of plate tectonics. It's clear from his earlier articles and presentations that Heerema did not know the difference between a lava and a magma, and other basics in geology and chemistry. He does not have the expertise to lead a revolution in salt geology..
Hans-Georg Lundahl
(old answer still standing): @Kevin R. Henke My experience with Dutch is they can be very dense - expertise or not. Was his non-distinction between lava and magma relevant for the discussion?

Your examples are from the XXth C.

And Heerema is anyway not "trying to overturn the paradigm" but contributing (as I on my own level) to one of two already competing ones. Yours and YEC.
Kevin R. Henke: @Hans-Georg Lundahl Oh yes, it's very relevant in all geology. Because he did not know the difference, it's sometimes difficult to know whether Heerema is talking abouit a lava flow or a pluton. Because he did not know the difference, he coined the oxymoron "volcanic layer intrusion", which makes no sense to any geologist no matter their mother tongue.
Hans-Georg Lundahl: @Kevin R. Henke You call it an oxymoron because "intrusion" would mean "pluton" and "volcanic" would mean "lava flow"?

Perhaps simply allow Heerema the benefit of the doubt and interpret it as "either pluton or lava flow" and if you think Heerema is out, refute both, separately.

What you are doing is circumscribing the debate to those speaking your professional jargon.

I looked up "pluton" and found this:

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

"The term pluton is poorly defined,"
[Winter, John D (2010). Principles of Igneous and Metamorphic Petrology. United States of America: Pearson Prentice Hall. pp. 67–79.]
"but has been used to describe an intrusion emplaced at great depth;"
[Blatt & Tracy 1996, p. 8.]
"as a synonym for all igneous intrusions;"
[Allaby, Michael, ed. (2013). "Pluton". A dictionary of geology and earth sciences (Fourth ed.). Oxford University Press.]
"as a dustbin category for intrusions whose size or character are not well determined;"
["Pluton". Encyclopædia Britannica. 19 January 2018. Retrieved 17 November 2020.]

.... so why complain about not using a word, when that word might mean one thing to you and another to another geologist?

28:33 No, the forming of wharves is not necessarily annual in nature.

Hydrostatic sorting ...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xzq01xAO2Ro

Please note that with flumes, the hydrostatics sorting is quicker and clearer.

These are closer to what Flood flows of water saturated with sediment would have been like.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/251424961_Vertical_sorting_in_bed_forms_Flume_experiments_with_a_natural_and_trimodal_sediment_mixture

29:34 418,000 layers total is from hydrostatic sorting, as mentioned.

There used to be a French physicist doing them in flume experiments on youtube, he is no longer there - but less radical hydrostatic sorting as per video is shown, and as per paper we have it for flume experiments too.

Kevin R. Henke: @Hans-Georg Lundahl No. The Berthault sorting mechanism, which you are referring to, only applies to CLASTIC sediments. The varves of the Green River and Castile formations are CHEMICAL PRECIPITATES and not sorted clastics. There's no evidence of sorting. Young-Earth creationists (YEC) often inappropriately invoke Berthault's mechanism as a "cure-all" for the long-age problems that they encounter with rhythmites. It doesn't work with these two formations. YEC John Whitmore in his third 2006 article on the Green River Formation, page 83, also refutes Berthault's mechanism as a explanation for the rhythmites in the Green River Formation.

See Whitmore, J.H. 2006c. Difficulties with a Flood Model for the Green River Formation, Journal of Creation, v. 20, n. 1, pp. 81-85.
Hans-Georg Lundahl: @Kevin R. Henke I suspected that was why Heerema was not taking Berthault ...

OK ... hence the interest of a sorting mechanism which is similar in time and probable effect, but different in mechanism.

I must admit I have not yet come to this video's refutation of this, since the picture of magma flowing might not have been of magma submitted to this mechanism.

Obviously, halite getting layered could have happened after gypsum and calcite started solidifying, that is after the initial sorting. (Layman's guess).
Kevin R. Henke: @Hans-Georg Lundahl No the heat from the halite would degas and destroy any surrounding calcite. Also, how would a magma or lava produce individual mm-thick layers over 113Km? Again, no sorting is involved.
Hans-Georg Lundahl: @Kevin R. Henke When we deal with mm thick layers, I highly think some kind of sorting is involved.

Why would the halite need to be hot in the first place? I speak of a scenario, time a) halite is dissolved in Flood water, while particles that will become gypsum and calcite are being hydrostatically sorted, and b) halite is pushed out of these already solid layers, and c) water is evaporated over centuries and halite becomes a solid rather than a liquid layer.

I have not bound my fortunes to Heerema's possibility of a lava flow.

29:58 As I mentioned hydrostatic sorting, what we need is thin layers, not each being uniform over 113 - is it square? - km. You cannot check that uniformity or continuity of each layer from the outside, but flume experiments show hydrostatic sorting results in fine and near uniform layers - the middle of the stream has them higher up, the sides lower.

Now, Calcite and Gypsum have different molecules, therefore different densities, therefore hydrostatic sorting would apply.

Note, I am definitely outside my expertise here, but so are you, Gibbon!

30:05 In flume experiments with hydrostatic sorting, several layers move and deposit at the same time.

Salt also has a different formula, so a different weight, here also hydrostatic sorting applies - what happened to gypsum and calcite, btw?

Kevin R. Henke: No. See my comments on Berthaul's sorting mechanism below. Also, how would halite avoid dissolving if it was sorted by water?
Hans-Georg Lundahl: @Kevin R. Henke "Below" means what time signature (I opened each comment with one) - halite, you have a point.
Kevin R. Henke: Look at the original videos. The answers are there. Again, Berthault's and other sorting mechanisms cannot explain the varves in the Castile and Green River formations. Milankovitch and other cycles are seen in these formations. How would Noah's Flood counterfeit them?
Hans-Georg Lundahl: @Kevin R. Henke I will have to break down this a bit.

"Look at the original videos. The answers are there."

It seems Gibbon is reposting answers and arguments already given in other videos, so it is difficult to know what video I should chose to look at. I came to this one and re-answered heat problem here after answering it on Top 5 arguments against YEC video.

When I repost an answer already given, it's in answer to a new challenge indirectly given. (Direct ones, I could always refer to older debates or essay posts).

"Again, Berthault's and other sorting mechanisms cannot explain the varves in the Castile and Green River formations."

Berthault pure and simple, given halite, agreed.

Berthault and other - not agreed to when I have looked at the other or supplement.

"Milankovitch and other cycles are seen in these formations. How would Noah's Flood counterfeit them?"

Exactly in what way is Milankovitch seen in these formations?

If you tell me that - or link to time signature on this video, which I haven't finished watching yet - I'll be back on that one.
Kevin R. Henke: @Hans-Georg Lundahl In the replay below under your time stamp for 28:33
Hans-Georg Lundahl: @Kevin R. Henke Oh, I was already over that, and it didn't prove Milankovitch cycles, only mention them.
Kevin R. Henke: @Hans-Georg Lundahl View my entire video on the Green River Formation. I explain the cycles and how they are fatal to young-Earth creationism.
Hans-Georg Lundahl: @Kevin R. Henke That would be another video, another comment, another discussion.

I believe you heavily overdo what natural science can examine and your conclusions are comparable to tea leaves' - but I save more detailed comments for when and if I see that video.
Kevin R. Henke: @Hans-Georg Lundahl Ok. Then we can discuss the Kirkland model for the Castile Formation and why it beautifully explains the chemistry, physical properties and mineralogy of that formation while young-Earth creationism cannot. Also, geologists can explain the Milankovitch and other cycles in the Green River Formation, but again young-Earth creationism cannot.
Hans-Georg Lundahl: @Kevin R. Henke I think I said I was taking that debate when I looked at your original videos, at my time discretion, btw, if you need that explicitly, if at all.

As for this video, Gibbon showed a clip with a CMI article stating there were difficulties with the uniformitarian model here.
Kevin R. Henke: @Hans-Georg Lundahl Sure, Oard and other young-Earth creationists claim that the uniformitarian model (for example, Kirkland for Castile) have "difficulties" explaining the Castile and Green River formations. However, my presentations show that they are absolutely wrong. The uniformitarian models work well. The various young-Earth creationist Flood and post-Flood models are total failures.
Hans-Georg Lundahl: @Kevin R. Henke I have your word for it, and that is another video.

Not this one.

Has Gibbon forwarded the links to my posts with my comments under two of her videos and another one, and my debate under that one and this one?
Kevin R. Henke: @Hans-Georg Lundahl Yes, if you want details on the Green River and Castile formations, you'll have to check out my presentations and my references.
Hans-Georg Lundahl: @Kevin R. Henke I'm also posing an experiment challenge to Berthault and it was transmitted - I hope - to Stef Heerema as well.

Search "Creation vs. Evolution" and "Could Guy Berthault Conduct a New Experiment, Please?"
Kevin R. Henke: @Hans-Georg Lundahl I haven't seen much from Berthault in about 20 years. We'll see if he responds. Again, he may be retired by now.

31:46 As a linguist, I quibble on pronunciation, Heerema would be pronounced in Dutch approximately "HAY-ray-mah" - and not "huh-REE-muh" ...

31:39 The looks of what your expert takes to be seasonal fluctuation and of what hydrostatic sorting would produce is not distinguishable.

But of course Heerema is not invoking hydrostatic sorting.

Why is precession involved at all?

32:23 The proton pseudos of your expert's reasoning is the presumption that wharves like that normally are from cycles of seasons.

If you had had any actual exposure to creation science on this question beyond that single paper, you'd have known we disagree, it's normally (perhaps impossible for these chemicals) from hydrostatic sorting.

If the wharves are normally not from such seasonal cycles, then there is no mimicking of seasonal cycles involved anyway and two different types of rapid layering can give similar results.

32:43 The calcite being marine as per marine biota is an indication of Flood waters - and the marine biota are definitely triggering some hydrostatic layering.

Kevin R. Henke: No. Berthault's sorting mechanism doesn't apply to the limestones and other salts in the Castile and the limestones in the Green River Formation. They're chemical precipitated and not clastics.
Hans-Georg Lundahl: @Kevin R. Henke Ah, two sorting mechanisms could combine? (Layman's guess again)

My proposed solution for halite would be in a first moment present in the water around all of it, and then getting pressed out from he layers of gypsum and calcite into the space between them.

Obviously this would imply a pattern like "salt - gypsum - salt - calcite - salt ..." - sth which you may already know the falsification for?

34:27 Lyell is not the very basics of the field.

There are simple items for your side, like El Sidrón getting dates "The original calibrated AMS dates on three human specimens ranged between 42,000 and 44,000 years ago,"
(El Sidrón, 50,000 Year Old Neanderthal Site / Evidence for Neanderthal Cannibalism in Spain /ThoughtCo
https://www.thoughtco.com/el-sidron-evidence-for-neanderthal-cannibalism-172640).

And I provide a simple answer, the carbon date for the Flood in 2957 BC depends on 1.4 pmC as normal atmospheric level back then. The extra millennia are then due to carbon 14 levels some time before the Flood still rising up to 1.4 pmC.

And then there are difficult things, like Green River and Castile Formations, where just Berthault won't explain everything about the wharves, as Kevin R. Henke just mentioned. The point given is, this exact case is also a difficult one for your side too. Hence it doesn't overthrow the general principle that YEC alternative explanations can be found.

Kevin R. Henke

Why are you introducing a new topic (C-14 dating) when the Green River and Castile formations by themselves destroy Flood Geology? That's the whole point of my two lectures, along with criticiziing Genesis 1-11. There's no evidence of a Talking Snake or a Genesis Flood. Just reject them as myths and embrace the reality of an ancient Earth.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Kevin R. Henke No, Green River and Castile do not by themselves destroy all Flood geology, because they are problematic to your side, as to ours.

You seem to have a problem about logic.

"problematic to us - doesn't destroy our side"
"problematic to the other side - single handedly destroys it"

My whole point is bringing back logic.

"problematic to both sides - doesn't destroy one more than the other" (Green River and Castile)
"easy for both sides - doesn't support either side more than the other" (carbon dating in a first approximation - I think it does support Genesis 1 to 11 or more properly 4 to 11 better when you take into account what it does to the timelines of culture)

I have not seen your two lectures, this is the second video by Gibbon I attend to, and obviously you are introducing a new topic as well.

However, as per attacking Genesis 1 to 11, that is totally outside your field as a geologist. Genesis is history. History is not proven by geology, and geology is not sufficiently univocal to even test history.

The very intro of Gibbon was about specialists not speaking about things outside their specialities. I don't agree with the sentiment, but obviously, neither do you. Since assessing truth value of Genesis 1 to 11 is a matter of history. And in this field, "oral legends prove nothing" is so passé, so XIX C. We are getting back to believing in King Arthur and the Trojan War. Even if Genesis 2 and 3 were transmitted purely orally to the time of last verses of Genesis 11, that's more credible than someone poopooing legend because "legend isn't history" when in fact very much it is.

Kevin R. Henke

@Hans-Georg Lundahl No. The Kirkland model easily explains how 209,000 varves formed over 209,000 years in the Castile Formation. The Green River Formation are easily explained as 50 million year old lake deposits. Despite the best efforts of young-Earth creationists, Flood Geology cannot explain the Green River and Castile formations as I explain in my videos, if you would take the time to watch them before commenting. I've been studying Genesis and young-Earth creationism for 40+ years. Yes, I know about Genesis 1-11 and that it is myth - made up stories. How long have you been studying geology?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Kevin R. Henke You just pretended a "myth" means a "made up story". Insofar as certain myths like Ouranos and Gaia would leave the alternative made up or revealed, you can class no more than Genesis 1 prior to Adam's creation as this.

I have studied YEC geology specifically and some standard geology in nature books - that is amply how much you have dealt with even pagan "divine myths" and "legends" - since, when you make the distinction, Genesis 2 - 11 is obviously "legends" (and some verses of 1 as well) and legends are usually historic.

Not made up.

Dealing 40 + years with Genesis 1 to 11, treating them as "myth" gives a piteous lack of context if you don't know what "myth" means.

Kevin R. Henke

@Hans-Georg Lundahl I'm not calling Genesis 1-11 legends. Legends are essentially made up or questionable stories about historical individuals and events, like George Washington and the cherry tree. I'm calling Genesis 1-11 myths because unless you can produce a talking snake or magic fruit trees, I don't see any more historical evidence for Genesis 1-11 than Jack and the Beanstalk and the Three Little Pigs.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Kevin R. Henke Oh, you use the naturalist or anti-miraculous bias to asses something as myth.

Too bad for you.

It is fashionable among atheists who are into natural or social sciences, but that is totally off when it comes to distinguishing myth from legend or made up from historic.

Yes, there are a lot of historians who use that criterium too, but that leads to dichotomies within sources, for instance biographies of St. Francis, where lots is accepted without question, and yet miracles are put down to "legendary accretions" ....

In other words, you approach this as an atheist fanatic, and not as a scholar in myths, legends or history.

@Kevin R. Henke Plus, you misdefine legend.

Kevin R. Henke

@Hans-Georg Lundahl No. Show me a Talkiing Snake or magic fruit tree and I'll believe you. Otherwise, to believe in these Genesis myths is no more rational than believing in Jack and Beanstalk, Paul Bunyon or purple unicorns.

@Hans-Georg Lundahl No. There is no rational reason to think that Genesis 1-11 have any history in them at all. They're myths and not history or even legend.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Kevin R. Henke There is no rational reason to believe you can tell the difference between these accurately.

I'm in the field.

@Kevin R. Henke Your examples involve stories known to be invented for the fun of it, and they would be that even if totally naturalistic, as is apparent from Sherlock Holmes.

They also involve a speculation on the skin colour / scales colour of probably Triceratops Horridus or some relative (Albertasaurus only has a round crest, no horns, around the face, and its sole horn is on the nose).

Kevin R. Henke

@Hans-Georg Lundahl No. Fossils are from real animals that once lived. Show me a Talking Snake or magic fruit trees and I'll believe you. Otherwise, you just might as well believe in purple unicorns.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Kevin R. Henke How do you prove the battle of Waterloo ended in the defeat of Napoleon from fossils of animals?

I neither believe nor disbelieve in purple unicorns, since I don't know what skin colour Triceratops horridus had - or scale colour.

I must confess to a mixup about "Albertasaurus" since I meant a name like "Albertaceratops" and I actually meant more like Centrosaurus or (outside Alberta) Monoclonius. But I believe in unicorns as firmly as in Ceratopsians - I believe they are the same thing.

Now, you have tried to assess historicity of Genesis 2 - 11 from your a) professional geology perspective, and b) even more the perspective of the atheist community.

Here are some quiz questions for you, and it's not whether you believe me, it's so our readers (yes, I am copying the debate to my blog, hope Gibbon got the mail and told you) as far as I can make it happen don't believe you:

a) did the Trojan War take place?
b) does the Odyssey show detailed geographic knowledge of Ithaca?
c) Aeneas, Romulus, Hannibal - for each say if they are "myth", "legend" or "history" ...
d) and when you have done that tell me if your assessment agrees or disagrees with the ancients (not just true believers in Homeric gods, but also those involved in philosophy or Christianity)?

Kevin R. Henke

@Hans-Georg Lundahl Actually, have you heard of Waterloo dentures? Technically, they're too recent to be fossils, but you should get my point. The Battle of Waterloo is supported by contemporary newspaper accounts, letters , records, etc.. Where's your contemporary historical evidence for the Takling Snake? The important point is that dinosaurs lived. There's no more evidence for a Talking Snake than a purple unicorn. Then, to be consistent, you should also be neutral about the reality of Genesis 3.

Now the answers to your questions:

a) Archeologists have found Troy. There could have been a Trojan War; however, that does not mean that the Cyclops and Sirens existed. Where is the evidence for a Talking Snake and magic fruit trees? The Talking Snake is no more real than the Cyclops or the sirens. Sirens and a Talking Snake are magical myths.

b) Possibly. Genesis 2:10-14 also contains some valid geographic details about the Middle East, but Spiderman comics also give geographic details about New York. None of this is evidence for a Talking Snake and Spiderman.

c) Aeneas - probably a myth, no evidence that Greco-Roman gods exist and had children anymore than supernatural beings mated with women in Genesis 6. Romulus - probably legend, - again, there's no reason to believe that Roman gods exist and have children. Hannibal - historical with some legends.

d) Archeological and other evidence are what are important. I don't care about the opinions of ancient people.

Now, I would ask that you answer my questions, some of which you have been avoiding:

Where is your archeological or any scientific evidence that a Talking Snake and magic fruit trees ever existed?

What basis do you have to think that any story necessarily must have an historical component? Didn't people just sometimes make up stories?

How can you call Genesis 1-11 historical, as you did elsewhere in this comment section, when you're uncomitted about the existence of purple unicorns? If anyone shows me a purple unicorn or a Talking Snake, I'll accept the claim in Genesis 3 or that purple unicorns exist. Otherwise, there's no reason to accept either as reality.

If we have no evidence that Aeneas or Romulus were the sons of supernatural natural beings, where's the better evidence that we should we believe that women were mating with supernatural beings in Genesis 6?

If you're posting this on your blog. It would be easier for us to continue this discussion by email. My email address is on my website. I previously gave you instructions on how to get there. You could try posting your email here, but YouTube would probably delete it. Best, Kevin

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Kevin R. Henke "Actually, have you heard of Waterloo dentures? Technically, they're too recent to be fossils, but you should get my point."

How do you know they were taken from Waterloo? History. How does Waterloo battle-field prove Napoleon lost? It doesn't, history does.

"The Battle of Waterloo is supported by contemporary newspaper accounts, letters , records, etc.. Where's your contemporary historical evidence for the Takling Snake?"

Adam's and Eve's account of the Genesis 3 event.

"The important point is that dinosaurs lived. There's no more evidence for a Talking Snake than a purple unicorn. Then, to be consistent, you should also be neutral about the reality of Genesis 3."

I was not the least neutral about the unicorn, just about the purple. I am not neutral about Genesis 3 events, but the snake could have been purple or green for all I care.

"a) Archeologists have found Troy. There could have been a Trojan War;"

There is more than just that. All ancients date the dateable part of history from the Fall of Troy (except Hebrew tradition which goes further back, to Flood and Adam).

"however, that does not mean that the Cyclops and Sirens existed."

I was not aware these came in the war of Troy. Ulysses told them to Nausicaa, and that was his explanation of coming alone after having commanded ships. Besides, I do not take a dogmatic stance they didn't exist. Ulysses could have had qualms lying to a hostess, even if he was known to lie from time to time.

"Where is the evidence for a Talking Snake and magic fruit trees? The Talking Snake is no more real than the Cyclops or the sirens. Sirens and a Talking Snake are magical myths."

In what Adam and Eve told their own children - not a short term hostess.

"b) Possibly. Genesis 2:10-14 also contains some valid geographic details about the Middle East, but Spiderman comics also give geographic details about New York. None of this is evidence for a Talking Snake and Spiderman."

I have answered the spiderman argument elsewhere - you don't expect a real life owner of Daily Bugle to suceed after just a comic book one. Like transition from supposed "made up" characters in NT and known ones, admitted on all sides to be historic.

The thing is, Dörpfeld found Homer was true to details on Santa Mavra, which in Homer's time had become Doric, and the Ithakeans had moved out to present day Thiaki (with the name). This means the action of the Odyssey as taking place in Greece, especially on Ithaca, would be from Ulysses' time.

"c) Aeneas - probably a myth, no evidence that Greco-Roman gods exist and had children anymore than supernatural beings mated with women in Genesis 6. Romulus - probably legend, - again, there's no reason to believe that Roman gods exist and have children. Hannibal - historical with some legends."

So you ditch Aeneas and Romulus bc supposed to be children of false gods? St. Augustine didn't.

"d) Archeological and other evidence are what are important. I don't care about the opinions of ancient people."

Newspaper reports from 1815 are opinions of ancient people.

Waterloo dentures and even (if it could have been had) a complete battle-field archaeology won't prove Napoleon lost.

"Now, I would ask that you answer my questions, some of which you have been avoiding:"

"Where is your archeological or any scientific evidence that a Talking Snake and magic fruit trees ever existed?"

My point is, with historic evidence this is not necessary.

"What basis do you have to think that any story necessarily must have an historical component? Didn't people just sometimes make up stories?"

The thing is, when stories are made up - you took Spiderman - author and audience tend to agree they are made up. When the first known audience of a story assumes it is true fact, that is an indication it is supposed to be a factual account. Not in and of itself it can't involve mistakes, nor that it can't involve lies. But lies told as historic fact are sth else than made up stories.

"How can you call Genesis 1-11 historical, as you did elsewhere in this comment section, when you're uncomitted about the existence of purple unicorns?"

As said, I am not uncommitted on unicorns, just on whether they were purple or some other colour. But Ceratopsians have been found and I identify them with ancient accounts of unicorns. Including Biblical.

"If anyone shows me a purple unicorn or a Talking Snake, I'll accept the claim in Genesis 3 or that purple unicorns exist. Otherwise, there's no reason to accept either as reality."

Who's shown you the battle of Waterloo?

"If we have no evidence that Aeneas or Romulus were the sons of supernatural natural beings,"

... we still have ample evidence they were supposed to be historic rulers of some people migrating from Troy and settling in Rome. None that they were supposed to be fun stories.

"where's the better evidence that we should we believe that women were mating with supernatural beings in Genesis 6?"

If that's the meaning. Btw, I think Solo man and a few more may well fit the bill of ancient giants.

"If you're posting this on your blog. It would be easier for us to continue this discussion by email. My email address is on my website. I previously gave you instructions on how to get there. You could try posting your email here, but YouTube would probably delete it. Best, Kevin"

I missed your instruction on how to get there, I'll ask Gibbon in writing to her.

@Kevin R. Henke PS, tired and missed a point.

Livy is our outstanding source for Hannibal, and he believed Aeneas and Romulus were historical. He starts book I with the Fall of Troy.

Kevin R. Henke

@Hans-Georg Lundahl The Battle of Waterloo and the manufacturing of the dentures from the teeth have support from contemporary documentation unlike the Talking Snake story. I don't need to see modern Japan or the dead in 1815 Waterloo to know that they are/were real. When comtemporary solidiers write about the horrors of war that they experienced and different newspapers in different languages report the same detailed results at Waterloo and they're backed up by archeology and other government records, that's reality and not a matter of opinion. Conservative Christians views of Genesis 3 are opinions because they have absolutely no evidence whatsoever to back up their beliefs. People make up stories all the time and some of them in the Bible are falsely labelled as history when they have no evidence of being historical.

Certatopian dinosaurs were real, no matter what color they were. They were dinosaurs and not unicorns. There's no evidence of magical Talking snakes. As I said before, I accept history IF it's contemporary and backed up by artifacts and archeology. Genesis 1-11 is Neither. There's no historical evidence in Genesis 1-11. Even fundamentalist Christians claim that Moses wrote Genesis supposedly thousands of years after Genesis 3. There's absolute no evidence whatsoever that Adam and Eve wrote or said anything little alone that they ever existed. We don't know who wrote Genesis, but there's no evidence for any of the outrageous claims in Genesis 3. Probability indicates that it's a made up story. As I said before, just because Troy existed and that the Trojan War and migrations may have occurred that's no justification for believing other claims in the Illiad or the Odyssey. Any claims must be supported by contemporary records or artifacts from the time recovered by trained archeologists. I don't care about St. Augustine's opinions on Aenas or Romulus. What do modern historians and archeologists say about Aenas and Romulus? What's the evidence for them? That's what is important and not blindly believing what ever the Bible or Church Fathers say.

Yes, please have Erika give you my email address. I tried going to your website, but they wanted me to log in before I could send you a message. I didn't want to create another account. Emails will allow us to exchange links, which YouTube would erase.

@Hans-Georg Lundahl Livy was not infallible. Only accept what he says, if it can be supported by some contemporary records or archeology from that time. If his claims cannot be verified, then skepticism is warranted. Best to you, Kevin

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Kevin R. Henke Can you prove Hannibal from archaeology? Let me give you a pro-tip : a bacterial variant in the Alps that could be related to elephant poop and some very few Roman and Punic weapons from Cannae don't prove him.

In fact, you would be hard put to prove Julius Caesar existed as portrayed by history from archaeology.

As I mentioned, this is my area of at least relative expertise, not yours, and you are heavily bungling it.

History is known from history and not from archaeology. It is sometimes corrected (notably as to inessentials, like material appearance of artefacts) from archaeology, but it is known from stories from the past.

@Kevin R. Henke "The Battle of Waterloo and the manufacturing of the dentures from the teeth have support from contemporary documentation unlike the Talking Snake story."

I accept documentation, I don't accept "unlike" clause.

"I don't need to see modern Japan or the dead in 1815 Waterloo to know that they are/were real. When comtemporary solidiers"

In order to know the soldiers writing were contemporary to Waterloo, you need to know that from ... history. Back in 1820, people were certainly able to tell who was a contemporary of Waterloo. How are you able to tell that 200 years later?

"People make up stories all the time and some of them in the Bible are falsely labelled as history when they have no evidence of being historical."

I haven't so far seen you argue as if you understood how we know history. Or what is the evidence of history.

"Certatopian dinosaurs were real, no matter what color they were."

Yes, so was the snake.

"They were dinosaurs and not unicorns."

Perhaps you mean "not unicorns as depicted in Medieval bestiaries" - you get badly drawn pictures of elephants in them too. As far as I am concerned, "dinosaurs" is a word classifying certain creatures from fossil dig fame (others are known as "pterosaur", "pelykosaur" and so on), while "unicorn" is a translation of a Hebrew word arguably used by the people who saw a couple of Ceratopsians on the Ark.

"There's no evidence of magical Talking snakes. As I said before, I accept history IF it's contemporary and backed up by artifacts and archeology."

History usually is not contemporary to us. Most ancient history has no contemporary documentation and no decisive backing from artefacts and archaeology. Livy did not dispose of written documents contemporary to Hannibal any more than to Aeneas, as far as we know. Acta Senatus, as a source for 1st C. Caesars, was not started in the time of the Punic Wars.

For Hannibal and Scipio, Livy relied on things like the family tradition of the Scipios (yes, they were still an extant branch of the Cornelii in his time). Oral transmission before writing down = legend. Keep this in mind.

"Even fundamentalist Christians claim that Moses wrote Genesis supposedly thousands of years after Genesis 3."

Yes, and had Genesis 1 account of the six days as a revelation given to him by God on Sinai.

When George Leo Haydock (Father or Reverend) edited his comment on Genesis 3, after quotes and own comments on v. 24 he added this as comment on all of the chapter:

"Concerning the transactions of these early times, parents would no doubt be careful to instruct their children, by word of mouth, before any of the Scriptures were written; and Moses might derive much information from the same source, as a very few persons formed the chain of tradition, when they lived so many hundred years. Adam would converse with Mathusalem, who knew Sem, as the latter lived in the days of Abram. Isaac, Joseph, and Amram, the father of Moses, were contemporaries: so that seven persons might keep up the memory of things which had happened 2500 years before. But to entitle these accounts to absolute authority, the inspiration of God intervenes; and thus we are convinced, that no word of sacred writers can be questioned."

"Probability indicates that it's a made up story."

Probability indicates made up stories tend to get preserved with that status. So, no.

"As I said before, just because Troy existed and that the Trojan War and migrations may have occurred that's no justification for believing other claims in the Illiad or the Odyssey."

Oh, that's problematic. Very problematic. It's like saying "just because Rome and Carthage existed, we don't have to believe the stories of the Punic Wars". I made an exception for the part of the Odyssey which Ulysses as stranded guest on his way on is narrating to Nausicaa - probably Homer had them from an ancestry in Demodocus' lineage - since he knew no one could check that. This exception does not extend to the general outline of the war or Ulysses' return or the other nostoi, at least major ones, though some has been garbled or transferred from other wars (notably the Hittite contingent at Kadesh, I presume, hence the otherwise very odd involvement of Egypt and Ethiopia).

"Any claims must be supported by contemporary records"

This is the so called Weibull school in historic research. It works comparatively well for recent centuries. As a Latinist, I am very sure it breaks down (for reasons indicated) when we get to Antiquity.

"or artifacts from the time recovered by trained archeologists."

Artefacts are ambiguous and would be so to trained archaeologists as much as to untrained ones, unless we had history, which we have, as explained, from other sources.

"I don't care about St. Augustine's opinions on Aenas or Romulus."

Too bad. Why do you care about Livy's opinion on Hannibal?

"What do modern historians and archeologists say about Aenas and Romulus?"

There is a fad of denying historicity all through the past century. That of St. Augustine was closer to the times of these men, than that of Weibull.

"What's the evidence for them?"

Tradition - precisely as for Hannibal. One point in favour of sceptics, as against the Roman tradition, there seems to have been a previously extant tradition that Aeneas instead founded the city Aenea (in Macedon). He could have founded both. Dido is certainly some centuries after him, but Livy, unlike Virgil, has no encounter with her.

A few decades ago, archaeologists were saying urban Rome's lowest layers carbon date from 550 BC, that is very shortly before the traditional date for the beginning of the Republic. However, a 1990's calibration of carbon dates by dendro reveals the "Hallstatt plateau" - all actual dates from 750 to 450 carbon date around 550 BC. Romulus is by tradition said to have founded Rome in 753 BC.

The other day, I heard a podcast on Vikings on youtube. There were Vikings buried just SW of Finland, not in the modern state Finland, but in that of Estonia, they could be genetically traced to Uppland, and the era was Vendel era - the time when Adils started the Swedish colony of "Finland" - something previously dismissed as myth.

"That's what is important and not blindly believing what ever the Bible or Church Fathers say."

I am here not arguing from the Bible as God's word, or from Church Fathers as the norm of Catholic theology. I am arguing from the fact that believing Romulus to the ancients was as obvious as believing Waterloo is to you. And note well, ancients as in all of them, not just the true believers in Olympian or Capitoline pantheons. I picked St. Augustine precisely because he did not believe in these.

"Yes, please have Erika give you my email address. I tried going to your website, but they wanted me to log in before I could send you a message. I didn't want to create another account. Emails will allow us to exchange links, which YouTube would erase."

Thank you very much, I will.

37:04 - 37:17 "a good friend of myself and Dr. Henke, geology student Mr. Wilford ... has outlined these issues in far, far greater detail in a long-form blog post, that can be found in the description."

As the discussion last few minutes was over my head, I'd like to see the blog post.

Right now, 18:06 Paris time, 7.II.2022, the link is not found in the description.

38:40 "How can a Global Flood deposite pollen in only every other layer?"

Knowing there are problems for Berthault in this case, Berthault would answer this one.

The halite problem for Berthault in this I gave a tentative answer in halite layers (aka salt) getting pushed up or down from gypsum and calcite layers after the deposition happens.

Kevin R. Henke: I've debated Guy Berthault in writing about 20 years ago. He's a brillant lab sedimentologist, but he doesn't understand Steno's Laws or field geology. Besides a density issue, how would these flow movements create continuous and nearly flat layers over 113 km?
Hans-Georg Lundahl: @Kevin R. Henke The flume experiments of Berthault with hydrostatic sorting, not when water is calming down, but when it is hypersaturated, do create very thin layers, I saw the video.

The layer being thin over 113 km - do you mean 113 square km?

But either way, they would be thin because of the hydrostatic sorting, and big like that because the Flood produced very big flumes.
Kevin R. Henke: @Hans-Georg Lundahl It's a straight distance of 113km. See my video at

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aZPErjyaJKw .

Again, these are chemical precipitates. Berthault's sorting mechanism is a physical process and does not apply to the Castile and Green River formations. Berthault's sorting mechanism cannot explain all laminae.
Hans-Georg Lundahl: @Kevin R. Henke I'll have to ask him to do an experiment.
Kevin R. Henke: @Hans-Georg Lundahl Sounds good. I don't know if he's retired or not.

39:56 Let me give one. ON the palaeontological or fossil side - you will not find for instance Permian land vertebrates below Triassic ones. You can find Permian sea vertebrates or non-vertebrates below Triassic sea vertebrates, perhaps non-vertebrates too, but there was a critter walking on land and it was not walking 25 meters below another critter walking on land.

CMI would object that critters need not be found where they were before getting hit by the flood. True but irrelevant. A critter found 500 km or probably even 1 km away from where it was walking will not be found in identifiable shape. It will be bone fragments of peanut size or sth. If the critter was preserved more or less like sth remotely like a full skeleton, it was buried in situ.

I have not seen it falsified yet, and I wrote Karoo where Triassic is overlying Permian, geologically speaking.

Other prediction - you will find (if carbon dating) that critters from the Flood date to 40 000 (perhaps 35 000) BP, unless there is a source for radioactive contamination.

Armitage found some dating younger than that, I have explained previously by post-Flood landslides, but some of them are from Morrisson which involves Uranium mines, and that contaminates organic samples with extra C14. It may speed up decay of the C14 already there, but it more than compensates bc adding C12 -> C14.

40:55 "pre- to post-Flood boundary" - isn't a specific period.

OK, Younger Dryas and genuine Ice Age (any "of them") are post-Flood but a Flood layer can depending on fauna be described as Permian or Miocene. Or lots inbetween or around.

Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere

Pages

Friday, February 25, 2022

Sharing

Thursday, February 24, 2022

Also under the video with GMS and Leo Yohansen

Wednesday, February 23, 2022

Historic-Critic Method Proponent Wrong about Historic Evidence

Evangelical Wrong about the Bible's History

Monday, February 21, 2022

Someone Took Me for an Evolutionist

Sunday, February 13, 2022

Continuing with Kevin

CMI on Human Fossils

"Debunked" and Leicester University Give Fake News on Noah's Flood

Thursday, February 10, 2022

Sharing

Wednesday, February 9, 2022

Geologic Column : Absent from Land Vertebrate Palaeontology

Tuesday, February 8, 2022

Gutsick Gibbon on Overturning Paradigms and Castile Formation

About Me

Fighting Totalitarian Takeovers