Some People Will Cultivate Very Irritating Conditions Around Me, then Observe Me, then Spread the Observation to Pretend I'm Easily Angered

One person did exactly that. In this thread.

No, not cultivate the irritating conditions, not observe me when angry, but spread.

Catholic vs. Orthodox: The Filioque Explained
Journey to Holiness | 12 Sept. 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CoQ0ddYPPy4

0:16 Catechism ... one more item against it, the fact is, we don't have any 381 manuscript of the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed.

GranMaese

@GranMaese

Neither of 50-90 manuscripts of the Gospels, or Paul's letters, so what's your point?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@hglundahl

@GranMaese My point is, when we get manuscripts later, the Latin and the Greek versions are already different.

GranMaese

@hglundahl Different how? Because by all means and purposes, they aren't. The Vulgate is a very faithful translation. There may be even better modern translations, fair enough, but it is still a very good translation.

Furthermore, how would you even know they are "different" if you claim we don't have any original manuscript to check? (about the creed).

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@GranMaese Presence vs absence of filioque.

I mean in the first actual manuscripts with the Constantinopolitan Creed.

From the second council itself, the Creed is lacking from the manuscripts.

GranMaese

@hglundahl That's not the question, though, my friend, for you said :"we don't have any 381 manuscript" But now it seems to be you say you do, that's a contradiction.

Now, perhaps you wanted to say, that the Filioque is not in the original Creed?

In the end, what does the Catechism has anything to do with it and how it is guilty of clarifying and being truthful to history? How is this "one more item against it", exactly?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@GranMaese I'm sorry, were you bad at logic?

In 381, we have copies of the canons of the council, but not of the Creed. It's Creed only exists in later copies.

"the Filioque is not in the original Creed?"

We don't have the original Creed.

Filioque is not in the earliest Greek copy, but it is in the earliest Latin copy of it.

"how it is guilty of clarifying and being truthful to history?"

It's not being truthful to history and it's swallowing an accusation from the Orthodox which we have a right to rebut.

One more item, for instance along § 283, which completely destroys the traditional view of creation.

GranMaese

@hglundahl Nice projection, brother, people who get angry so easily and proceeds to offend out of the blue, unprovoked, are always far from God, but you do you.

But I digress. You say: "which completely destroys the traditional view of creation." According to who, though? You?

Also, if we don't have the "original creed's manuscripts" how can you even know and be so sure it was there (or not) to begin with? The Church, who has the authority, not you nor you schismatic group, certainly seem to recognize it wasn't, given the earliest Latin is around 8th century (if memory serves me right), while the greek is older than that.

Don't [g]et me wrong, we definitively are right to rebut and affirm "from the Son", but not by blind fanatism nor historical conspiracies or however we can classify your position, dear brother.

God bless, may He grant you discernment.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@GranMaese You may or may NOT consider Michael II as "schismatic" ...

You may very certainly NOT consider everything I know or say as having come exclusively from him, I had a pretty motley past before adhering to his predecessor.

Including researching Filioque as a revert from Orthodoxy.

Now, "you get angry out of the blue"... I wasn't angry before you got this psychologising idiocy about me.

"You say: "which completely destroys the traditional view of creation." According to who, though? You?"

Trent. Session V. St. Thomas. On your side one Ratzinger who said one could not get back to the Syllabus, as I recall having heard. His "reading of the Bible in the Church" includes both calumny of Protestant Fundamentalists and an overall distance from Fundamentalism, which overall is the historic reading in the Catholic Church.

"Also, if we don't have the "original creed's manuscripts" how can you even know and be so sure it was there (or not) to begin with?"

It so happens to be called Creed of Nicaea and Constantinople. Meaning it was formulated in fine then, and not later ... except for the side that fiddled with Filioque, whether as to adding or as to subtracting.

"The Church, who has the authority, not you nor you schismatic group, certainly seem to recognize it wasn't,"

Where do I begin? Did Jesus promise His Church infallibility over minute historic facts?

"given the earliest Latin is around 8th century (if memory serves me right), while the greek is older than that."

The Third Council of Toledo, in 589, recited the Creed, in Latin, with the Filioque. Orthos often get this wrong and pretend the Third Council of Toledo added it. No, it was there when they opened the Synod. They recited it as they had received it.

The possibility that the Filioque was added on the Latin side is not impossible, if so that was in Toledo a conflation with another Creed from the First Synod of Toledo, in 400, or ending that year. It had the Filioque, but in another overall creed, and the text is preserved.

As to the Greek version, I think the oldest manuscript is in the Greek manuscript of Chalcedon in 451. 130 years earlier than the Third Council of Toledo, which, given the scarce source material from Early Middle Ages / Late Antiquity is not overly substantial.

No to Bowling

Nicholas Bowling debates Catholic student on the Miracle of Fatima
PopeDefenders | 7 Sept. 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qgtCgBN9hOg

1:16 I'd say She predicted a great war, it was about to begin in the papacy of Pius XI.

It began in 1936 and ended in 1990.

World War II was a distraction from it.

7:48 Some have suggested that the healing of the first beast or even his raising from the dead is performed by real men of God, Henoch and Elias.

He then ungratefully kills them and makes up another story.

A lying wonder may sometimes be a lying story about a real wonder.

8:20 I was nonplussed by the words "in a moment" and find this:

And the devil led him into a high mountain, and shewed him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time
[Luke 4:5]

I look up the Greek:

ἐν στιγμῇ χρόνου.

The lexicon refers to Bellum Civile, 2:14

At hostes sine fide tempus atque occasionem fraudis ac doli quaerunt interiectisque aliquot diebus nostris languentibus atque animo remissis subito meridiano tempore, cum alius discessisset, alius ex diutino labore in ipsis operibus quieti se dedisset, arma vero omnia reposita contectaque essent, portis se foras erumpunt, secundo magnoque vento ignem operibus inferunt. Hunc sic distulit ventus, uti uno tempore agger, plutei, testudo, turris, tormenta flammam conciperent et prius haec omnia consumerentur, quam, quemadmodum accidisset, animadverti posset. Nostri repentina fortuna permoti arma, quae possunt, arripiunt; alii ex castris sese incitant. Fit in hostes impetus; sed de muro sagittis tormentisque fugientes persequi prohibentur. Illi sub murum se recipiunt ibique musculum turrimque latericiam libere incendunt. Ita multorum mensium labor hostium perfidia et vi tempestatis puncto temporis interiit. Temptaverunt hoc idem Massilienses postero die. Eandem nacti tempestatem maiore cum fiducia ad alteram turrim aggeremque eruptione pugnaverunt multumque ignem intulerunt. Sed ut superioris temporis contentionem nostri omnem remiserant, ita proximi diei casu admoniti omnia ad defensionem paraverant. Itaque multis interfectis reliquos infecta re in oppidum reppulerunt.

But the enemy, with no sense of honour, sought for time and opportunity for fraud and treachery, and after an interval of several days, when our men were weary and slack in spirit, suddenly at noon, after some had gone away and others after their long toil had surrendered themselves to sleep among the siege works, and all their arms had been put away out of sight, broke forth from the gates and set fire to the works, the wind being strong and favourable. The wind spread the fire to such an extent that the mound, the sheds, the tortoise, the machines all caught fire at once, and they were all consumed before it could be ascertained how it had happened. Our men, alarmed by the sudden mischance, snatch up such arms as they can, others fling themselves from the camp. They charge the enemy, but are prevented from following the fugitives by arrows and catapults from the wall. The foe retire beneath their wall, and there without hindrance set fire to the gallery and the brick tower. So the labour of many p145 months perished in a moment through the perfidy of the enemy and the violence of the storm. The Massilians made a like attempt the next day. In similar weather they sallied forth and fought with greater confidence at the second tower and earthwork and cast much fire on them. But though our men had relaxed all the keen vigilance of an earlier period, yet, warned by the previous day's disaster, they had made every preparation for defence. So after slaying many they drove back the rest into the town and prevented them from accomplishing their purpose.

The moment lasted long enough for war machines to get burned.

It need not be telepathic communication in five seconds, though it could be that, but it could also be Satan "took a moment" to actually show some "clips" of each kingdom.

I had been used to reading it in Matthew where I didn't find this problem.

Noting when "in puncto temporis" qualified the verb "interiit" it came before, I think Greek has a similar syntax, so, when "en stigme chronou" comes after the noun, unless it could qualify "kai eipen" in the next verse ... Satan interrupts the spectacle by giving the suggestion ... it could qualify the noun. Each kingdom shown in a moment of time. All of them covered.

12:04 I would agree that Satan literally moved Jesus, however, not instantaneously.

The "in a moment" pertains to the showing or to each kingdom shown, not to the moving up on the mountain.

So, Jesus may have sat on a flying carpet or he may have had a Satanic grip around the waist, the latter like Satan's limbs were going to tie him on Good Friday and nail Him to the Cross.

I agree Satan didn't have the power to move Jesus from A to B in a single moment.

Recalling one morning of 12 IX 2001 ...

The Uncomfortable Truth About 9/11 Nobody Wants to Acknowledge
Answers in Genesis | 11 Sept. 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0wFNrpXXO6o

I remember my reaction.

I lived in Malmö, now in Paris, both are time zones where you hear of that the next day.*

I also learned Bush had declared war on Afghanistan, because the Afghanis refused to extradict Ben Laden, claiming he was gone.

If the US had made a forceful reaction about one month earlier, when Afghanistan was trying 16 Christians, lives could have been saved, and the US wouldn't have been on two opposite divides of a moral political issue in WW-I vs Afghanistan war.

8 of the Christians were Americans, they were deemed legally insane, they were put on planes to the US. The other 8 were Afghanis. And Bush didn't care about them. And THAT act very certainly, no ambiguity possible, was on the Afghanistan régime, the Taliban.

9/11 wasn't even in the official story (we need on this level not go into questions of conspiracies, if true, a possibly innocent President wouldn't have had time to get into investigating that), wasn't even, in this official story, on the Taliban. It was on Ben Laden. His relation to the Taliban was, the US suspected they were protecting him. JUST as Francis Joseph suspected Serbian police were protecting Gavril Princip.

My reaction was grief, not so much for the lives lost, as for the prospect of the US getting on the wrong side of a war. I sent the US Ambassador in Denmark a message ending in my hopes for the US to get right with this.

"Don't be afraid to be Crusaders"
meaning, defend Christians in that territory, if you are going to pick a fight**
"Don't be afraid to be Monarchists"
meaning, don't be shy of bringing back the King of Afghanistan, who wasn't a diehard Islamist, and apart from being innocent of the terrorism, would have been probably less eager to punish Christian conversions, especially if that was an explicit condition set by the US.

I knew of the Afghan King from one Charles A. Coulombe. His relation to Coulombe's Law isn't discovering it, that's a great-grand-uncle of his, it's naming one of his blogs so.

I was very brief in my reaction, because I was stricken by grief. The Ambassador didn't reach out to me to get any clarification.

Now, in a certain sense, you may find this callous, I wasn't grieving about the Twin Towers. They symbolised one specific take on world economics which I don't like, being much more of a localist. I think angels will feel actual joy (not my reaction, I'm not an angel) when something similar falls.

Rejoice over her, thou heaven, and ye holy apostles and prophets; for God hath judged your judgment on her
[Apocalypse (Revelation) 18:20]

But the US as a country, or US military, that's a different story. I grieved for the possibility of them getting on the wrong side of a conflict.

---

* At least if you have no TV. 9:30 AM NYC = 3:30 PM Malmö. So, lots of other Swedes would have heard it on the evening news.
** The 2003 invasion of Iraq also preferred "democracy" over Christian locals. It may have triggered lots of the Islamism seen after that, not that it excuses all of it.

A Fascist Recalls One Who Was Called One

My Tribute to Charlie Kirk.
Melissa Dougherty | 10.IX.2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PHPB8R9mdXw

As a painter, don't you think a certain man with closer ties to the Salò Republic than to the Ventennio Fascista should have remained one?

I mean his paintings of architecture are some of the best Disney or Don Bluth background paintings!

---

First image.

Someone's a fan of Mussolini? Comparing Kirk to Il Duce is kind of a compliment to the latter, especially in context of death, when the latter hadn't been doing too well morally in politics for the last few years.

I mean, I'm pretty much a fan of the Ventennio Fascista (with a few things getting worse, like liberties for gypsies and journalists), but in the hour of death?

I hope Benito repented, went to purgatory a few years and was prayed out of purgatory by Italian nuns and a priest saying masses, but when he was hanged, he wasn't showing an absolutely clean slate.

1:47 Let's compare.

Mussolini came out of a civil war (shorter than the Spanish one) and took away some freedoms in a fear, not totally unreasonable, that unrestricted political freedoms might fan one again.

Charlie Kirk, from his own words, was trying to prevent one, by using existing freedoms to the best of his ability.

It's more like comparing him to Calvo Sotelo or José Antonio Primo de Rivera. Two men assassinated by the reds, when the generals on the Baleares saw this, they said the civil war was already ongoing, their rising was a way to fight on the right side in it.

5:11 Pro-Life.

Charlie Kirk wanted abortion bans, and Mussolini had a penal code in 1930, which stated:

• a mother (above 14 and in her right mind and under no external pressure) aborts on her own, 1 to 4 years
• a mother (same qualifications) aborts with medical assistance, 2 to 5 years, for her and for the doctor
• she's under 14, insane, mentally handicapped or under external pressure, is not legally deemed to have aborted on her own, whoever is legally deemed to have forced her gets 6 to 12 years.

I'm thankful for Charlie giving me the chance to remember a good side of Il Duce! (It was under the Ventennio, not the Salò Republic, which I find reprehensible, for camps among other things).

Communications are a Bit Rocky (with Caleb Howells too)

Was Homer’s Troy Ruled by the Assyrians?
Caleb Howells | 8 Sept. 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9I1lS2-E56A

1:03 Barring your proposal of placing Troy in the Iron age and closer to Homer ... my view is, first Hattusa was destroyed (with possible Trojan involvement) and then Troy itself was temporarily destroyed and permanently joined to the Ionic Greek world.

May I remind that the famous Trojan war was not the first conflict between Mycenaean Greece and Troy, it seems that Priamos means "hostage" in Greek (correct me if I'm wrong) and got that nickname when Hercules took him hostage in an earlier war, when he was a boy.

As to the earlier war, I have no doubts that Hittites were involved.

2:37 I've noted that too.

With the exception of the word, presumably Myc. Greek *hethos and then by dissimilation of aspiration in Classical Greek ethos.

The possibly oldest and crudest meaning being "duty" or "taxation" ...

Hittites were forgot because they were plundering some guys with too much taxes. Damnatio memoriae, except for the Bible and one Greek word preserving the memory one tried to erase.

4:17 I would place Ninus in carbon dated 6000 / 3000-ish BC.

6000-ish ... Historia scholastica considers him a contemporary of Sarug.

3000-ish ... he is credited with having initiated idolatry over grief of his father Belus. Idols, specifically of Ishtar, come to the foreground in Mesopotamia around 3000-ish BC.

In both cases obviously carbon dated.

5:05 Assyria can have after taking over the Hittite heartland have taken on all Hittite loyalties as claims, and retroactively branding them as Assyrian ones.

30 kings, from Ninus. I'll go with the real historical years of Sarug, born 2295 BC. Nineve was destroyed in 612 BC. 1683 years.

Now 22/30 * 1683 = 1234, and so many years after 2295 = 1061 BC. One century off traditional date of 1180 BC.

5:25 Can Plato be dependent on Ctesias?

[All ensuing comments are lost]

6:13 Sure. But I obviously dispute that the actual Ninus lived in the 1300's BC.

Ninus and his father Belus are tied to a story in which Ninus invented idolatry over the statue of his dead father Belus.

And if I give the medium time for 22 kings out of 30, it's 1061 BC, a pretty good match for Troy destroyed in 1179 BC, 120 years earlier.

What's the time for each king on my view? 1683 years = 1683 / 30 = 56.1 years per king. Now, that's not realistic for the times of the Trojan war, and one could imagine that kings have been forgotten or interregna overlooked, perhaps deliberately so. It is more realistic for times back near Sarug.

Tukulti-Ninurta I (1243 f.Kr.-1208 f.Kr.). 1243 to 612 = 631 years = 631 / 30 = 21 years per king. Realistic as far as it goes, but why would Ctesias have come across people who forgot about his father Salmanassar, who must on any view have been pretty famous?

8:03 Some have said Cadmus is a myth and Herodotus was wrong in crediting him with the Phoenician letters.

Some have said the Greek alphabet is older than we thought.

Archeology doesn't quite prove that Thebes ever was a Phoenician enclave, Bronze Age or later. Herodotus can have been wrong in crediting Cadmus with the Greek Alphabet.

8:59 I would say that the Ethiopians in the Trojan war actually point to Hittite times.

How so?

My theory is, Hittite memories of Kadesh were mixed with Trojan memories of the War.

However, in Kadesh, Hittites were fighting Egypt and may have had Ethiopian allies. So little battle-field archaeology exists, this Ethiopian presence can't be ruled out.

Later, when one deliberately forgot about Hittites and their name got nobler connotations than taxation, these memories were reattached to the Trojan war.

I need to go back to the video* with Mary Bachvarova (channel Lantern Jack interviewing her) to get back to whether there was a Hittite version of the Iliad.

[tried to add:

Also, apparently Assyrians never conquered Ethiopia, so the info in Ctesias is spurious, i e garbled info.]

* A Hittite Version of the War of Troy?
Lantern Jack | 28 Nov. 2021
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Ao2sps9bR4

As Said, Horrible Red Things is NOT CSL's Best Chapter

A CSL Fan Saying CSL Was Wrong · As Said, Horrible Red Things is NOT CSL's Best Chapter

This C.S. Lewis Argument Only Works Until You Read the Bible
Mindshift | 9 Sept. 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tYhHZlo0kQg

15:49 I accept 15 cubits.

Noah had built the Ark on the highest mountain of the pre-Flood world, so if the water line of the Ark was 15 cubits (half of the height, pretty normal for a water line) and Noah understood the waterline (he had 600 years of life experience, instructions from God and access to a pre-Flood Nodian civilisation lost to us), he knew exactly when the water was 15 cubits above that top, and hence at least 15 cubits above the other tops.

I would say this mountain may have been flattened by the Flood so the remainder where it's cut off is called the Meseta in Spain.

Even if you project the Meseta up to all the height possible of the angles leading up to it, that mountain will be lower than Mount Everest. Now, Mount Everest and Himalayas are post-Flood phenomena.

And the earliest parts of it rising were the fastest, and you don't find human habitation on the Sivalik hills (foot of Himalayas) until a few centuries after the Flood. Which on my calculations is adequate, given the earliest part was too violent to be safe for human even roaming in the vicinity.

So, where do you get "100 % incorrect" from?

I

Das Bus

@dasbus9834

So, where do you get "100 % incorrect" from?
Floods don't flatten mountains. And the Himalayas are of course way, way older. Also everyone would have suffocated on that ship with one tiny window. And so on.

So yeah, that story fails on absolutely every level. It is 100% false.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@hglundahl

@dasbus9834 "Floods don't flatten mountains."

High pressure water with oversaturation of mineral particles does "sandpaper" even stone.

The point is, the Flood had enough water, enough speed and enough oversaturation to do this with a mountain. Not comparable to "a flood" as we see them today.

"And the Himalayas are of course way, way older."

Even if it were true, and we didn't have the Bible to tell the opposite, it would be unknowable.

"Also everyone would have suffocated on that ship with one tiny window."

Thou shalt make a window in the ark, and in a cubit shalt thou finish the top of it: and the door of the ark thou shalt set in the side: with lower, middle chambers, and third stories shalt thou make it
[Genesis 6:16]

In a cubit shalt thou finish "the top of it" ... how much was the rest of it? Does this mean "the height" and no mention of width and length given? Does "a window" stand for multiple windows by a figure of speech that Noah understood?

Some creationists have interpreted this as a series of windows all 1 cubit high.

"And so on."

Like your summing up, this isn't an extra objection.

Das Bus

@hglundahl High pressure water with oversaturation of mineral particles does "sandpaper" even stone
"Sandpapering stone" and flattening mountains are not the same thing. By far.

The point is, the Flood had enough water, enough speed and enough oversaturation to do this with a mountain. Not comparable to "a flood" as we see them today.
Then the energies involved would not have allowed a wooden boat to survive. And the effects of these forces would show still today. Which they don't.

Even if it were true, and we didn't have the Bible to tell the opposite, it would be unknowable
It isn't unkowable though, and the Bible is wrong.

Some creationists have interpreted this as a series of windows all 1 cubit high.
Whatever fan fiction they need to make the story slightly less ridiculous.

Like your summing up, this isn't an extra objection
No. Those I gave are already enough. No reason to mention the countless further facts that make the story impossible.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@dasbus9834 "are not the same thing. By far."

The difference is one of quantity.

"would not have allowed a wooden boat to survive."

Except for the mile or so of depth between the sandpapering and the water surface with the Ark.

"would show still today."

Flattening of whatever was above the Meseta is not unique. Welcome to actual geology.

"It isn't unkowable though,"

Allegation without argument.

"and the Bible is wrong."

At this level of argument, allegation without argument.

"to make the story slightly less ridiculous."

Or, other possibility, the "window" is not concerned with the ventilation at all, but only with the light. Ark Encounter had an article in 2012 to that effect.

"Those I gave are already enough."

To give me a nice little taste of the sport called "refutation" ...

Das Bus

@hglundahl The difference is one of quantity
Nope. It's a qualitative difference. One is a surface effect, the other is structural. What you're proposing wouldn't reshape the mountains, it would melt them.

Except for the mile or so of depth between the sandpapering and the water surface with the Ark
Insufficient to isolate the boat from the heat alone, even if we disregard the resulting vortices. Your version would have cooked off the oceans. It's that simple.

Flattening of whatever was above the Meseta is not unique. Welcome to actual geology.
Actual geology doesn't show flattening. It shows slow erosion, no cataclysmic reshaping of whole mountain ranges.

Allegation without argument
None needed to dismiss your unfounded bare assertion.

At this level of argument
As your entire argument is "the Bible says so", you should probably start improving yours first.

Or, other possibility, the "window" is not concerned with the ventilation at all, but only with the light
That seems likely given how it was insufficient either way. Doesn't make the problem of ventilation go away of course.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@dasbus9834 "One is a surface effect, the other is structural."

When surface is eroded, what's below it is the new surface and so on. In other words, this sooner or later becomes structural (as can be seen in old buildings collapsing after too much erosion).

"it would melt them."

Allegation. I've seen a few of that precise type before.

"Insufficient to isolate the boat from the heat alone,"

Heat? Melting allegation? I mean some heat from below may have been welcome when lots of water surface allowed heat to radiate from Earth and cool it.

"even if we disregard the resulting vortices."

Why would underwater vortices have any effect a mile up other than a pretty comfortable "out in the ocean" tsunami?

"Your version would have cooked off the oceans."

Did you read a paper by Soroka and Nelson too uncritically?

"It shows slow erosion,"

Which sometimes adds up to precisely flattening. And "slow" is guess work.

"no cataclysmic reshaping of whole mountain ranges."

You haven't read Mitchener's Centennial. Specifically not the first chapter, which is on geology.

"As your entire argument is "the Bible says so","

More like "the Bible says so" and "this is how it is possible."

"Doesn't make the problem of ventilation go away of course."

Could very well mean that the ventilation is a separate issue the preserved descriptions don't deal with and the better detailed instructions God gave Noah did deal with.

Das Bus

@hglundahl When surface is eroded, what's below it is the new surface and so on. In other words, this sooner or later becomes structural (as can be seen in old buildings collapsing after too much erosion).
Buildings aren't mountains. But I can see how that would be an appropriate description if the effect happened over many millions of years.

Allegation
Basic physics.

I mean some heat from below may have been welcome when lots of water surface allowed heat to radiate from Earth and cool it
Ocean surfaces radiate less heat than land masses. Your cooling gets worse. No good position for your unfortunate boat people to be in.

Why would underwater vortices have any effect a mile up other than a pretty comfortable "out in the ocean" tsunami?
Because vortices and tsunamis aren't the same thing.

And "slow" is guess work.
It's based on evidence.

You haven't read Mitchener's Centennial. Specifically not the first chapter, which is on geology.
Yeah no reason to waste my time with creationist drivel.

More like "the Bible says so" and "this is how it is possible."
Only it's not possible, and the Bible is still wrong.

Could very well mean that the ventilation is a separate issue the preserved descriptions don't deal with and the better detailed instructions God gave Noah did deal with.
So more fan fiction. Too bad you're still stuck with one window as per the story. So much for ventilation then.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@dasbus9834 "if the effect happened over many millions of years."

Or with loads of more water.

"Basic physics."
"Ocean surfaces radiate less heat than land masses."

I think water has a higher heat capacity, so, it takes more energy to heat up water.

"Because vortices and tsunamis aren't the same thing."

Doesn't remotely answer my question why currents sandpapering the former land surface on sea bottom would generate vortices.

"It's based on evidence."

You are not being precise on which one, and I smell uniformitarian ideology.

"to waste my time with creationist drivel."

Mitchener isn't creationist. He believes in millions and billions of years. They involve, on his view, very cataclysmic changes overall.

"Only it's not possible,"

You haven't remotely given any reason.

"and the Bible is still wrong."

And you are out of truth ...

"Too bad you're still stuck with one window as per the story."

Not necessarily for the ventilation if that isn't what it talked about.

Das Bus

@hglundahl Or with loads of more water.
Then that's no longer erosion, so it wouldn't look like erosion.

I think water has a higher heat capacity, so, it takes more energy to heat up water.
You talked about radiative properties, not heat capacity.

Doesn't remotely answer my question why currents sandpapering the former land surface on sea bottom would generate vortices.
That's not what you asked. And if you don't understand how forces strong enough to remove mountains would create vortices, then that's unfortunate.

You are not being precise on which one
Basic geology.

Mitchener isn't creationist
If his claims directly support YEC and the flood, then they're nonsense. If they don't, they're irrelevant.

You haven't remotely given any reason
Or maybe you just don't like the reasons.

And you are out of truth
I have reality. That's all the truth I need.

Not necessarily for the ventilation if that isn't what it talked about
It doesn't talk about any purpose for the window. It does talk about one window though. Anything else is still fan fiction.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@dasbus9834 "Then that's no longer erosion,"

Well, yes, it is. Water taking away matter is erosion. Some looks pretty quick.

"You talked about radiative properties, not heat capacity."

I'm not a natural scientist, my bad, looked it up in the meantime.

"Basic geology."

You're not precise about what aspect.

"If his claims directly support YEC and the flood, then they're nonsense."

They are not meant to and are practically taken from geology text books.

But you show a huge display of bias here.

"If they don't, they're irrelevant."

Not if they indirectly support it.

"you just don't like"

I do like refuting specific reasons, when given.

"That's all the truth I need."

Let me rephrase. You are out of reality.

"Anything else is still fan fiction."

Any explanation about the past going beyond immediate evidence is fan fiction. Your evolution and geology does it to rocks as much as we to the Bible text.

Das Bus

@hglundahl Water taking away matter is erosion
Water melting away mountains isn't though.

You're not precise about what aspect
I was exactly as precise as necessary.

They are not meant to and are practically taken from geology text books
Then they don't support your flood story.

But you show a huge display of bias here
And it's well earned, in every way.

I do like refuting specific reasons, when given
You're not exactly doing a good job with that though.

Let me rephrase. You are out of reality.
Bad rephrasing for someone believing in the Bible nonsense.

Any explanation about the past going beyond immediate evidence is fan fiction. Your evolution and geology does it to rocks as much as we to the Bible text.
The idea that all of reality worked completely differently for some unspecified reason, only to end up looking as if it didn't, is indeed pretty weird. Probably why nobody but YECs would be desperate enough to come up with it.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@dasbus9834 "Water melting away"

I said nothing about "melting away" ...

"I was exactly as precise as" ... someone lacking the specialist knowledge you claim to be on your side.

"Then they don't support your flood story."

They aren't meant to. But the overall changes on mountains are cataclysmic enough, he just pretends it took way more time.

"And it's well earned,"

You're admitting it exists.

"not exactly doing a good job"

Not right now, not with you, because you refuse specifics.

"all of reality worked completely differently for some unspecified reason, only to end up looking as if it didn't,"

But it ends up looking as things happened that really don't happen any more. Any real contact with geology or palaeontology will have this weird effect on you. Like that time a stampede of dinosaurs like diplodocus size in a river was compared to a stampede of mere bulls in Himalayas ... the river in question would have been bigger than Brahmaputra in flow, and this is in Argentina, where you don't have the place for that big rivers. Not Brahmaputra sized, let alone such that would bury stampedes of diplodocus type animals.

And unspecified reason? That's not what "miracle" means.

Das Bus

@hglundahl I said nothing about "melting away" ...
No worries. I still did.

[omitting the rest of what he wrote.]

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@dasbus9834 "I still did."

Showing your dishonesty. I'm blocking.

[done]

II

Rohan

@newsystembad

Any "global flood" would have eradicated ALL terrestrial plant life and left all land unfit for agriculture for the rest of time. To say nothing of the ludicrous thermodynamics that would've baked every living creature on the ark to a crisp.

Noah's flood is a myth.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@newsystembad "would have eradicated ALL terrestrial plant life"

Except flotsam.

"and left all land unfit for agriculture for the rest of time."

You are presuming pre-Flood seas were pretty salt, right?

"the ludicrous thermodynamics that would've baked every living creature on the ark to a crisp."

I've already adressed that allegation in the original form given by Soroka and Nelson.

19:08 Jericho was off by 300 years?

From what?

I pose the Exodus in 1511 BC which places the fall of Jericho, first year after the desert, in 1471 BC. The carbon date given is 1550 BC. The only problem is, how I account for the extra years, and my answer is, the atmospheric carbon 14 level of 98.929 pmC is the last stage of a Biblical calibration diverging from the uniformitarian one. Earlier parts have lower carbon 14 in the atmosphere and thus more extra years.

Rohan

The walls of Jericho fell from an earthquake, not from the supposed "conquest" featured in ancient Israel's school shooter fanfic.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@newsystembad The conquest involved as miracle that would look in retrospect like an earthquake.

Rohan

@hglundahl Uh huh, sure it did, very convenient. This is like those creationists who claim that god conjured starlight into existence midway to Earth to make the universe appear ancient. It's cope, nothing more

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@newsystembad I'm not in the starlight created in transit camp any more, neither is Jonathan Sarfati.

He's explaining it with a stretching universe (which big bangers accept too), I'm with Geocentrism.

Now, I notice you assigned me a motive "cope" and reassured me I only had the motive, but I missed the part where you actually refuted the Creationist claim about Jericho.

20:08 What if:

• the moral atmosphere of the Amalecites was such as to make cohabitation impossible
• and the counterpart of a CPS action on part of Israelites (with relation to Amalecite children) was not in the least feasible?

The children were not being punished, they were suffering very briefly to punish their fathers. But the parents, both sexes, were punished even into the killing of their children.

23:03 Not the exact thing.

The underlying moral principle is in Exodus:

He that shall steal a man, and sell him, being convicted of guilt, shall be put to death
[Exodus 21:16]

That's why God freed Israel, and that's why (after some compromise), Catholics and Wilberforce ended up freeing slaves all over the Christian world.

However, the Chanaanean slaves were presumed guilty. Even if taken by people themselves guilty of above offense, they would probably have done a similar thing the year before they ended up in slavery. In the Catholic compromise, there was miscommunication between the Pope and Portugal, but theologians making sense of it were saying "we presume this slave was taken in a war trying to enslave others or sold by his own people for an offense against justice" (and obviously, this was the cynic part, one trusted the own kings' to have made a sufficient declaration of principle to this effect).

In Chanaan, the guilt of a slave then sold to Israelites was more probably presumable than in Black Africa, even if Black Africa prior to Brazza did lots of warmongering in order to take and sell slaves.

Obviously, a man deserving death, deserves slavery.

Responding to Dr. Taylor Marshall

Priest suspended from Catholic College for CATHOLIC INTEGRALISM - Dr. Taylor Marshall
Dr Taylor Marshall | 8 Sept. 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g12IAi-Uaqo

1) Hope you had a blessed feast of Our Lady, yesterday!
2) Quibble. Heiligenkreuz is not ending in "croots" but in "croyts" ...

3) When did the Church ever condemn "Fascism"? Specifically in a wider sense than Italian Fascism, since Mussolini unfortunately for a time made what Pius XI had condemned official Fascist ideology outside schools too, so, in a wider sense, including Mussolini prior to signing the book by Gentile it's second edition or including Dollfuss and Schuschnigg.

4) In California, as far as I know, they are not giving hard narcotics to the homeless. Possible exception for narcotics less hard than someone is already hooked on. They are, by contrast, giving pure needles, which is a good thing. You don't want homeless to die in droves from AIDS because they share needles.

32:31 (5) What I was taught ... Latin has six cases, Greek has five ... Latin has five declinsions, Greek has three ... Latin has four conjugations, Greek has -o and -mi verbs, and also Aorist 1 / Aorist 2 ... Positives are either 1 and 2 Decl or 3rd, (Latin and Greek), Comparatives always 3rd, Superlatives always 1 and 2.

bonus, bona, bonum ... melior, melius ... optimus, optima, optimum
tenuis, tenue ... tenuior, tenuius ... tenuissimus, tenuissima, tenuissimum

My Greek is too rusty to give examples from that language, sorry ....

My Latin professor tried to teach me St. Bridget was schizophrenic, and he also tried to and succeeded to teach me, when she predicted someone's death, that someone died. My Latin assistant professor taught me St. Thomas can be understood once you master things like "act" vs "power", ten categories and "motus" isn't limited to "motion" from one place to another and a few more.

I have a somewhat hard time understanding how any of this is bunk, except the Atheist's view on a prophetess' mental state. Which, as said, he didn't manage to teach me.

6) What is a woman? Given government involves giving death penalty and fighting wars, is that a totally feminine thing to get involved with?

Eowyn may excuse me, but drafting all women of a nation into being shieldmaidens is overdoing it ... (a certain state called IL may take note ...)

7) What is a Pope? A man, male, baptised, Catholic elected and having accepted election and so on ...

Little Rock

@littlerock5256

He has to teach the Catholic Faith.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@hglundahl

@littlerock5256 Yes. He first of all has to actually be a Catholic.

One Answer Involves Geocentrism, Two Involve Catholic Mariology

Apart from this, I'm pretty OK with basically everything Dr. Jonathan Sarfati says in this video:

10 Arguments Creationists Should Not Use
Creation Ministries International | 10 Sept. 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qlGR4ZVDb9A

27:18 Other alternative, the "cosmic distances" (beyond 1 light day and some less up to Voyager 1 and 2 and indefinitely more but not infinitely more up to the fix stars) aren't real in the first place.

Angelic movers dancing in Heaven to glorify God with their stars would be performing all of the movement our modern scientists usually analyse as aberration and parallax.

If Earth isn't moving, 2 AU is a distance between two positions of the Sun, but not necessarily two positions of the star. So, no parallax trigonometry.

38:25 The early Church however did not teach that She ever sinned, and, prior to St. Augustine, no one even suggested She contracted original sin.

St. John of Damascus clearly taught the opposite.

40:07 Pleae note, the angel had said "Blessed art thou among women" before saying "the Holy Spirit will overshadow you, so, before She was pregnant with God.

Now, if you look in a Catholic or a Protestant Bible, two or one more women had been told or said of "blessed among women" and one of them killed Sisera, the other killed Holophernes.

Now, Our Lady hadn't physically killed any man, so, who was Her "Sisera"? The only possible answer is Satan, meaning, She was without sin since forever, because if She had contracted sin, that would on the contrary have made Satan victorious.

Testify is Great on the Gospels, Here He Gets Into Why Not RC

Why I Don't Accept the Papacy
Testify | 2 Sept. 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Izfntr_taAk

2:41 Is the Lourdes one I cite on this one sufficiently specifically Catholic?

New blog on the kid: Two Queen Mothers Against Tuberculosis
https://nov9blogg9.blogspot.com/2026/08/two-queen-mothers-against-tuberculosis.html

I mean, at the place an apparition had told a girl "[tell him] that I am the immaculate conception" (Que soy era Immaculada councepciou ... no, "era" isn't "was" it's "the" = other romance lingos have "la").

If this is a false claim by the apparition, why does God authentify it so multiply?

4:11 John 21. Given Jesus is "the good shepherd" what kind of office is Jesus giving Peter with "feed my sheep"?

Matthew 28. Given the last words, verse 16, are adressed mainly to the eleven, whom was Jesus promising to perpetuate in verse 20, "all days"?

LegendBegins

@LegendBegins

It really looks like Jesus is restoring Peter after his denial more so than giving him any elevated office.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@hglundahl

@LegendBegins Why would that involve "shepherding"?

---

All the following comments have disappeared:

4:40 Is St. Irenaeus early enough?

2. Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority

3. The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate. Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy. To him succeeded Anacletus; and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric. This man, as he had seen the blessed apostles, and had been conversant with them, might be said to have the preaching of the apostles still echoing [in his ears], and their traditions before his eyes. Nor was he alone [in this], for there were many still remaining who had received instructions from the apostles. In the time of this Clement, no small dissension having occurred among the brethren at Corinth, the Church in Rome dispatched a most powerful letter to the Corinthians, exhorting them to peace, renewing their faith, and declaring the tradition which it had lately received from the apostles, proclaiming the one God, omnipotent, the Maker of heaven and earth, the Creator of man, who brought on the deluge, and called Abraham, who led the people from the land of Egypt, spoke with Moses, set forth the law, sent the prophets, and who has prepared fire for the devil and his angels. From this document, whosoever chooses to do so, may learn that He, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, was preached by the Churches, and may also understand the apostolic tradition of the Church, since this Epistle is of older date than these men who are now propagating falsehood, and who conjure into existence another god beyond the Creator and the Maker of all existing things. To this Clement there succeeded Evaristus. Alexander followed Evaristus; then, sixth from the apostles, Sixtus was appointed; after him, Telephorus, who was gloriously martyred; then Hyginus; after him, Pius; then after him, Anicetus. Soter having succeeded Anicetus, Eleutherius does now, in the twelfth place from the apostles, hold the inheritance of the episcopate. In this order, and by this succession, the ecclesiastical tradition from the apostles, and the preaching of the truth, have come down to us. And this is most abundant proof that there is one and the same vivifying faith, which has been preserved in the Church from the apostles until now, and handed down in truth.

Book III of Adversus Haereses. [and chapter 3]

4:48 The NT says his authority passes on though.

Matthew 28:20. All days to the consummation of the age means further on than just to when Peter was crucified.

Like it still isn't finished.

WHERE precisely that office passes on depends on where he died. If you think his "Babylon" means a city on the Euphrates which was great back in Daniel's day, why would he go there, when it was shrunk to the proportions of a pagan Disney land?

4:54 Whether Peter or another Cephas gets rebuked by Paul is overall dubious.

Sure, Latin, that is the most immediately Papal of the main regional traditions says it was Peter. Alexandrine says it was another Cephas (see Stromata).

But getting rebuked isn't in and of itself a mark of lacking supreme authority (under God). St. Thomas says St. Peter was setting an example to accept correction even from inferiors.

5:06 If you mean Titus and I and II Timothy, there are offices that St. Paul is pretty sketchy about in the text.

St. Paul's own and St. Timothy's for instance.

I would say "local" or "ordinary bishop" wasn't called "bishop", it was called "teacher" or in Douay Rheims "master" and is most memorably mentioned in James 3:1, exactly matching Catholic attitudes to being offered a diocese. The word "bishop" on at least one (Catholic) opinion simply meant "priest" (like 1 Timothy 3:1 matches attitudes to wanting to become a priest).

The one bishop mentioned in the two to Timothy is simply called "thou" ...

In other words, the NT doesn't pretend to be an exhaustive manual to Church offices.

[couldn't add:

There is a reason why the Bible would say less about bishops and Popes.

God knew there would be changing circumstances, so elections would be made in different ways. But also, the usual candidates would anyway have gone through the school described by Paul for presbyters ("bishops") and deacons.]

5:31 Like Timothy can be adressed "thou" (in a manual for his overseeing among other things lesser offices), or "Church in Ephesus" ...

Not sure if he was still around when Jesus adressed "the angel of the Church of Ephesus" but that would be Timothy or a successor to him.

5:40 Checking 1 Clement 44:

Our apostles also knew, through our Lord Jesus Christ, that there would be strife on account of the office of the episcopate. For this reason, therefore, inasmuch as they had obtained a perfect fore-knowledge of this, they appointed those [ministers] already mentioned, and afterwards gave instructions, that when these should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed them in their ministry. We are of opinion, therefore, that those appointed by them, or afterwards by other eminent men, with the consent of the whole church, and who have blamelessly served the flock of Christ, in a humble, peaceable, and disinterested spirit, and have for a long time possessed the good opinion of all, cannot be justly dismissed from the ministry. For our sin will not be small, if we eject from the episcopate those who have blamelessly and holily fulfilled its duties. Blessed are those presbyters who, having finished their course before now, have obtained a fruitful and perfect departure [from this world]; for they have no fear lest any one deprive them of the place now appointed them. But we see that you have removed some men of excellent behaviour from the ministry, which they fulfilled blamelessly and with honour.

This covers St. Paul appointing St. Timothy over Ephesus. In the singular. So, the plural is for plural churches that have apostolic origin, not for a plurality of office holders in each Church.

5:50 It's actually not weird.

If everyone in Corinth knew to obey the Pope, the Pope only had to remind them to behave well to their bishop. Like St. Ignatius had done to some Churches, but not the one in Rome which didn't need instruction on that point, or from him.

6:07 Again, Rome was already submitting to the then Pope, so didn't need a reminder from St. Ignatius.

6:15 Presides in love = presides in the unity of the love that binds faithful Christians.

What does "preside" suggest to you?

6:28 That a single bishop presides over the Church doesn't stop presbyters from doing so with him.

Hermas was mentioning the cardinals, basically. Would you say cardinals have no presiding function in Rome today? I wouldn't.

[couldn't add:

For a recent example, see the skull of St. Agatha.]

6:55 Yes, the Pope is local bishop of Rome.

You sound as if every text has to supply every truth about the Pope for them to be confirmed.

What was your logic again, when John mentions Philip in chapter 6 and some other Gospeller mentions Bethsaida? Is Philip invalidated because Synoptics don't mention him or Bethsaida invalidated because John doesn't mention the place in this context?

Or do you apply one set of logic rules for the Gospels and a different set when reading the Early Church?

Are they considering "abortion" a survival for siblings of the aborted? How ghastly ... and also not always true, abortions kill and sterilise mothers too

Why Did Ancient Humans Have Kids at 12?
Noxenn / Volt / Dodoz | 11 July 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2F63f-UivWU

3:22 "in parts of Europe"

Norway, Scotland, maybe Sweden, Denmark, England, maybe Hamburg and Berlin ....

Sure, less good nutrition, and lots of the year with no light much of the day.

5:28 No decade long time when body and hormones say "adult" and society replies "child" ...

Thank you, Old Rome (also followed by Christians).

7:21 "and your offspring will benefit from a more mature and more resourceful parent"

Well, not if teens and single life drive some to suicide or if some are socially held back from being considered mature anyway, as per psychiatry or child protective services.

Those factors don't just delay, they handicap even after the delay is over.

[tried to add:

Not to mention the clear non-benefit of being aborted since mother is considered "too young"]

8:01 Pelvis, trade off.

BEST time for first child birth is between 17 and 25. Now consider that as a point, a limit.

Before that, down to 13, the pelvis is narrower, but more malleable, after that the pelvis is wider but harder.

30 is riskier than 13, other things being equal. At least according to the Gynaecology professor of my mother.

8:25 "it cost lives"

I'm going to a study on Ethiopia, where young childbirth is pretty common.*

Result: A total of 61 studies met inclusion criteria, encompassing all Ethiopian regions. The pooled MMR was estimated at 366.6 maternal deaths per 100,000 live births, showing only modest progress from previous decades.

This was between 2015 and 2015

13:21 With some modification.

Biologically ready can happen between 9 and 18, but the younger years were in fact cut off in Christendom, as in Ancient Rome, due to a legal age of 14 for the male and 12 for the female participant of a marriage.

20 secs up to 14:05

We look back at 12-year-old brides and young mothers in the ancient world, and we feel a very natural, very justified sense of unease, sometimes horror. And honestly, that reaction is appropriate given what we now know about adolescent development, about the risks of early pregnancy, about the psychological and physical toll it took.

Count me out from this "we" and I object to "justified" and ""what we now know".

That early pregnancy is a risk was always obvious. But for very long this risk has been mitigated by good medicine. Waiting to 30 is objectively speaking riskier. It works out in Sweden, and wouldn't work out in Ethiopia, for the same reason that many of the teen mothers who die in Ethiopia would have survived in Sweden.

Adolescent development is an ideal age for the bonding that needs to take place in a marriage. And the two last items, "psychological and physical toll" are simply redundant for the first two items.

In other words, you are uselessly catastrophising about it.

15:25 "Began climbing steadily across most of the world."

You frame it as a kind of very natural development.

In fact, it was more of a project starting in 1880's US, among other centres. Making early teen marriages illegal. By now, that policy is being viewed as "the natural course of things" and early pregnancies are often death sentences due to that culture and to legal abortion.

In Italy, at least, under Il Duce, a mother of 14 who aborted went to prison, as older mothers and a mother under 14 who aborted, whoever legally put her up to it (she hadn't legally consented to abortion) went even longer to prison. However, normal marital age was 18 / 18, as it had been since the Risorgimento (and somewhat earlier in Sardegna), and getting married earlier was, if at all possible, then as a derogation when a girl was already pregnant.

In Austria, under Francis Joseph II, a woman of 21 could marry without asking her parents, but a girl of 14 could marry with parental permission. AEIOU.

16:05 "how far our species has travalled" ... into brutal abortion mills, among other things.

* Maternal mortality in Ethiopia (2015-2025): a systematic review of recent evidence and determinants
Merga Abdissa Aga 1, Ding-Geng Chen 2 3
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41462176/
BMC Public Health. 2025 Dec 29;26(1):539. doi: 10.1186/s12889-025-26101-w.

Skipping Some on What They Consider "Second Tier Issues" ... Or Their Relation Between Bible and Tradition

We Wish All Christians Knew THIS About the Book of Genesis
Answers in Genesis | 4 Sept. 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L72rO2eoimw

St. Paul treats Melchisedec as a real person.

This means, he takes Genesis 14 as real history.

Now, in a non-inspired work, real history could include pseudo-facts, like WW-I propaganda about Germans making lamp shades of human skin. However, in an inspired work, the only reason for a non-factual statement would be "not meant as real history" ... like the lost son who came back, we cannot be sure any specific man ever ate or tried to eat the husks he gave to swine (nor that there wasn't one). But this venue is not open about Genesis 14.

It's real history, not parable. AND it's inspired, not fallible.

And they returned, and came to the fountain of Misphat, the same is Cades: and they smote all the country of the Amalecites, and the Amorrhean that dwelt in Asasonthamar
[Genesis 14:7]

And where is Asasonthamar?

And there came messengers, and told Josaphat, saying: There cometh a great multitude against thee from beyond the sea, and out of Syria, and behold they are in Asasonthamar, which is Engaddi
[2 Paralipomenon (2 Chronicles) 20:2]

Now, the archaeology for Ein Gedi shows no human habitation between the presumable Amorrhean habitation of the chalcolithic, ending 3500 BC (carbon dated) and the Iron Age which is definitely too late.

I think Osgood for all the facts except the 3500 BC carbon date, had to look that one up elsewhere.

However, Genesis 14 cannot have happened in actual 3500 BC, since Abraham was c. 5 years earlier called 430 years before the Exodus, that was 480 or 480 + years prior to the Temple of Solomon, and that was c. 390 years prior to the taking of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar.

This means, there is a discrepancy between the carbon date and the actual date. If we take Abraham as born in 2016 BC (as the Roman Martyrology for Christmas Day does), and allow Abraham to be around 80 (more than the 75 in chapter 12, less than the 86 in chapter 16), this automatically involves a discrepancy of 1564 extra years.

But 1564 extra years is a carbon 14 level of 82.763 pmC * . Perfectly viable if the carbon 14 level was still rising from an initially lower level, but impossible as just a "wiggle" in the c. 100 pmC roughly speaking stable level.

* (Since .5^(1564/5730) = 0.8276258493022752)

3:49 Obviously, St. Augustine who believed at least on and off in a one moment creation was saved too.

However, if you think Adam had progenitors, you are in trouble.

Two scenarios:

a) they were fully human = he was not the first man, his sin could not be decisive, directly condemned by Trent Session V;
b) they weren't = God put a sinless human child in harm's way.

The idea of Adam having fully human parents was certainly not allowed anywhere among purported Catholics in 1950. The second idea was, by Pius XII, "left on trial" rather than directly condemned.

This had been kind of, but less officially, the case since 1941.

And some were not taking it to "we can defend in a discussion that Adam had non-human progenitors, but we can't actually believe it unless the Church first accepts our arguments", no, they were not just or even foremost defending it, they were believing it. That part of Catholic clergy started the modern child abuse crisis. Remember the 1941 date I just mentioned?

A few years ago, when people who had been big children but below puberty in the 1930's were still alive, a French commission started on the child and youth abuses. Their earliest examples were from the 1940's ... Romans 1:26 ...

7:37 Logically, if you know your science, if you accept long periods of time, you'd suppose the atmosphere was c. 100 pmC both in 3500 BC and in 1936 BC, so full and inerrant historicity of Genesis 14 is out.

Somehow those people never make that connection.

---

Let's add a closing line in response to their final question:

---

I allow the Catholic Church to define as first or at least second tier issues whatever She proclaims as dogma.

Note, a statement to the effect "let's say there is so far no dogma on the issue, you can discuss this behind closed doors" is not a dogma, and Pius XII did not define (technical term) that Adam having ancestry was even licit to hold. It isn't. He conditioned the discussions on the willingness to submit to a definite statement of the Church, but didn't say it had to be a future one. I do. Trent Session V echoes Romans Chapter V and this makes Theistic Evolutionism an absolute no go zone.

Accepting millions of years but also believing a literal Adam is simply lazy thought. You can probably be saved, as in a state of grace, but you can't be coherent as in a good philosopher if you do that.

A CSL Fan Saying CSL Was Wrong

A CSL Fan Saying CSL Was Wrong · As Said, Horrible Red Things is NOT CSL's Best Chapter

I'd Never Heard This C.S. Lewis Argument Before
Matt Fradd | 1 Sept. 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nwsmIgZpD00

3:13 That's not my favourite chapter of Miracles.

It's a horrible (if not red) thing in exegesis. I think the exact same example is where CSL applies this to the Ascension, and that reading of the Ascension ends up basically saying the Incarnation was reversed.

Nope, wasn't. Jesus still has a body which certainly is present in each validly consecrated Host, but primarily is present under its own dimensions in Heaven, which therefore is a place and not just the Divinity. A physical place.

3:32 Old man in the clouds is a conflation of two Biblical images ... with physicality to them.

Daniel saw God the Father as "the ancient of days".

Jesus says He's coming back "in the clouds" ...

4:44 "signage"

I suppose that means a collection of sign posts, like "no U turns" and so on.

Would be a very good parallel if the Bible were only teaching values and if all the facts and especially physical ones were only obiter dicta. I think that position has been fairly recently condemned and with the precise wording "obiter dicta" in the condemnation, but I could be wrong.

5:17 The problem with Jordan Peterson is, he doesn't take Biblical truths seriously, when they are statements about fact, rather than value.

In Principle, I'm a Monarchist, and Ethnically, Scandinavian

But that doesn't mean I'm "helfrelst" on Scandinavian current monarchs.

Norway's Glorious New Globalist Monarch
Bjorn Talks / Bjorn Andreas Bull-Hansen | 2 Sept. 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=19V7LVZUBXg

As I'm kind of 1/4 Norwegian, I'm sharing.

The fuel price went up by 1 USD 89 cents, and some, per [US] gallon.

A Templar Doesn't Want Me to Be Catholic?

7 Orthodox Beliefs That Shock Protestants and Catholics
Ancient Faith Explained | 30 Aug. 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M2gEh1xlkIE

Why the title "7 Orthodox Beliefs That Shock Protestants" isn't it enough?

If you were to rename the video, how about "7 Orthodox and Catholic Beliefs That Shock Protestants" ... or you document why Catholics are supposedly outside.

Marc Blaydoe

@mblaydoe

Because the video is not about Catholicism? Let the Catholics defend Catholicism. Does a video explaining Judaism have to explain why Catholicism is "outside"?

Note

OMSDT Knights :
https://www.usaknightstemplar.org/omsdt-knights

Grand Marshal, Marc Blaydoe, Knighted November 2018

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@hglundahl

@mblaydoe A Jewish video stating "Jewish beliefs that shock Atheists and Catholics" and enumerates "God created the world" as one of them or "God spoke to Moses on Sinai" as another of them would be equally lying (or mistaken) about Catholicism.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@mblaydoe For the record, I am a Catholic defending Catholicism.

For the record. Templars were banned in 1313 and might be somewhat initiative in their "revival" version. Protecting pilgrims may, to them, involve making them reevaluate things, including the Catholic religion./HGL

Refuting a Protestant, Roughly (or closely or exactly, don't know) 7DA

What Does the Bible Say About the Pope? (And Why it Matters to Your Faith)
30 April 2025 | Becoming Christians
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=964t2wnJa64

2:23 That allegation is not in the Bible.

[The allegation that the papacy "as we know it today" is not in the Bible]

Becoming Christians

@becomingchristians

The papacy is not in the bible.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@hglundahl

@becomingchristians Thank you for being precise of exactly what allegation I meant.

Much obliged for you citing it.

2:39 Suppose we grant the rock is Jesus.

Who receives the keys in next verse? "I will give thee the keys of the kingdom of Heaven" ... I suppose Jesus was not using "thee" for "myself", right?

Becoming Christians

You're absolutely right that in Matthew 16:19, Yahshua says, "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven..."—and yes, He was speaking to Peter directly. But here’s where it gets interesting:

Receiving the keys doesn’t mean exclusive or supreme authority over the Church. In Jewish culture, keys represented the authority to open or close access—like a steward, not a king. Peter was entrusted with a special role: opening the doors of the Kingdom through the gospel. And that’s exactly what he did! In Acts 2, he preached to the Jews. In Acts 10, he brought the gospel to the Gentiles (Cornelius' household). That’s Peter using the keys.

But here’s the key part: that authority wasn't limited to Peter alone.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@becomingchristians "like a steward, not a king"

Exactly how we view the papacy.

However, in the physical or more precisely social absence of the king (not physically absent from the Eucharist, but also not usually talking from it), the steward exercises the powers of the King.

"that authority wasn't limited to Peter alone."

That's where we agree. He had successors too. Linus, Cletus, Clemens ...

Or wait, did you mean Matthew 18? Well, St. Peter had some equality with the others of the twelve. The Pope has some equality with the other bishops.

3:09 Here is a parallel verse about foundation:

Built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone:
[Ephesians 2:20]

However, the verse you cited, if you would like some context, here it is:

For we are God's coadjutors: you are God's husbandry; you are God's building According to the grace of God that is given to me, as a wise architect, I have laid the foundation; and another buildeth thereon. But let every man take heed how he buildeth thereupon For other foundation no man can lay, but that which is laid; which is Christ Jesus [1 Corinthians 3:9-11]

So we have learned two things from here about foundations:

• the only foundation is Christ Jesus
• nevertheless Apostles are laying it, it is not just Himself or the Father who's laying it, no, Apostles are in fact active as laying it ... which is what you find in Eph 2:20.

Becoming Christians

thanks for the additional insight

3:43 This is a historic allegation, contradicted by Church Tradition.

Here is St. Irenaeus:

Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority

The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate. Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy. To him succeeded Anacletus; and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric. This man, as he had seen the blessed apostles, and had been conversant with them, might be said to have the preaching of the apostles still echoing [in his ears], and their traditions before his eyes. Nor was he alone [in this], for there were many still remaining who had received instructions from the apostles. In the time of this Clement, no small dissension having occurred among the brethren at Corinth, the Church in Rome dispatched a most powerful letter to the Corinthians, exhorting them to peace, renewing their faith, and declaring the tradition which it had lately received from the apostles, proclaiming the one God, omnipotent, the Maker of heaven and earth, the Creator of man, who brought on the deluge, and called Abraham, who led the people from the land of Egypt, spoke with Moses, set forth the law, sent the prophets, and who has prepared fire for the devil and his angels. From this document, whosoever chooses to do so, may learn that He, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, was preached by the Churches, and may also understand the apostolic tradition of the Church, since this Epistle is of older date than these men who are now propagating falsehood, and who conjure into existence another god beyond the Creator and the Maker of all existing things. To this Clement there succeeded Evaristus. Alexander followed Evaristus; then, sixth from the apostles, Sixtus was appointed; after him, Telephorus, who was gloriously martyred; then Hyginus; after him, Pius; then after him, Anicetus. Soter having succeeded Anicetus, Eleutherius does now, in the twelfth place from the apostles, hold the inheritance of the episcopate. In this order, and by this succession, the ecclesiastical tradition from the apostles, and the preaching of the truth, have come down to us. And this is most abundant proof that there is one and the same vivifying faith, which has been preserved in the Church from the apostles until now, and handed down in truth.

Against Heresies (Book III, Chapter 3)
https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103303.htm

4:12 You forget that it is Catholic doctrine that papal authority can take turns with collegial authority of a council.

By contrast, Peter in Acts 2 founded the Church in Jerusalem, and in Acts 8 together with John the Church in Samaria.

Becoming Christians

You're right that Catholic doctrine teaches a shared authority between the Pope and Church councils (collegiality), especially in ecumenical councils. However, what I addressed in the video is not just the shared structure, but the claim that the Pope holds supreme, universal, and infallible authority—a claim the Bible simply doesn’t support.

As for Peter in Acts 2, he certainly played a key role in preaching the first sermon at Pentecost. But nowhere in Scripture does it say he founded the Church in Jerusalem—if anything, James became the leading figure there (Acts 15:13-21). And in Acts 8, Peter and John went to confirm the work that was already started by Philip in Samaria—they didn't plant a new church.

The pattern we see in Acts and the New Testament isn’t of one supreme human leader, but of apostles and elders working together, always under the headship of Yahshua the Messiah.

No doubt, Peter was bold and faithful. But the Church was never built on Peter as a person—it was built on Christ and the confession of faith in Him (Matthew 16:16-18, 1 Corinthians 3:11).

Much love and blessings to you as we all keep seeking the truth in His Word!

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@becomingchristians "As for Peter in Acts 2, he certainly played a key role in preaching the first sermon at Pentecost."

Let me refresh your memory.

And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and they began to speak with divers tongues, according as the Holy Ghost gave them to speak
[Acts Of Apostles 2:4]

But Peter standing up with the eleven, lifted up his voice, and spoke to them: Ye men of Judea, and all you that dwell in Jerusalem, be this known to you, and with your ears receive my words
[Acts Of Apostles 2:14]

The preaching of the 120 who had received the Holy Ghost was a sign, but indecisive.

The preaching of Peter was decisive.

5:02 Before you get from there to "no stand-ins" you need to skip a real lot.

"As the Father hath sent me, so I send you"
"He who heareth you heareth me, and him who hath sent me"

Jesus is the good shepherd and makes Peter the shepherd of his flock at lake Genesareth.

Becoming Christians

Hi! I have explained to you that Peter isn't the sole authority in the church.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@becomingchristians And you claimed in so doing he was not in any way, shape or form a standin for Jesus.

I give the obvious counterexample.

5:16 If the words of a man, like Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, can be the words of God, and infallible, when that man is writing a Gospel, the words of a man, like Peter and Paul, Linus and Cletus and Clement, can be the words or decisions of God too.

Becoming Christians

What is the words of a man go against the established word of God?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@becomingchristians You have to prove there are ways in which the words of the papacy have gone against the word of God.

However, if you do not show a pedigree back to the apostles, and pretend to be a Church, that in itself is against the word of God, like Matthew 28:16 through 20.

Fr. Jason Charron spoke

Why Antichrist Must Stop the Eucharistic Sacrifice
Fr. Jason Charron | 2 Sept. 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kvtL9j43uM8

My Pope does not agree that the Missal of Paul VI is valid.

His name is Michael II, if you wish to correct me, take it up with him.

Apart from that, I have no beef with what you said.

I have stated that the Roman Caesar was "ho katekhon", I could argue that Christ in the Eucharist is rather "to katekhon" (bc thuma is Greek for hostia), but the function of a Christian Roman Caesar was anyway primarily to protect the worship of the Eucharist. So that's a quibble, not a beef.

Legalise Homeschooling? Good for AfD

@DWHistoryandCulture
Why is homeschooling illegal in Germany?
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/i5NCMiwJyec

Judges pretend that school is the place where children learn tolerance.

This also means it is the place where they learn or are exposed to intolerance, and sometimes of a degree they are not prepared to carry.

I Didn't Find St. Hilary Condemned Me

A Saint's Warning About False Prophets And Hypocrites
Return To Tradition | 30 Aug. 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ST9e1GYhXzE

5:45 I'm noting a thing or two if someone would like to apply this to me, and judge me as one therein warned of.

Obeying the law of Christ.

But if they do not contain themselves, let them marry. For it is better to marry than to be burnt
[1 Corinthians 7:9]

I have done what I could to obey this and I'm being stopped.

Two. You mentioned false claims of knowing the future and presumably may have meant "date setting" ...

Hilary himself is known to have presumed the Antichrist was in preparation at the Court of Constantinople. In other words, he ventured a guess, no doubt an instructed guess, but nevertheless a guess, about when the world was ending. He was wrong, and nevertheless, he is St. Hilary.

In Lateran V, the ban on date setting, while referring to Matthew 24:36 or Mark 13:32, doesn't come in doctrinal context, but in disciplinary, namely in rules for preachers. No one says bloggers, vloggers or other essayists are bound by these.

So, if you try to get people not to widely read me, because you think me a "false claimant of knowledge" (which in this sermon wasn't even mentioned by St. Hilary), or because you think me a hypocrite, you are part of those who make it hard for me to actually start obeying God's law, including the cite from 1 Corinthians. This resumes both.

6:53 Today, it's very easy to get stamped as "pretending to be the only one who sees" ...

I yesterday claimed to see, not to the exclusion of everyone else, but of Uniformitarians, that Genesis 1 to 11 except the verses in chapters 1 and 2 prior to Adam's creation, have a very simple epistemology.

Heber saw Babel begin, after Noah died 350 after the Flood (using the martyrology reading for Christmas Day) and saw Babel end when his son Peleg was born 401 after the Flood. So, while he probably stayed away, and may have missed technical detail about whatever the "tower the top of which may reach into heaven" was meant to become ... I think Wernher von Braun did it ... he knew the general gist and arguably had a prophecy from which we have verses 5 to 7.

He died well after Sarug was born. Sarug died when Abraham was 50. Abraham probably started to write things down, given that a caravan leader had the capacity to dedicate a few camels to clay tablets or whatever and given that chapters from 12 on become more prolix, less easy to transmit by oral tradition.

Tell me exactly where this is in conflict with any dogma or traditional position of the faith, will you?

George Leo Haydock said pretty similar things on the epistemology of Genesis 3.

But possibly, you'll ignore this over X clergyman or Y expert or Z right winger telling you I'm a narcissist, and perhaps feeling yourself that an "attention seeker" or "clout chaser" should be ostracised. No need to put actual doctrine into whatever you think I'm doing wrong, since you have broadened the definition of what St. Hilary spoke of absurdly.

Catholicism Doesn't Have These Problems

Why A Rabbi Had to Solve an Impossible Space Problem
Judaism Unpacked | 27 Aug. 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6uEs5rAkoeY

6:03 You have just solved a problem between Catholics and Orthodox.

Catholics. The Last Supper was a Seder, so Jesus used unleavened bread. See Synoptics.
Orthodox. No. The Seder was the evening after the Crucifixion, see John.

Solution? Jesus wasn't in Jerusalem when the temple decided to start Nisan that year and can have spotted the New Moon one day earlier than the Temple did. Once in Jerusalem, the Temple cut down communications up to those hostile ones after the Last Supper. All four Gospels are right and the Last Supper was a Seder.*

7:44 It's not Earth that rotates once every 24 hours minus some minutes, but OK.

Nevertheless, like the calendar by Hillel II, these problems were never in place from ...

It is a sabbath of rest, and you shall afflict your souls beginning on the ninth day of the month: from evening until evening you shall celebrate your sabbaths
[Leviticus 23:32]

... to Jesus replacing the old priesthood and the old law on Last Supper and Calvary.

Judaism having to deal with them is a sign that the kashrut of the Old Covenant are over.

In Catholicism, rules for when Sundays and Feast days set in and end may seem inappropriate to you, they go from evening to next midnight, unless the following day is a greater feast, while ordinary days go from midnight to midnight unless following day is a feast, but the point is, the New Testament is not prescribing a single way in the Bible text.**

---

* This was one reason for my return to Catholicism in 2009, another was that filioque doesn't start in Toledo III but is older. Filioque far older than III Council of Toledo

** As for the rules for fasting, unlike those for Ramadan: How Many Muslims Would Be OK With This?

Continuing with Sam Burns Who Seems Unaware of What Creationist Sites Actually Say

Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere: AiG, Good on Flood Topic, Less Good on Soteriology · Continuing with Sam Burns Who Seems Unaware of What Creationist Sites Actually Say · New blog on the kid: Being a Young Earth Creationist is Not a Privilege I'm Asking For

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@samburns3329 Such as your proposal that the common YEC view on the Flood is waves were a mile high?

That proposal is evidence free, like it's evidence free to pretend a Geocentric (yours truly) is a Flat Earther. No, I'm not Rob Skiba II, even if I liked him for other reasons.

Sam Burns

@hglundahl There is no way to determine the actual height of waves in a mythical Flood which never happened. A mile high is a common claim made on YEC sites based on the claimed destruction the Flood supposedly wreaked.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@samburns3329 A common claim made on YEC sites, as if you knew them better than I ...

Care to give an example?

On CMI one hit gives me this:

Total safety index, defined as the weighted average of three relative safety performances, showed that the Ark had a superior level of safety in high winds and waves compared with the other hull forms studied. The voyage limit of the Ark, estimated on the basis of modern passenger ships, criteria, revealed that it could have navigated through waves higher than 30 metres.

source
Safety investigation of Noah’s Ark in a seaway
By S.W. Hong, S.S. Na, B.S. Hyun, S.Y. Hong, D.S. Gong, K.J. Kang, S.H. Suh, K.H. Lee, and Y.G. Je
Published 28 Jan, 2006 | First appeared in Journal of Creation 8(1) Pages 26 - 36, April 1994
https://creation.com/en/articles/safety-investigation-of-noahs-ark-in-a-seaway

On AiG, I find this:

In fact, the 520 m tsunami height of the 1958 landslide quoted by ark skeptics took place within a narrow Alaskan bay where there was no time for the wave to develop a standard profile. This is not a deep-sea tsunami wave height.

The article, while referring to the same Korean Naval feasability or sea-worthiness study, refers to waves of 47 metres ... and that as being unlike the deep sea tsunamis.

A tsunami is caused by a sudden displacement of water. The most frequent cause is an underwater earthquake, but less frequently, tsunamis can be generated by volcanic eruptions, landslides, or even oceanic meteor impact. The length of these waves, from one crest to the next, can be up to 200 km long, and they travel in the deep ocean at speeds around 700 km/hr. Their height in the open ocean is very small, a couple of meters at most, so they pass under ships and boats undetected.

source:
Noah’s Ark: The Problem of Violent Waves
by Tim Lovett on August 9, 2024
https://answersingenesis.org/noahs-ark/noahs-ark-problem-violent-waves/

The mile high wave heights is not what you find on AiG or YEC, you are sure you weren't consulting an ANTI-YEC site?

Sam Burns

[first answered with an insult and with asking for the evidence for the Flood instead of continuing the objection. But to the exchange, as my answer is now visible]

Sam Burns

@hglundahl You're still just urinating into the wind since you still have zero evidence the mythological Flood ever happened. 😄

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@samburns3329 You forget you by now have zero evidence that the waves would have made it impossible, which makes the Flood account perfectly capable of being what it has purported to be, a historical account.

Other thread

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@samburns3329 You did not give any reason for any of the three to be impossible to be formed during a one year Flood, so you gave no "three examples" worth my while.

Luminiscence? There is a question of when Mungo "man" is from. The luminiscence involving sand around him (or her) says 40 000 BP. BUT the bones themselves are more in the 20 000 range, as dated by Carbon 14. So, carbon 14 would be more reliable on my evaluation than luminiscence.

You mentioned argon argon dating. I looked it up:

The 40Ar/39Ar method only measures relative dates. In order for an age to be calculated by the 40Ar/39Ar technique, the J parameter must be determined by irradiating the unknown sample along with a sample of known age for a standard. Because this (primary) standard ultimately cannot be determined by 40Ar/39Ar, it must be first determined by another dating method. The method most commonly used to date the primary standard is the conventional K/Ar technique.

It so happens, K/Ar can be skewed by lava solidifying quickly because of lots of cold water, as in the Flood. Here is another thing, you attributed its use to "archaeologists" ... but that's a different chapter from palaeontology. Now, again from the Ar/Ar article:

One problem with argon–argon dating has been a slight discrepancy with other methods of dating.[3] Work by Kuiper et al. reports that a correction of 0.65% is needed.[4] Thus the Cretaceous–Paleogene extinction (when the dinosaurs died out)—previously dated at 65.0 or 65.5 million years ago—is more accurately dated to 66.0–66.1 Ma.

source:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argon-argon_dating

That's palaeontology and definitely within the scope of Flood geology, unlike much of Carbon 14.

Try again.

Sam Burns

@hglundahl LOL! I love the way you just yell NUH-UH! while still dodging the geologic formations you can't explain were caused in one year by a Flood. 😄 Also the way you C&Ped the usual creationist excuses for dodging the multiple independent and consilient dating methods.

Sam Burns

@hglundahl Is this example "worth your while"?

1) In the Pacific Northwest is a geologic feature called the Columbia River Basalt Group. It's a huge lava flow area covering most of eastern Oregon and Washington, western Idaho and part of norther Nevada. Geologists have identified over 350 separate volcanic lava flows which K/Ar and Ar40/Ar39 show occurred from 16.7 MYA to 5.5 MYA.
2) To add to creationist problems we have the Grande Ronde River which flows some 200 miles across the same Columbia basalt fields in Oregon and Washington State. The Grande Ronde makes S-shaped meanders and has downcut basalt cliffs some 3000 ft. tall.

Questions for you:
1. If the Columbia Basalt fields all formed in one year why do they date so differently over an 11 million year span? Don't just yell "bad assumptions". Explain why all the dates are different.
2. How did the Grande Ronde River form? The usual excuse "the rocks were soft" doesn't work because soft basalt is molten lava. 😮

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@samburns3329 "while still dodging the geologic formations you can't explain were caused in one year by a Flood."

Prior to this example, you weren't giving any evidence against within one single year.

Now, the 11 million year span has to do with K/Ar dating.

I'll cite an article by CMI, which deals with this exact formation, including the River.

I'll just answer on the 11 million years:

They do not, by themselves, give unambiguous information about the cooling rate of the lavas. However, entablatures can solidify and cool very rapidly by water-steam convection.

source:
Field studies in the Columbia River basalt, Northwest USA
By John Woodmorappe and amp; Michael J. Oard
Published 28 Jan, 2006 | First appeared in Journal of Creation 16(1) Pages 103 - 110, April 2002
https://creation.com/en/articles/field-studies-in-the-columbia-river-basalt-northwest-usa

This means, the lava cooled at different rates, and earlier flows during the Flood cooled quicker and therefore more Argon was trapped lower down.

For other solutions, the article I quoted is Field studies in the Columbia River basalt, Northwest USA.

CMI, as I mentioned.

Sam Burns

@hglundahl Keep lying and dodging. You're really making a case for creationism! 😅😅😅 How did the Flood form the Grande Ronde River in molten lava?

@hglundahl Here's an example you won't be able to C&P the usual creationist lies over.

In Northern California, Tuolumne County is a geologic feature called the Stanislaus Table Mountain. Its formation began 10.4 MYA with a volcanic eruption from the Little Walker volcanic center near Sonora pass. The eruption produce a large lahar (mud, ash, lava mixture) which flowed down for some 80 miles and filled in an existing river channel. Over time the lahar hardened into stone and the land forming the original river banks eroded away. What is left is an inverted 3-D cast of the original river. It's over 1000 ft. high, 1000 ft. wide at its widest point and some 80 miles long. I can't post photos but do a quick search - it's an amazing sight from the air.

I defy you to provide a reasonable explanation for how this feature could have formed in a one year Flood only 4500 years ago.

@hglundahl This means, the lava cooled at different rates, and earlier flows during the Flood cooled quicker and therefore more Argon was trapped lower down. I couldn't let this lie slide. Did all these eruptions happen before the Flood waters covered everything or did they happen under the Flood waters? In either scenario your hand-waving excuse doesn't work. 😅

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@samburns3329 "How did the Flood form the Grande Ronde River in molten lava?"

Referring you to the article, as given.

River formation are not my even amateurish expertise.

"Did all these eruptions happen before the Flood waters covered everything or did they happen under the Flood waters?"

They happened while water was rising and therefore different parts were covered and different ones weren't.

But arguably they happened under water and were cooled by different heights of water above them.

This one I actually found no CMI article on:

"The eruption produce a large lahar (mud, ash, lava mixture) which flowed down for some 80 miles and filled in an existing river channel. Over time the lahar hardened into stone and the land forming the original river banks eroded away. What is left is an inverted 3-D cast of the original river."

The lahar hardened very quickly as waters cooled it, which also eroded the surrounding land.

CMI had

an article on lahars and pyroclastic mud flows, though:

The Pinatubo eruption—catastrophic pyroclastic flows and lahars
By Andrew Sibley
Published 05 Nov, 2021 | First appeared in Journal of Creation 34(2) Pages 5 - 7, August 2020
https://creation.com/en/articles/pinatubo-eruption

Probably applicable to Table Mountain (Tuolumne County, California) too.

Sam Burns

@hglundahl LOL! As expected if you can't C&P some ready made creationist lie you're totally lost. 😄😄😄 You clowns are too funny!

@hglundahl Now that you've established you know nothing about geology or dating methodology or ocean waves or wooden ships, what else do you want to talk about?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@samburns3329 You have just established that you are out of your depth, resort to insults and laugh when you don't know what to answer.

With you, I might not want to talk of much else.

(Nevertheless, I gave him a link to the two parts)