... on Knowledge of Hagiographers

... on Knowledge of Hagiographers · ... on Nature of Catholic Authority · On Francisco J. Ayala

Q

How did the writers of the Bible know exactly what happened, even if they weren't there?
https://www.quora.com/How-did-the-writers-of-the-Bible-know-exactly-what-happened-even-if-they-werent-there/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl

Hans-Georg Lundahl

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

Answered 1h ago

The usual answer for history (since creation of man) is that he was told by other men, either directly those who were there or via intermediates.

For the one and only piece of prehistory, namely the days of creation before the creation of man, God gave Moses a vision.

Other answer

Alex Pismenny

Catholic Christian.

Answered 12h ago

Depends which writer and also what does “exactly” means.

Moses, we believe, wrote the first five books of the Bible. Genesis speaks of the creation of the world and the human prehistory. In order to write that down he received a vision from God. That, as we now understand, was given in terms Moses could understand; with our knowledge of astrophysics, geology, genetics, and so forth we would consider Moses’ vision quite imprecise. But the Book of Genesis was not intended to be a manual of science. Things that are important for us to understand are such as the relationship between God and His creation, and us men; the nature of sin, the nature of our free will, the role of Satan, — and these things are described in the Book of Genesis with adequate level of precision, adequate for people without modern education to understand.

The other books were more or less historical and legal books that combine Moses’ personal knowledge and memory and other revelations from God.

Many other books in the Old Testament are wisdom literature, predictions of the future, and poetry; those seem to be out of scope of your question.

As Christians, we find nothing strange in Moses, or anyone else to that matter, receiving direct revelation form God. We, after all, have our faith based on the historical evidence that God did want to communicate with us and, in fact, took on a human form to do so.

The New Testament consists of the four Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles. Those are written by the evangelists who often were direct witnesses of the teachings, the Passion and the Resurrection of Jesus, or had access to such witnesses. So they could write with sufficient precision about things that were common knowledge among the disciples. So, the evidence of the resurrected Christ, for example, are accounts clearly composed from what multiple people such as the women at the tomb saw, and told the Evangelists about it.

There are some episodes told in the Gospels that require past explanations, and we can assume those were given in due course. For example, when the evangelists describe the content of Christ’s prayer in the Garden of Gethsemane, possible some apostles could overhear Jesus praying aloud, but I think another explanation is that they asked Christ about it following His resurrection.

Remember that Jesus stayed with the disciples for forty days, teaching them what they needed to know in order to continue building the Church. We can assume that factual questions were posed and answered by Jesus.

Remember also that the Evangelists did not have a modern attitude about the written word; oral memory was probably more important to them than writing things down. Minor discrepancies exist in their accounts, e.g. the manner of death of Judas or elements of the Nativity gospels.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

1h ago

"Genesis speaks of the creation of the world and the human prehistory. In order to write that down he received a vision from God."

• 1) There is no such thing as "human prehistory".
• 2) The human history, Moses got from human participants i n events, like the detailed account of day six from creation of Adam given in Genesis 2, from Adam.
• 3) The real prehistory, the one preceding creation of man, Moses did get in a vision. This concerns only Genesis 1.

"That, as we now understand, was given in terms Moses could understand; with our knowledge of astrophysics, geology, genetics, and so forth we would consider Moses’ vision quite imprecise."

Feel free to enumerate one imprecision for each field.

"But the Book of Genesis was not intended to be a manual of science."

Neither to bungle in science.

"Things that are important for us to understand are such as the relationship between God and His creation, and us men; the nature of sin, the nature of our free will, the role of Satan, — and these things are described in the Book of Genesis with adequate level of precision, adequate for people without modern education to understand."

It seems your grasp on contents of Genesis is imprecise, for one. You have basically covered up to chapter 4. There are 50 chapters in Genesis. Chapters 12 to 50 cover four generations, Abraham to Joseph and his brethren. Chapters 2 to 11 all history previous to Abraham and chapter 1 involves prehistory as in history before any human could record it, recorded by God and given in a vision to Moses.

For another, you are failing to grasp a very fundamental aspect of the faith.

It is NOT important for you to undestand that Abraham at age 100 had a second son. It is not important for perhaps 80 % of the faithful of all times, if not 90 or 95. But the things which are important for us to understand were revealed through a historic revelation, and it is very important for us to realise that this historic revelation is entirely reliable. So IF you have read the relevant chapters of Genesis, you HAVE to believe Abraham had a second son at age 100.

And same holds true for each and every aspect of the rest of the book or the 72 other books, especially now thinking of those treating of history, and it applies mutatis mutandis to the rest too.

“Remember that Jesus stayed with the disciples for forty days, teaching them what they needed to know in order to continue building the Church. We can assume that factual questions were posed and answered by Jesus.”

We can therefore also assume that the patristic view of Genesis, the one I gave, as having endorsement of successors of the Apostles through the centuries, is also endorsed by Our Lord Jesus Christ.

“Minor discrepancies exist in their accounts, e.g. the manner of death of Judas or elements of the Nativity gospels.”

There are no discrepancies here, the accounts given can be combined to coherent accounts. ALSO part of patristics.

“For example, when the evangelists describe the content of Christ’s prayer in the Garden of Gethsemane, possible some apostles could overhear Jesus praying aloud, but I think another explanation is that they asked Christ about it following His resurrection.”

That one, as well as content of the defense speech in Acts, has been answered by C. S. Lewis. The words in Gethsemani are very few compared to what Christ would have been able to say while they were sleeping. St Luke is not taking down the whole speech verbatim, even if he tries so with the beginning, then he resumes.

And John 3 implies that Nicodemus later converted, as tradition says he did.

Alex Pismenny

Aug 22

I was giving a brief overview; thank you for the corrections. Maybe you should post your own answer? I’ll add my thoughts following your criticism later.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Aug 22 · 1 upvote from Alex Pismenny

I already did post an answer, a distinctly shorter one.

I’m looking forward to your thoughts.

Alex Pismenny

11h ago

I clarified and corrected some parts.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

4m ago

I’ll take a look. ...

Inserting

new version

Depends which writer and also what does “exactly” means.

Moses, we believe, wrote the first five books of the Bible. Genesis speaks of the creation of the world and the human history following the creation of man. In order to write creation history down he received a vision from God. That, as we now understand, was given in terms Moses could understand; with our knowledge of astrophysics, geology, genetics, and so forth we would consider Moses’ vision far from how we would describe the Creation today Is it, though, imprecise? The Book of Genesis was not intended to be a manual of science, neither contemporary to Moses nor contemporary to us. Things that are important for us to understand are such as the relationship between God and His creation, and us men; the nature of sin, the nature of our free will, the role of Satan, — and these things are described in the Book of Genesis with adequate level of precision, necessary for people without modern education to understand.

The rest of the Genesis and the other books of the Pentateuch are historical and legal books that combine Moses’ personal knowledge and memory and other revelations from God.

Many other books in the Old Testament are wisdom literature, predictions of the future, and poetry; those seem to be out of scope of your question.

As Christians, we find nothing strange in Moses, or anyone else to that matter, receiving direct revelation form God. We, after all, have our faith based on the historical evidence that God did want to communicate with us and, in fact, took on a human form to do so.

The historical content of the New Testament consists of the four Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles. Those are written by the evangelists who often were direct witnesses of the teachings, the Passion and the Resurrection of Jesus, or had access to such witnesses. So they could write with sufficient precision about things that were common knowledge among the disciples. The evidence of the resurrected Christ, for example, are accounts clearly composed from what multiple people such as the women at the tomb saw, and told the Evangelists about it.

There are some episodes told in the Gospels that require past explanations, and we can assume those were given in due course. For example, when the evangelists describe the content of Christ’s prayer in the Garden of Gethsemane, it is possible that some apostles could overhear Jesus praying aloud, but I think another explanation is that they asked Christ about it following His resurrection.

Remember that Jesus stayed with the disciples for forty days, teaching them what they needed to know in order to continue building the Church. St. Luke writes:

for forty days [Christ was] appearing to them, and speaking of the kingdom of God (Acts 1:3)

Certainly factual questions were posed and answered by Jesus as needed, alongside the theological questions.

Remember also that the Evangelists did not have a modern attitude about the written word; oral memory was probably more important to them than writing things down. Minor apparent discrepancies exist in their accounts, e.g. the manner of death of Judas or some details of the events surrounding the Nativity. But the discrepancies are minor and can be reconciled without much effort; the events of the Nativity was most likely what aging Mother of God told St. Luke. They combine verbatim recitations of the dialogues with the Archangel and with Elizabeth alongside less precise memories of the census and the flight to Egypt; the latter was retained with less precision because compared to the encounter of the Annunciation and the exalted moment of the visitation with Elizabeth had displaced, naturally, the practical worries that were on the shoulders of St. Joseph.

I elaborated some parts following constructive criticism offered by Hans-Georg Lundahl, for which see the Comments section.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

4m ago

... Did.

You have certainly improved overview of contents of Genesis (Genesis speaks of the creation of the world and the human history following the creation of man), but some things I objected to still stand:

“ In order to write creation history down he received a vision from God. That, as we now understand, was given in terms Moses could understand; with our knowledge of astrophysics, geology, genetics, and so forth we would consider Moses’ vision far from how we would describe the Creation today Is it, though, imprecise? The Book of Genesis was not intended to be a manual of science, neither contemporary to Moses nor contemporary to us.”

You seem still to imply there are parts of it which cannot stand scrutiny as compared to more modern knowledge of astrophysics, geology, genetics, and so forth - I’d like to know what.

... on Negations with N

Φιλολoγικά/Philologica : Why Creationists should Not Believe IE Single Protolanguage · Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : ... on Negations with N

Q

Why do the words for "no" in so many European languages start with an "n " sound?
https://www.quora.com/Why-do-the-words-for-no-in-so-many-European-languages-start-with-an-n-sound/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl

A Rq

Answer requested by Ray Du

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I speak two langs, Latin and Germanic. In a few dialects.

Answered just now

There are two options.

• Ne- is a prefix or adverb of negation in a Proto-Indo-European language, which all languages of the family descend from, and Greek somehow lost it.
• Ne- is a prefix or adverb of negation which spread from one language family of those called Indo-European to another, but did not spread to Greek.

It is:

• found in lots of Latin compounds of negation, including but not limited to “non”, originally probably “ne-oenum”=not one;
• found in lots of Germanic compounds of negation, including German “nicht” and English “naught, not”;
• found in at least one of the negation markers in Gaelic, both Irish and Scots Gaelic;
• found in Slavonic and from Baltic at least Lithuanian (sunus yra zmonas, sunus nera moteris = the son is a man, the son is not a woman).

It is:

• not found in Classic Greek, where the negations are ou(k) and me, though one could argue that a privativum could descend from same word, sounds like “a-” before consonsants and like “an-” before vowels (Modern Greek den is from compounds ouden and meden, and the last -n is found in many adverbs);
• not found in Scandinavian negations like ikke, ej, perhaps not intet either (but found in “nej”, which could however be borrowed from German “nein” = “no”)
• not found in all particles of Gaelic and of Cymric negations, though I am not sure about Gaelic.

... on my Conversion from Evolutionism

Q

What made former evolutionists doubt the theory of evolution? What made former creationists doubt the theory of creation?
https://www.quora.com/What-made-former-evolutionists-doubt-the-theory-of-evolution-What-made-former-creationists-doubt-the-theory-of-creation/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl

Hans-Georg Lundahl

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

Answered Apr 15

I was an evolutionist twice over and am now a full fledged young earth creationist for the second time.

First time, I had become a Christian and learned that the Bible was the word of God and found things in the Bible that clearly didn’t match up with what I had learned to believe earlier in childhood as an evolutionist.

I gave up trying to reconcile both at about age ten, at which time I had also found some serious difficulties in evolution as such:

• origin of DNA information
• origin of mind and of language.

When I became a Catholic, I was very admiring of Jesuits, still am, and was even for some time a bit fond of Teilhard de Chardin. I was willing to give up my strong stance against evolution, which had been socially costly in my teens, and started taking in things like considering Cro-Magnon and Neanderthals as pre-Adamites.

About 12 years later, I read St Augustine’s City of God and cease that compromising, which had been already weakened while I was reading St Thomas Aquinas in a situation involving much solitude.

As to theoretical part, I’d say that the definite clinch was its inability (it is still unable) to explain human language, but there is also this external part of it conflicting with Christianity, not just with Bible but also with Church Fathers and Scholastics.

Andy Heilveil

16h ago

All evolution has to do to explain human language is demonstrate that it is beneficial to reproduction.

I step back a bit from neurophysiological understandings of how language is produced in the brain (which by itself is actual proof of the biological foundation of language) and look at how it is used in human society.

Language is used to:

• ) coordinate hunting efforts
• ) coordinate other group efforts which are beneficial to the members.
• ) influence the behaviors of others
• ) demonstrate dominance
• ) entice mates

All of the above have measurable effect on the likelihood and frequency of reproduction and hence are positively selected for by evolution.

Gorillas can learn sign language, hence language per se is not limited to humans.

What more do you need to see that human language is adequately explained by evolution?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

11m ago

“All evolution has to do to explain human language is demonstrate that it is beneficial to reproduction.”

No.

The thing is, this explains why language would survive and spread if it could be produced.

But genetic changes have no chance of explaining how it could be produced in the first place.

The rest of your answer is just elaboration on what I am anyway admitting.

“Gorillas can learn sign language, hence language per se is not limited to humans.”

Sorry, I missed this.

Gorillas or chimps have been learned basically noun series. Some verbs too.

But they cannot be taught to use a noun as subject and a verb as predicate. And especially not to negate predicate, put predicate into past tense etc.

Language is really limited to humans, as far as biology is concerned.

I just looked up your credentials a bit. You are not likely to know exactly what language means, even.

... on Varied Retelling of Myths (starring Jackson Crawford)

Canon, "Fanon," and Variation in Norse Myth
Jackson Crawford
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KaiYutKXSyc

General sounding on general presentation:

Would you agree the present account of Rabenschlacht at least contains an element of fan fic in making Ermanerik and Theoderik meet?

Or could one of the two be homonyme, or other sources be wrong to separate them a century?

Anyway, that is the kind of variations I think tradition going wild is likely to submit accounts to. Rabenschlacht does not make Theoderik a great scholar (hint : Boethius is very distinct from Theoderik, even if contemporary). It does not make Ermanerik a saint able to raise the dead.

And you would agree historical Ermanerik and Theoderik were also warriors, as presented in Rabenschlacht?

[No answer, so far.]

Jackson Crawford makes a parallel with Christian denominations, my responses:

4:02 "most denominations" = Protestants, who are not most Christians.

4:27 beliefs : Protestant views of Sacraments and Modernist views of exegesis are off-limit.

4:38 Old Believers in Russia and Armenians are basically Catholics in sacrament theology.

In Real Presence, Armenians denying it are "odd man out", but therein also unfaithful to their own past : formerly one monk of theirs condemned the Thondrakian heresy due to among other things them denying it.

On other issues, Thondrakians were a bit more Catholic, since not considering certain sacramentals necessary.

Most issues, however, Thondrakians give an impression of in between Albigensian and Protestant.

[Sorry, Tondrakians, I think?]

4:53 Position of Hail Mary and exact wording varies between Catholics in Poland and Old Believers, but both have such - unlike most Protestant denominations. Both reflect the position All Generations shall call Her blessed, she was raised body and soul to Heaven and intercedes for us along with Her Son.

I think similar observations could be made about even Armenians and Nestorians, though the latter would obviously not have the added prayer "Holy Mary, Mother of God ..." (still a separate one among Orthodox, optionally useful as such for RC too) or the Orthodox rephrasing Theotoke Parthene Khaire. On Her, they would be the odd man out - but less so than Protestants.

5:15 "most Christians" or "most Evangelical Christians" think of both Heaven and Hell as both permanent and direct destinations?

No Catholics think of Heaven as automatically direct, they would consider those who go directly there without passing through Purgatory are fewer and better than the rest. Of the saved.

Variations in "Hell as permanent" would be confusions between Hell and Purgatory (both being unpleasant places in Sheol/Hades).

However, some Orthodox prefer thinking of soulsleep, and also ironically accuse John XXII for having been momentarily heretic - for agreeing with their theory on soul sleep. Giving real presence of sould and body in Heaven or Hell a postponement up to Doomsday.

Nevertheless, they also pray for the dead, probably because a prayer for someone not yet known to be saved or damned by us, can be taken into account by God who sees all time from an aeternal present.

Hence, that difference makes little practical difference, compared to Protestants saying "you don't need a lot of monks praying when you are dead".

5:39 Since last sentence in Creed is "et in carnis resurrectionem", it is de fide certain Heaven and Hell are local, not just states, and will contain risen bodies as well as our spirits.

Back to concept of myth:

6:15 "myth" is a very ambiguous word.

Its basic Greek meaning is "narrative" or "storyline".

The myth of Persai by Aischylos is not just historic, but undisputedly so, it is just in fleshing out that he had poetic liberty.

As a Christian I cannot give same truth value to a myth of Uranus and Gaea or Muspelheim and Niflheim being separated by Ginnungagap as to myth of Ulysses returning or of Sigurd getting killed by a brother-in-law or by a vassal of the royal b-i-l. The latter seem fairly likely.

And as to there being variations, that is minor distortions of original story, true or false. Diversity of fleshing out or forgetting part and replacing with fleshing out.

Obviously, I equally am not giving equal truth value to Odin, Vile and Vé killing Ymer and creating Earth as to Odin and a few others (probably Thor, certainly Njord and Frey) appearing in Uppsala region and founding a dynasty.

Example of extreme variation, supposed demotion of Zeus to Tyr:

7:20 Tyr = Zeus, a possible linguistic cognate, but could be mistaken, and name could refer to diverse real life persons (a king banishing his father from Crete to Italy, a man accompanying Odin to Uppsala) even if same name.

Does not prove a major variation over time in myth.

Codex Regius vs Edda = var over time (possibly), but either vs PIE myth depends on reconstruction of there being one.

Pre-Odinist religion best attested is Nerthus worship - no trace of IE connection, that I know, and Njord may back then have been her priestess.

NB, if the commonly accepted etymology is right, Tyr, or Tiwas, is Lith. Dievas.

What if instead it was a loan from Lith. Tewas (father)?

[Jackson Crawford later agrees we have no fool proof argument Tyr actually was previously Zeus.]

... on Neanderthals

Who were the first Europeans?
Survive the Jive
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CqJ_eE6t0S8

[Where he talks about occipital bun, in Swedish equivalent to "genius bump", and two more:]

Ah, genie-knölen .... an argument for Japheth's wife having Neanderthal roots, right?

(If she was Sethite / Cro-Magnon mother and Neanderthal father, she transmitted neither Neanrthal mitichondrial DNA, since her mother wasn't Neanderthal, nor Neanderthal Y chromosome, since women can't transmit anything except X chromosomes on that pair - and both are extinct).

That leaves last pure Neanderthals = last pre-Flood Europeans. Or carbon date for Noah's Flood = "40 000 BP" (non extant date and implies lower carbon 14 content).

By the way - Neanderthals left no cave paintings to us.

Could Flood have dissolved colours from the walls, so any cave painting is post-Flood, if preserved?

Lived side by side with "Homo sapiens" (after that wise man Noah who went aboard an Ark right?) ... well, Sethites may not have been majority population in Europe by any means, but there were no natural barriers to them coming and visit here, and leaving traces (including those mix race brothers in a cave in Roumania).

... on Bugs in Paris

The weekend, I was obliged to fear my account had been disconnected while trying to access it on the Georges Pompidou Library. Today that was fixed. I am now in a Paris Municipal library (of which Georges Pompidou is not part) and was trying to access a few videos.

Here is what happened on the last of these:

Une erreur s’est produite. Veuillez réessayer ultérieurement. (ID de lecture : kP2hvvFaYY8yv5zZ) En savoir plus

This was on:

History Summarized: Africa
Overly Sarcastic Productions
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jk3iOqKOD7g

Similar things had just happened on:

History Summarized: Iroquois
Overly Sarcastic Productions
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zTG45DSSgdE

NEVER COMPLIMENT A FEMINIST
Barbara4u2c
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n6OlPLF9pOk

Non-Binary LAWYER Says It's ILLEGAL to Misgender Her
Theryn Meyer
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sFrrbU37-34

History Summarized: Africa
Overly Sarcastic Productions
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jk3iOqKOD7g

Oops, already mentioned last one!

By similar things, I mean that the "ID de lecture" was different.

Who thinks this is just a coincidence? Who thinks someone in Paris (e g a security agent or shrink or sth) is up to sth against my liberties as internaut?

If it were (by any remote chance) a kind of shrink, he or she could be the kind of leftwinger who would describe "Overly Sarcastic Productions" (one of my fav channels) as a rightwing extremist or deep South fundie youtube channel. If I verbally agreed, that would be an overly sarcastic statement!

Or perhaps one who thinks (it could be a Muslim in the administration, medical or police or military - but also a leftwinger) that Barbara4u2c is an example of extreme islamophobia. She was just stating on the video* such people may have attacked, that she was against the concept of islamophobia - while she was not considering all Muslims are jerks (she is not retarded).

Or it could be someone concerned with my having a chance to complete listening of second half of a debate between Kent Hovind (known Young Earth Creationist) and Bill Ludlow**, and comment on what I hear? Well, that would be a direct attack on my freedom of communication, wouldn't it?

But you might perhaps think it likelier it just so happens that twice in a row in very few days two kinds of library, two libraries in both of which I am known and known as a blogger, I get trouble connecting to the account or a function of it.

I'd love to hear what you believe about this ... readers, this is for you! Awaiting your comments, eagerly!

Sincerely,
Hans Georg Lundahl
Mouffetard Library
St. Severus of Vienne***
8.VIII.2017***

Update, next day, Wednesday 9.VIII or Vigil of St Laurence, bug about youtube, as noted yesterday by me and above to you, is now fixed./HGL

* "Islamophobia" is a non-word!
Barbara4u2c
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Rxcf8scwSM

She is also daughter of a Slovenian military, so it hardly makes sense taking her for a fanatic, militaries don't tend to get educated or educate their own in that way, in the West, as to what usually constitutes "fanaticism". For instance, she would hardly take Zlatan's Bosniak father as an Islamist menace (I'm not sure I would agree by now!)/HGL

** Kent Hovind debates Bill Ludlow: Is there evidence for human evolution. (BEST DEBATE TO DATE)
Steve McRae
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tul_F9sY-Rk

*** This morning I thought it was "9/8/2017" because someone had written so before me when checking my snail mail on Salvation Army, but I knew it was Tuesday and could grasp that the "08/08/2017" before computer I'm writing on is more logical, since Sunday was Transfiguration, August 6. Full details for the saint, in Latin:

Viennae, in Gallia, sancti Severi, Presbyteri et Confessoris; qui ex India, Evangelii praedicandi causa, laboriosam peregrinationem suscepit, et, cum ad praefatam urbem devenisset, ingentem Paganorum multitudinem verbo et miraculis ad Christi fidem convertit.

... debating Steve McRae on Dating

Under video with Hovind / Ludlow debate:

Hans-Georg Lundahl

56:54 "samples must be younger than 50 000 years and older then 100 years"

Bill Ludlow is highlighting an article with a misleading selection. Note, it does not say "Capital S: Samples must be ... etc. Full Stop."

It says in full :

"Since there are practical limits to the age range of the method, most samples must be younger than 50,000 years and older than 100 years."

Well, this is another pair of boots altogether!

Now, practical limit about "younger than 50 000 years" means probably that after 50 000 years not enough carbon 14 is supposed to be left, distinguishable from later contamination.

But a coal sample traditionally dated to 20 million years ago was dated to 36 000 years ago - meaning that even if you find more C14 than for 50 000 years ago, by now an evolutionist would need to say contamination is possible there too.

And how mineral coal which is a very near pure sample of the C14/C12 ratio could be sufficiently contaminated by much less pure contaminations of carbon from other sources:

Dating in conflict
Which ‘age’ will you trust?
by Hansruedi Stutz
http://creation.com/dating-in-conflict

As to "older than 100 years", well, that would indicate that fluctuations smaller than 98.798 percent modern carbon could happen within atmosphere we have (the seal and the mollusk would be examples of another problem, "reservoir effect", since they have gotten lots of "old carbon" through the water they were living in).

That frame is therefore +/- 1.2 %.

Let's take the two carbon dates from same/different animal:

16.292 pmc = 15 000 years ago
7.884 pmc = 21 000 years ago

Well, the discrepancy between the two dates are a bit bigger than +/- 1.2 pmc. I'd say they are different animals.

But they were probably animals from the timespan between Flood and Babel (in which atmospheric C14/C12 ratio was rising in a few centuries from 2 pmc to c. 40 pmc).

Both have a bit more than 50 % of original carbon content left, since they are both less than one half life old. The difference between them is that the original carbon content grew in the time between them. And that means that someone presuming original carbon content to have been 100 percent modern carbon (or pmc) or close enough (variation around +/- 1.2 pmc) will date both way older than they are and also put more than one half life between them, since they differ in a ratio more than 2:1.

Well, the slide by Kent Hovind was wrong, but he could have got it from a secondary source and a bad reading.

He has been a bit too sceptic about learning anything from carbon dating, I disagree, but so what? He has put the finger on the spot (like Edgar Andrews and probably Henry Morris), that if sth originally had far less C14 than 100 pmc and the ones dating it assume it had 100 pmc, their interpretation (good that Kent insists on that word) will give the thing a way too old age.

This point remains valid even if Bill Ludlow can accurately point out that Kent Hovind has been inaccurate in an amateurish way. An argument which is logically valid does not become invalid if it is presented in amateurish ways.

Aristotle's best argument for Earth being round was Gibraltar being just East of Ganges. It is not, but logically the proof is exactly the same which was 2000 years nearly later given by Magellan. So, Magellan proved Aristotle right, even if already Eratosthenes proved him inaccurate.

Steve McRae Owner of the GDC

+Hans-Georg Lundahl I think the (major) point you miss here is that carbon dating will only give you a lower bound. If a sample is a billion years old and you try to carbon date it, it will come up (depending upon method you use) anywhere from 20k to 40k years old. Meaning that that is the LOWEST possible age, but it does not give you an upper bound. So the sample STILL could be billions of years old. Carbon dating of older fossils is utterly useless because of this reason. It doesn't tell us anything.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"If a sample is a billion years old and you try to carbon date it, it will come up (depending upon method you use) anywhere from 20k to 40k years old."

1) The Creationists are using the latest method, meaning the result is not "beyond detectable carbon", but "carbon detected".If a sample dates 36 k years and the detection limit is 50 k years (or rather : corresponding carbon level), the result means "carbon detected".

This means it is indeed an upper bound, unless you presume that :

a) original carbon content was orders of magnitude higher than 100 pmc
b) or that new carbon 14 has formed within sample.

Those are the options for it not being an upper bound.

2) You are presuming the methods by which the sample or where it is from is dated to billions of years (methods other than carbon, obviously) are worth anything : I think you are wrong on any of these methods.

Carbon method is worth some, I think it needs compression to take into account that carbon levels rose drastically after Flood.

"So the sample STILL could be billions of years old. Carbon dating of older fossils is utterly useless because of this reason. It doesn't tell us anything."

How do you presume to know the fossil IS older?

As I took up coal from "20 million years old" dated to 36 k years, what is the method by which you presume the coal is from 20 million years ago rather than from Flood?

Plus, your having a point would make any carbon date moot, how does one know it isn't too old?

But seriously, the methods you use for the older dates are worthless.

First attempt

in a library:



Fortunately, I could get it better later, but this kind of hampering conditions is hampering my work some!

Steve McRae (Great Debate Community)

+Hans-Georg Lundahl There isn't an upper bound when you have a sample outside the range of what carbon dating can detect. Why creationists do not understand this is beyond me.

"Carbon method is worth some, I think it needs compression to take into account that carbon levels rose drastically after Flood."

There was no flood. There is not a single solitary shred of evidence of a flood.

"How do you presume to know the fossil IS older?"

You don't. You use other methods to valdiate such as isochron.

"But seriously, the methods you use for the older dates are worthless."

The methods are fine, your understanding of them is worthless.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

" when you have a sample outside the range of what carbon dating can detect"

Per se, the lab test is detecting carbon, not a date.

And what you evolutionists fail to understand or pretend to, is that the carbon is within what the lab test can detect.

The date is just an interpretation of that.

"There was no flood. There is not a single solitary shred of evidence of a flood."

False. Bible, other legends, fossils all over earth, land shapes all over earth.

"You don't. You use other methods to valdiate such as isochron. / The methods are fine, your understanding of them is worthless."

You have just missed the chance of making a case for the method in order to make a case againt me instead, like Ludlow does against Hovind.

How about making a case why K-Ar is not debunked after Mount St Helen's or those New Zealand volcanos? How about making a case why the original line like shape on the graph for isochrons has not been blurred by subsequent findings?

Well, perhaps you prefer ad hominems because you have no good case!

Steve McRae

+Hans-George Lundahl "And what you evolutionists fail to understand or pretend to, is that the carbon is within what the lab test can detect"

It is physics and geology...has nothing to do with evolution. Take sample X...carbon date it. It comes back 30k years. Now tell me how you know that it is 30k years old, or 100 million. Go ahead...

"False. Bible, other legends, fossils all over earth, land shapes all over earth."

Um, no...actually there were entire civilizations thriving in the orient during this supposed flood. And every flood story is radically different at radically different times.

"How about making a case why K-Ar is not debunked after Mount St Helen's or those New Zealand volcanos?"

It was...Dr. Steven Austin submitted samples that the lab could not K/Ar date and yet they did it anyways for him. He knew the samples were "fresh" from a volcano with inclusions. He was utterly deceptive and this has long since been debunked.

" How about making a case why the original line like shape on the graph for isochrons has not been blurred by subsequent findings? "

Evidence please? Even RATES admited that isochron dating methods indicate an old Earth. In fact I will be discussing this with Dr. Humphrey's in a week or two. Geochronological dating formulas for isochron dating work. YEC's however have tried to have an ad hoc explanation to explain it away using "accelerated decay"...which they have utterly been unable to demonstrate, as well as explain the "heat problem" it would create.

"Well, perhaps you prefer ad hominems because you have no good case!"

Clearly you don't know what "ad hominem" means, I recommend you look it up as I have directly addressed your arguments.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"It is physics and geology...has nothing to do with evolution. Take sample X...carbon date it. It comes back 30k years"

It comes back 30k years = it shows 2.654 pmc = within detectable limit.

Impossible after 100 million, but possible after for instance 5000 years, if for instance carbon content then was close to 5 pmc, as opposed to the 20 times more which the presupposition is behind the reading 30k years.

"actually there were entire civilizations thriving in the orient during this supposed flood."

DATED to during the Flood. You don't have a complete welldocumented chronology of history saying we are year so and so after Menes united both Egypts.

A flood 5000 years ago = > Egypt started later than 5000 years ago, carbon dates are off due to lower carbon content back from the times of Buto and Hieraconopolis.

"Dr. Steven Austin submitted samples that the lab could not K/Ar date and yet they did it anyways for him. He knew the samples were "fresh" from a volcano with inclusions."

There is nothing deceptive about testing a method by tests outside usual range.

"It has been debunked" = how?

Next one, here is Snelling on isochron:

CMI : Radioactive dating method ‘under fire’
by Andrew A. Snelling
http://creation.com/radioactive-dating-method-under-fire

"as I have directly addressed your arguments."

This time, yes, the previous time you just pretended I don't understand isochron or K-Ar.

I understand K-Ar better than isochron, but both enough to know there is a faulty assumption somewhere, and in K-Ar I am equipped to say which one, excess argon cannot be ruled out.