15 QQ, Six Years Ago, Other Quora Account, Theme Creationism, Some Debate

Q I

If carbon dating was wrong, how would science estimate the age of fossils or artifacts?
https://www.quora.com/If-carbon-dating-was-wrong-how-would-science-estimate-the-age-of-fossils-or-artifacts/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl

Answer requested by

Quentin Smith

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Tried to save paleocritti to a blog of mine. "http://ppt.li/3hh"

6 years ago

"If carbon dating was wrong,"

I am a creationist, so I take this first as if I were right. But I don't think carbon dating is totally wrong, I even think it is a relatively right chronological order and becomes mostly very reliable even for absolute dates, c. 500 BC or some centuries earlier.

"how would science estimate the age of fossils or artifacts?"

The main age estimate is not that of science, but of history.

If I have correctly identified Göbekli Tepe as Babel, that means it began (one good guess) 2551 BC and ended 2511 BC.*

This in turn means that the carbon dates are off by different amounts.

9600 BC
2551 BC
7049 extra years

carbon level was 42.626 pmC

8600 BC
2511 BC
6089 extra years

carbon level was 47.875 pmC

This can of course be used for other things which date as 11,600 years old or have 24.58 pmC left, and for other things which date as 10,600 years old or have 27.741 pmC left.

This means that other things can be dated accordingly by scientists.

If Osgood has correctly identified Abraham at c. 80 in Genesis 14 with the year in which En-geddi lost its previous Chalcolithic population, that gives a further identification from history

3400 BC c. (end of chalcolithic in general)
1945 BC
1455 extra years

carbon level was 83.861 pmC

If it is correct to identify Joseph with Imhotep, under Djoser, we have the historic date of Joseph as c. 1700 BC when burying his father and the carbon date of Djoser as 2600 BC.

2600 BC
1700 BC
0900 extra years or 89.685 pmC

So, this can be used for other things dating as 5400 years old or as 4600 years old, or as having now 52.036 pmC or 57.324 pmC left.

But Göbekli Tepe, Chalcolithic of En-geddi with early Pharaonic Egypt and Djoser are not the only archaeological items, and a rise in carbon 14 levels can be extrapolated along a probable curve, from 42.626 pmC in 2551 BC, over 47.875 pmC in 2511 BC and 83.861 pmC in 1945 BC to 89.685 pmC in 1700 BC.

From these probable dates, you can then calculate other ages.

The carbon dated dino fossils which are not quite permineralised and therefore do not quite qualify as fossils either would date from typically 39,000 BC to 22,000 BC, which would be dates just after the Flood or the oldest of them during it.

39000 BC
02957 BC
36043 extra years or 1.278 pmC

Hence, a not too drastic pmC rise from 1.278 to 42.626 would have occurred from 2957 to 2551 BC, in 406 years.

In this time, these days, 95.207 pmC is left, meaning carbon production in atmosphere is 4.793 pmC to replace it, and a production of 41.409 pmC of total atmosphere in that time (see below) is 8.639 as fast (see below) as these days.

Now, 8.639 as fast a carbon production would mean more radiation, which in turn would involve more cold ...

However, how much radiation dose per year is at surface, during this time, I have not been able to find out, despite trying ...

Correspondence of Hans Georg Lundahl: Other Check on Carbon Buildup
http://correspondentia-ioannis-georgii.blogspot.com/2017/11/other-check-on-carbon-buildup.html
__________

42.626 Credits to Carbon 14 Dating Calculator**

01.217

41.409 41.409/4.793 = 8.639

Notes

* I don't know exactly how I came up with 2551 to 2511 BC, I'm taking it as 2607 to 2556 now. While this is not exactly forty years, the 51 years that involve the 40 go from Noah's death (2957 - 350 = 2607) to Phalec's birth (2957 - 401 = 2556).
** Now I can't access this one, since it says, most places:

403 Forbidden
You don't have permission to access /~deturck/m170/c14/carbdate.html on this server.

Q II

How can the Bible report about the six days of creation, considering that no humans existed then?
https://www.quora.com/How-can-the-Bible-report-about-the-six-days-of-creation-considering-that-no-humans-existed-then/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Studied religions as curious parallels and contrasts to Xtian faith since 9, 10?

6 years ago

God told angels to reveal it to Moses, and possibly God also told Adam first.

Either Genesis 1 or Book of Jubilees 1 was revealed to Moses, and if the latter, Genesis 1 had been revealed as such to Adam or resumed as such by Adam and Jubilees 1 came as a confirmation.

Actually, it seems it is Jubilees 2 which would if anything be a confirmation:

The Book Of Jubilees Chapter 2

“1 And the malak of the presence spoke to Mosheh according to the word of YAHWEH, saying: Write the complete history of the creation, how in six days YAHWEH ALMIGHTY finished all His works and all that He created, and kept Shabbat on the seventh day and hallowed it for all ages, and appointed it as a sign for all His works.”

Q III

If creationists were right and Earth was 6,000 years old, how radioactive would the Earth be?
https://www.quora.com/If-creationists-were-right-and-Earth-was-6-000-years-old-how-radioactive-would-the-Earth-be/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl

This question previously had details. They are now in a comment.

Here:

Quora Question Details Bot

6 years ago

Because the Earth is 4.54 billion years old all radioisotopes with a half-life less than ~50 million years have all decayed. Now with a 6,000 year age, quantities of radioisotopes with a half-life of greater than 90 years can now exist on Earth.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Blog : "http://creavsevolu.blogspot.com". Debating evolutionists for 15 years +.

6 years ago

First, the literal formulation of the question:

"If creationists were right and Earth was 6,000 years old, how radioactive would the Earth be?"

Spontaneously, what has one thing to do with the other? But, there is a but: questioner gave a detail description:

"Because the Earth is 4.54 billion years old all radioisotopes with a half-life less than ~50 million years have all decayed."

Except those being formed, like C14 ... right?

"Now with a 6,000 year age, quantities of radioisotopes with a half-life of greater than 90 years can now exist on Earth."

Greater than 6000 years, you mean?

Well - the argument presumes that ALL elements and isotopes that are at all possible were created or were formed in the first place, so that the absence of certain ones depends on all of it having decayed.

So, element x could theoretically have isotope y, but we don't find isotope y ... and some physicist concludes this is ... sorry, obviously the half life does not reduce an isotope to nothing, so 90 is the correct one ... it was not 50 billion years half life, but only 50 million years such ...

Well, what if isotope y was never there in the first place, when God created Earth? What would have obliged God to include it? A Big Bang process involved in forming elements? But what would have obliged God to choose that means? Nothing, of course.

Other problem, how do you check a very long half life?

Libby thought he had figured out the half life of C14 at 5600 some years, and when objects are double dated both by carbon 14 and historically, we find that the real half life is 5730 years. Now, with so short a half life, we can get significant portions of it within historically either undisputed or near undisputed chronology.

5730 years (presumed in the following)

2865 (half a half life)

1432 (quarter of a half life)

716 (eighth of a half life)

358 (sixteenth of a half life)

179 (thirtysecond of a half life)

Only very few, if any, would deny the known quality and well documented quality of the history of the last 179, 358 or even 716 years.

To get to the residua after such portions of a halflife, we only need to take square roots at every halving of the time, starting with square root of a half for the first halving, which is, as any A4 paper user knows, 70.7 %.

5730 years ~ 50 %

2865 years ~ 70.7 %

1432 years ~ 84.1 %

716 years ~ 91.7 %

358 years ~ 95.8 %

179 years ~ 97.9 %

In each case of original carbon 14 ratio to the carbon 12 content overall. As the carbon 14 content is always insignificant compared to the carbon 12, the decrease of carbon 14 is nearly the only relevant factor for the decrease of the ratio; whether the atoms decay to N14 or to C12 - I have heard both - the C12 content won't be increased by it.

Now, very few would contest the history since the battle field of Maella (First Carlist War, battle on october 1, 1838, close to 179 years ago, supposing some boots or uniforms can be dug up from the ground and carbon dated).

Not many more would contest the history since 1660, when Samuel Pepys began his diary, supposing its paper was fresh and has been carbon dated and we know from other reason the diary is not a fraud but from Samuel Pepys.

Most would consider the history since 1302 is well known, so that a dead horse from the battle of Courtrai on July 11 1302 would confirm the horse had been grazing grass with carbon of our C14 degree, but what is now left in it is 91.7 % of modern carbon, all of which confirm the half life of carbon 14.

You don't have that for Uranium-Lead or things.

Q IV

Why do anti-theists act like Young-Earth Creationism is the only valid interpretation of Genesis?
https://www.quora.com/Why-do-anti-theists-act-like-Young-Earth-Creationism-is-the-only-valid-interpretation-of-Genesis/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Studied religions as curious parallels and contrasts to Xtian faith since 9, 10?

6 years ago

I cannot answer for anti-theists, but I can say that if they do, they have good reasons.

• It is prima facie good exegesis;
• It is historically the not just predominant but universal exegesis, the other one being a very recent accomodation to what Young Earth Creationists do not recognise as real discoveries.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

6 years ago

I can also note, I look at the video* in the link, and first picture seen, even as a still, is strawmanning Young Earth Creationism.

“No Plant Death” … er, no, not our position.

Notes

* Video is not clickable (from here).

Q V

Creationism: Do creationists believe in forensics?
https://www.quora.com/Creationism-Do-creationists-believe-in-forensics/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl

This question previously had details. They are now in a comment.

The comments are not given here, since quoted in the answer.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Blog : "http://creavsevolu.blogspot.com". Debating evolutionists for 15 years +.

6 years ago

"Creationism: Do creationists believe in forensics?"

Yes, but not as a foolproof substitute for admission or ocular testimony and also not as if it could even be conducted apart from oral and written evidence.

"Quora Question Details Bot
Aug 8, 2017
Since creationists don't believe in evolution I asume they don't give credit to anything based on observation and analysis of facts, wich is the basis of forensic science."

Since you make a very heavy strawman, I assume you don't give credit to logic, which forbids strawmen.

"Maarten van den Driest
Aug 22, 2014
Exactly. There is a far easier question: do creationists believe anything at all in the past actually happened?"

Yes, very certainly. And the primary criterium for knowing what is not testing traces in material objects for physical or chemical properties, but hearing or reading texts from people who saw the past happen while it was not yet past.

In other words, history comes before archaeology - not the other way round.

6 years ago

Pearlman YeC

Hi Hans Georg, please provide the link re the post u mentioned me ‘a majority of serious scholars..” TY, roger m.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I think that could have been to another response?

Pearlman YeC

yes, I received an e-mail notification of the topic and your comment saying ‘my turn’ but was unable to find the question link. perhaps it was deleted.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I don’t know, I would not have deleted it.

I do know, I have debated so much, I am now having a heavy head about what debate it could be.

Pearlman YeC

it was not your Q but one u had replied to from a Christian perspective and passed to me to reply from a Jewish one. Your answer was what Judaism would say as to why the so called ‘experts’ still advocate deep-time dogma, yet pretend to own the mantle of science.. so you covered it well for all of us :)

Hans-Georg Lundahl

ah, ok!

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Here is the Q:

Is it true that the Bible has incorrectly stated the date of the Exodus?

The relevant answer was that of Geoff Houghton.

Q VI

Do any young Earth/universe creation models have any observational predictions that may be confirmed or denied by the James Webb Space Telescope going online soon?
https://www.quora.com/Do-any-young-Earth-universe-creation-models-have-any-observational-predictions-that-may-be-confirmed-or-denied-by-the-James-Webb-Space-Telescope-going-online-soon/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Blog : "http://creavsevolu.blogspot.com". Debating evolutionists for 15 years +.

6 years ago

As part of it seems to be concerned with Distant Starlight.

I have another model, namely Geocentrism with a small universe.

I have even been daring enough to extrapolate from the Bible the fix stars are 1 light day up.

Now, a prediction of this is, in two alternatives:

1. either, in a few years, Voyager will miraculously shine up with reconnected image transmission and show it is in the sphere of fix stars, in a geometry impossible for it if stars are all across the inner space of a very much larger globe and showing it is the space of a sphere’s “inner surface” (rubber of balloon space rather than air of balloon space);
2. or, Voyager will stop getting further or further removed, as sphere of fix stars is preventing its progress, but no miracle making the camera and image transmission resume;
3. or, it will be found to be a fraud, the images were deliberately turned off, and the radio signals have been manipulated to show a removal more and more light hours away from earth.

If this prediction fails, next prediction would be, sphere of fix stars is two light days away.

In that case, it would take a few more decades before the same triple scenario actualises.

Q VII

Can the 6th days of creation in the Bible be explained scientifically?
https://www.quora.com/Can-the-6th-days-of-creation-in-the-Bible-be-explained-scientifically/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl

Answer requested by

Bereket Burka

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Studied religions as curious parallels and contrasts to Xtian faith since 9, 10?

6 years ago

“Can the 6th days of creation in the Bible …”

Be true? Yes. Be consistent with what we know of history? Yes. Be consistent with what we know of science? Yes.

But …

“…be explained scientifically?”

No. The agent is not a created agent, but God Himself. Science can classify the results of God’s acts, but not explain them - at least not correctly - in terms of a natural agency.

Q VIII

What dating methods are used to calculate the age of fossils older than 50,000 years?
https://www.quora.com/What-dating-methods-are-used-to-calculate-the-age-of-fossils-older-than-50-000-years/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl

Answer requested by

Andre Menahem

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Tried to save paleocritti to a blog of mine. "http://ppt.li/3hh"

6 years ago

The most commonly used two are potassium argon and geostratigraphy.

Both of which there is creationist criticism against.

Q IX

Somebody in my class is a young-earth creationist. I feel bad because she doesn't understand how evolution works. Would it be overstepping to try and explain it to her?
https://www.quora.com/Somebody-in-my-class-is-a-young-earth-creationist-I-feel-bad-because-she-doesnt-understand-how-evolution-works-Would-it-be-overstepping-to-try-and-explain-it-to-her/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Blog : "http://creavsevolu.blogspot.com". Debating evolutionists for 15 years +.

6 years ago

How about starting with “why are you a creationist” or “what is it you don’t understand” rather than pushing in on an explanation of sth she may understand MUCH better than you?

I have a bit too often been lectured about “we know species don’t just stay the same” or “have you heard of carbon dating” just because I am creationist.

Yes, I know species don’t just stay the same, and yes, I have heard about carbon dating … your point being …?

Q X

What is the funniest chapter of the Bible?
https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-funniest-chapter-of-the-Bible/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Studied religions as curious parallels and contrasts to Xtian faith since 9, 10?

6 years ago

Not sure, but Genesis 11 is a candidate.

Imagine Nimrod thinking he would get to places where he didn’t need to bother about danger of new Deluge (like, he had seen the rainbow so many times and didn’t trust God anyway), and inventing or endorsing the invention of a three step rocket the top of which would reach into space (a rocket may look like a tower at take off).

Then add that he got fuel wrong, was planning to use Uranium (not knowing about 2H2+O2 => H2O, despite God probably having used that reaction between Oxygen layers of Earth atmosphere and still extant and near Hydrogen layers in space when “the flood gates of heaven were opened” a few chapters earlier).

Then he bases a world wide collaboration centred on his Babel around this project.

God saves mankind from a nuke disaster by blowing the collaboration to pieces, simply by replacing the linguistic competence of participants by a new one, separate for each participant with his family or perhaps for the major 72 tribes, and Nimrod starts shouting orders and no one knows what he means and so all obey him wrong, until they all realise the best thing to do is to get away and settle with people whose language you understand, rather than everyone and anyone else.

If you think that is how the things worked out in practise, it is fairly funny to meditate on.

Jacob Swartz

3 years ago

My favorite story in the entire Old Testament, and arguably my favorite myth of all time! It’s literally one giant joke, yet it still manages to convey SO much metaphysical truth as it relates to human stupidity, among literally hundreds of other things, such as the folly of empire, Man’s infinite longing to conquer nature, the inherent madness of civilization, the rise of the first cities, and the purpose of the ziggurat.

It’s also highly probable that Nimrod was, while essentially a literary composite of multiple great ancient rulers such as Narmer, Sargon, and Hammurabi, intended to be Gilgamesh (seeing as how Nimrod was merely a nickname or a title).

Underrated story.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

9 months ago

I’d highly disagree on Nimrod being that kind of composite.

I also differ from involving ziggurats into the equation.

Check out the prepottery neolithic of Turkish Mesopotamia.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

9 months ago

I agree on Nimrod being a nickname.

Q XI

What evidence do creationists have for their belief system that does not come from the Bible?
https://www.quora.com/What-evidence-do-creationists-have-for-their-belief-system-that-does-not-come-from-the-Bible/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Studied religions as curious parallels and contrasts to Xtian faith since 9, 10?

6 years ago

“What evidence do creationists have for their belief system that does not come from the Bible?”

Well, the Christian beliefsystem of a Catholic Creationist comes from many sources, but the chief ones are Bible and Church Tradition.

The question is about the other ones - and these do not constitute sources for a complete belief system, but for details - one of which would obviously be a Young Earth and that one is much involved in Creationism. I’ll answer for that one.

Positively, we don’t have 4.5 billion, nor even 2 million years of written human history. Also, extra-Biblical and extra-Christian, that is Pagan, versions of early human history seem to agree with ours, and their timelines are around ours. Add salt level of seas if you like. In other words we have evidence pointing to a shorter existence of Earth.

Negatively, contrary to “popular” and “scientific” belief, we do not have a clear cut case for any dating method which would contradict the Biblical chronology.

• potassium argon is debunked by Mt St Helens and by some NZ volcano
• dendro has too little material to go back very far
• C14 can be recalibrated in a creationist sense
• geostratigraphy can be explained by diverse biotopes
• distant starlight (actually more for old universe than directly old earth) is moot unless heliocentrism can be proven, which it cannot.

This mass of purported and failed evidence for an old earth and universe is by itself evidence there is sth wrong with the idea and some providence over men has used their waste of talents to tell us that. I am certain it is God.

Divided

for debates into A, B and C

A

Charles Jack

6 years ago

None of what you wrote is true, but this is especially rich:
“C14 can be recalibrated in a creationist sense”

We know how radioactive decay works. We know why it works. We can test it. The fact that the Sun shines supports it. We know, without question, the ages that C14 gives us are correct.

So when you say “C14 can be recalibrated in a creationist sense” what you are really saying is “Creationists can ignore all of the evidence that supports carbon dating, and pretend that it gives different results.”

That is the Creationist battle cry: Ignore the results of science *and* refuse to learn how science works.

(btw, for the hilariously wrong award, this was a close second: “unless heliocentrism can be proven, which it cannot.”)

22.VI.2024

Hans-Georg Lundahl

The sun doesn’t shine from radioactive decay, but from radioactive fusion, a very different process.

If you think the claim is so hilarious, why not get an extra guffaw from checking out my creationist recalibration of C14?

Btw, it is not built around denying anything about how fast isotopes decay, it’s about a gradual buildup of the carbon 14 level we call “100 pmC” …

Mes plus récentes tables de carbone 14

And please tell me more about exactly what results I have ignored and exactly what I would need to learn about how “science works” …

If you want an extra nut to crack, how about proving heliocentrism?

St. John

Monday 24.VI.2024

Charles Jack

Sorry. But like with everything else, you remain hilariously wrong.

Both radioactive decay and radioactive fusion are governed by the Weak interaction.

Consequently, the *fact* that the Sun shines allows to *know* that radioactive decay works - reliably and predictably.

26.VI.2024

Hans-Georg Lundahl

No, “Weak interaction” is an abstraction which is concluded from Nuclear Decay and Nuclear Fusion.

Ultimate explanations are not proof, they are things to be proved or disproved. Explanation is at the inverse direction of proof.

THAT SAID, you somehow failed to interact with me saying I do not propose any alternatives in which Nuclear decay doesn’t work, doesn’t work reliable, or works in a very different manner over time.

My recalibration for C-14 presumes that C-14 ever since God allowed the first N-14 atom to become C-14 c. 8 minutes after he created the Sun on day IV, very stably has had the halflife of 5730 years.

B

Jason Bladzinski

6 years ago

You are serious with this? Attempting to debunk scientific claims about the dating methods we use to find the date of the Earth, while being outrageously incorrect, is not evidence of creationism. That's an argument from ignorance fallacy. Creationism requires its own evidence to be validated. Do you have any such (positive! ) evidence?

Radiometric dating is very accurate, and on top of that, we have multiple lines of evidence that converge. The light of stars alone prove the age of the universe to be billions of years old. Is your god in the practice of tricking people that the Earth and universe is billions of years old. That's tantamount to lying and I'm pretty sure that would make him immoral.

22.VI.2024

Hans-Georg Lundahl

For it to be an “argument from ignorance” fallacy, I would need to have been ignoring things.

THE positive evidence for Young Earth Creationism is Genesis, specifically chapters 5 and 11.

“we have multiple lines of evidence that converge.”

Tree rings and varves in Suigetsu lake are less accurate than C-14 …

“The light of stars alone prove the age of the universe to be billions of years old”

Only if they could be proven to be billions of light years distant. Before you can prove that, you first need to prove Heliocentrism.

“Is your god in the practice of tricking people”

God has not chosen the filter for the scientists who draw these conclusions. When I was born Jupiter was in some direction, does that mean God was tricking astrologers to take me for a very helpful person?

Or did astrologers apply that filter on Jove’s position without asking God’s advice?

23.VI.2024

Jason Bladzinski

That's not what an argument from ignorance fallacy is. If one says something is the case because it has not yet been proven to be false, than one is arguing from ignorance. It's to offer no defense whatsoever for one's position other than it hasn't been proven false.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I said sth was the case because of the positive historic evidence for it, aka Genesis 1 to 11, or if you prefer calling Genesis 1 prophetic, 2 to 11.

I then added as an extra consideration that the puported proofs of falsity weren’t such.

Fallacy from ignorance is rejected as charge against my answer.

St. John

Monday 24.VI.2024

Charles Jack

Stories are claims. They are not evidence.

Claims require evidence. There is zero evidence that the stories of magic and monsters in Genesis are true.

26.VI.2024

Hans-Georg Lundahl

The evidence in history is claims about history.

The evidence that Spanish War Fascist Veteran Giorgio Perlasca helped Jews in Budapest to get Spanish Citizenship and a safe journey to Spain in 1944 is that some people have claimed that.

Like Raoul Wallenberg, like some of the 5000 Jews, like himself when directly asked. Like his colleague and superior at the Spanish Embassy, Ángel Sanz Briz.

History is a chain of interlocking and mutually coherent claims that interlocks credibly with the own life stories and with claims from your parents or grandparents.

Fiction may involve similar degrees of coherence internally (history being there to help fiction writers achieve it) but fails to interlock with the lives of people. Like, if you walk in New York City, I don't think you'll find offices of the Daily Bugle there.

C

Mobile Task Force Unit Epsilon-11

8 months ago

do you actually believe that the sun revolves around the Earth? or did I hear that wrong?

22.VI.2024

Hans-Georg Lundahl

The Universe revolves each day around Earth, and drags the Sun along.

The Sun revolves each year opposite direction along the Zodiac, and that’s why our days and nights are not 23 h 55 min but 24 h long.

If you want to be really complete, God provides the daily motion for the Universe, an angel provides the periodic motion of the Sun, another one for the Moon, another one for Mars and yet another one for Venus.

Q XII

If option A is creationism and option B is Evolution. What is option C?
https://www.quora.com/If-option-A-is-creationism-and-option-B-is-Evolution-What-is-option-C/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Blog : "http://creavsevolu.blogspot.com". Debating evolutionists for 15 years +.

6 years ago

For any item perceived to exist, at least by some, you have four options, first three being options for its actual existence:

• eternism
• creationism
• evolutionism
• illusionism

For instance, a Christian is eternist about God and creationist about the universe and about his soul and usually evolutionist about the English language (using the word evolutionist in a very loose sense), as well as illusionist about experiences of previous lives.

While an Evolutionist Atheist is generally eternist about matter/energy, or used to be before Big Bang became popular, creationist and illusionist about God, evolutionist about the universe, evolutionist and illusionist about his own mind. And usually evolutionist about the English language. He is even creationist about certain works written in it, like Romeo and Juliet. He also would be illusionist about experiences of previous lives.

A Hindoo is generally eternist (with some evolutionism) about the ultimate reality, which would be kind of a “god”, illusionist about the universe and his separate self, also evolutionist about his separate self, as it would have gone through several incarnations and therefore also evolutionist about experiences of previous lives.

Other combinations would be possible.

Q XIII

Which "creation science" sources (books, websites) doesn’t mention evolution? Evolution texts don't waste time with debunking "creation science." Conversely, it seems the only thing "creation scientists" can ever talk about is evolution.
https://www.quora.com/Which-creation-science-sources-books-websites-doesn-t-mention-evolution-Evolution-texts-dont-waste-time-with-debunking-creation-science-Conversely-it-seems-the-only-thing-creation-scientists-can-ever-talk-about-is/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Blog : "http://creavsevolu.blogspot.com". Debating evolutionists for 15 years +.

6 years ago

“Evolution texts don't waste time with debunking "creation science."”

Very wisely so, if not very capable of debunking. Wisely not as in overall wise, but as in smart.

Q XIV

Do creationists support a flat Earth?
https://www.quora.com/Do-creationists-support-a-flat-Earth/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl

Answer requested by

Axcella Zed

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Blog : "http://creavsevolu.blogspot.com". Debating evolutionists for 15 years +.

6 years ago

Some do, some (and most) do not, and some who do are not creationist.

Q XV

Is there a name for the linguistic equivalent of creationism?
https://www.quora.com/Is-there-a-name-for-the-linguistic-equivalent-of-creationism/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl

This question previously had details. They are now in a comment.

on which I commented.

Quora Question Details Bot

6 years ago

We all know about the creation/evolution "debate". Creationists believe that the world was created as is, by God, because Genesis says so.

But Genesis also says that various languages were created by God, at the tower of Babel.

This seems to get a lot less space on the Internet, but has similar issues

Hans-Georg Lundahl

6 years ago

“But Genesis also says that various languages were created by God, at the tower of Babel.”

As Creationists also believe this, this is simply part of Creationism.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Studied religions as curious parallels and contrasts to Xtian faith since 9, 10?

6 years ago

There is no one linguistic equivalent of creationism.

If you though creationism means fixity of species and linguistics involved some believing a fixity of languages, that would be naive linguistics and misrepresenting creationism.

As to Tower of Babel, creationists do not pretend all 6000 languages and or dialects arrived fullfeathered thousands of years ago, and in some countries French and English replaced Latin by Conquest. We do believe more than one language and mutually incomprehensible ones were spoken directly after Babel, and then language has evolved some.

Or languages have. The singular would mean the evolution of languages were a kind of evolution of language as such, which it is not.

Speciation has also occurred several times over since the Ark, we now have 16 to 25 species of hedgehogs (depending on whether moonrats count or not). On the Ark, there was one couple.

As to my personal theory on whether PIE languages rather come from a Sprachbund than from a Proto-Language, that has been argued by Trubetskoy, independently of any creationist motivation.

The big problem with PIE for a Creationist is, IE languages correspond to more than one of the grandsons of Noah in table of languages. So, say PIE was originally spoken by someone like tribe of Gomer, what happened to the language of Iavan (Greeks) or Madai (Medes)? If on the other hand there really was such a displacement, and you could argue it from PIE being a good reconstruction, why is Nostratic not also one (if you consistently prefer Proto-Language over Sprachbund) and an even older such, since Finnish and Esquimaux shares traits with IE languages.

But there are creationists who do not agree on this point, and if naive conclusions from Tower of Babel were what you were thinking of, you were talking about a counterpart to a naive creationism - which is obviously still less wrong than evolutionism.