NinjaMonkeyPrime Goes Toxic Control Freak

Calling out Conspiracy Theories That Aren't Theories, But Real (Featuring the Basham Case, not all of the video) · NinjaMonkeyPrime Goes Toxic Control Freak

And for a certain reason, I think it's someone who's French.

Two comments, he left.

I'm not replying to him. I'm exposing him to you.

NinjaMonkeyPrime

@NinjaMonkeyPrime

I

@hglundahl "What's wrong with unplanned parenthood?" Is that a serious question? If you aren't prepared for being a parent it affects more than just you.

Also, just bringing up the opposite doesn't negate the benefits. Just because you CAN survive without planning doesn't mean you can benefit with planning.

"One has to improvise?" How does one improvise a situation where you are lack the maturity, finances, or support needed to raise a child? Hurry up and grow older, get more money, and build a network?

"How awful to certain control freaks" Are you really this ignorant or just trolling? Is it wrong to plan a vacation? Is it wrong to plan for retirement? How about planning for a house? Would it be wrong to plan for a child's education?

I start to think you have serious mental health issues if you see a problem with helping people prepare taking on the responsibility of raising another human.

II

@hglundahl "You know, child spacing can be done in other ways than contraception, like abstaining during lactation" Wait, so now you're okay with helping people plan? I thought you were against that?

"Plus abstaining during Lent, Fridays, Saturdays, Sundays before the evening, perhaps Wednesdays too" Or you could use contraception. I sense you're against certain forms of birth control. Is there a hidden reason for that? And why during Lent?

"I don't quite see how your comment isn't a slur on many children in poor families" Wow, you really are a miserable person. What does being poor have to do with this? Are you against Planned Parenthood because they help people finance contraception? Is all this about how you don't like birth control methods other than celibacy?

I have made a pretty certain clear statement in the previous post I'm overall against Malthusianism, not just for white people (though they are disadvantaged if doing that in their countries and letting in others to replace).

Malthusianism is a trap for the population, and a person who contracepts when young will often face loneliness when old.

It's also a trap for young people who for some reason are in a precarious situation, as more old people are competing for their company. And less of them are available to keep the old company. Especially in the kind of situations so attractive to the old, of being some kind of mentor to a young person.

In some cases, the persons are not even legitimately young, someone is just stamping them as immature.

The fact of being poor doesn't change that. One should help poor people raise their children, without being overlording, one should not help them or anyone else contracept.

NinjaMonkeyPrime seems to think poor people would be better off without children. Wrong.

I am therefore making a kind of Thomistic case for the Catholic teaching against Malthusianism. It's evils have been observed with sense experience, not just guessed. Nor just deduced from the practises being banned by one's religion.

Overall birth avoidance should go with sexual abstinence.

And Contraception has a tendency not to stay with child spacing but go on into full blown Malthusianism.

I am not against the kinds of child spacing that take some effort and are therefore less likely to become Malthusianism.

Lactation is in itself an inhibitant on new pregnancies, while it lasts, but one can enforce that by abstinence.

Lent is a penitential season. Wednesdays and Fridays are penitential days. Saturdays are meant to prepare for the Lord's Day.

Keeping these abstinences will sometimes make the coitus coincide with the fertile period and come with "more volume" so likelier to get pregnant. It will also sometimes make it coincide with the infertile period, without this being the main motive for abstaining the other times around it. Overall, this will not have an effect of Malthusianism, but of child spacing. More months between the pregnancies. I very obviously am OK with that as long as the means are correct.

Prepared for being a parent, or not ... how it can eventually affect the child has so much more to do with some surroundings' reactions to the supposed immaturity than with the possible immaturity as such.

Also, just bringing up the opposite doesn't negate the benefits.

I wasn't unprovokedly bringing up the opposite. NinjaMonkeyPrime may have some case of Alzheimer preventing him from recalling what he previously said.

I keep track of it thanks to keeping the blogpost from yesterday.

NinjaMonkeyPrime

@NinjaMonkeyPrime

Helping people plan parenthood is an interest in population control. It seeks to control the population of unplanned parenthood. Why someone would find that nefarious speaks to some serious mental health issues.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

hglundahl

@NinjaMonkeyPrime What's wrong with unplanned parenthood?

I asked what was wrong with unplanned parenthood because of his obviously thinking it an advantage that the population of unplanned parenthood be controlled, i e subjected to Malthusian measures.

How does one improvise a situation where you are lack the maturity, finances, or support needed to raise a child?

Before someone's maturity becomes an issue when raising the child, the child will probably have been already quite some years older than newborn.

Finances, well, it costs in many countries 1 million (I think 1 million SEK and so 100 000 €) to raise a child up to the age of 18. Obviously, it would be total Malthusianism to limit child bearing only to couples who have one million Sweish crowns ready when the child is born. This is an issue which can be repared as things go along and usually is.

Support ... well, some older people are way more supportive over a 20 or even 25 year old playing the mentoree, contrary to "call no man father" over supporting a 15 or even 18 year old having a child. That kind of preference is obviously evil. And it comes from their own Malthusian past, they don't have sufficient children or grandchildren to supply them with young wanting their advice and approval.

Just because you CAN survive without planning doesn't mean you can benefit with planning.

I think he meant "can't" ... which makes me think he's French or some other nationality where the end consonants of English words aren't pronounced.

I was not the one saying planning was per se wrong. He was the one pretending that populations with unplanned parenthood need to be controlled. He was the one confessing to be a control freak, I was not confessing to a preference for chaos over order, I just prefer chaos over death and infertility.

Is it wrong to plan a vacation?

No, but it would be wrong to cancel a vacation because the plans are disturbed and one has to improvise.

Is it wrong to plan for retirement?

If the plan is cutting expenses on children and investing the savings in one's old age, yes, that's very wrong. That's the horrible choice three or more generations have been making and ruining Western society by. It's obviously always right to plan for retirement by having children.

How about planning for a house?

I prefer a society in which houses can be obtained somewhat cheaper and also inherited (I'm against inheritance duty).

Would it be wrong to plan for a child's education?

Only if you make the existence and validated realism of the plans a precondition for allowing the child to live with his or her parents. It wouldn't be wrong, but it would also not be immediately neeed. And school choices (other than homeschooling out of principle) should ideally be left open to when the boy or girl is well or ill in his school he's sent to without specific plans.

... if you see a problem with helping people prepare taking on the responsibility of raising another human.

For those who want to raise another human person, another man, pro-life charities exist. Pro-life policies can be enacted. A pro-life metality can be cultivated.

I strictly only see a problem with helping people to "take responsibility" for not doing so when not being prepared, by either killing or contracepting.

There is nothing at all hidden about the fact that I am Catholic, and as to Catholic pro-life values, I had them before my conversion.

I didn't adopt them out of obedience to the Church after having previously been "pro-planning" in the sense that PP is. I was attracted to the Church, as already Christian and already holding these values, and inheriting them from my mother. Because I didn't see many other alternatives which also upheld them. Anglicans had been fairly pro-life (as in banning contraception) at the Lambeth conference of 1920. In 1930, they were "pro-responsibility" in the evil sense that NinjaMonkeyPrime supports. I had been aware of this newer policy within mainstream Protestantism, not indeed before I was baptised, but before I opted out of Lutheranism to become a Catholic. I count it as apostasy.

And yes, that goes for some number of Neo-Himerite or otherwise non-Trad Orthodox as well.

I start to think you have serious mental health issues if ....

If I'm an actual Catholic, he obviously means. This is a way of persecuting Catholicism. Without needing to say that that is what one is persecuting.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
Transfiguration
after First Vespers
5—6.VIII.2026

In monte Thabor Transfiguratio Domini nostri Jesu Christi.

Catholicism vs Evolution

The Church, Darwin, and the One Question Still Open
Actually Catholic | 4 Aug. 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-5fokJ7zolM

2:15 I think you misrepresent Humani Generis.

Here is the quote:

For these reasons the Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter - for the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God. However, this must be done in such a way that the reasons for both opinions, that is, those favorable and those unfavorable to evolution, be weighed and judged with the necessary seriousness, moderation and measure, and provided that all are prepared to submit to the judgment of the Church, to whom Christ has given the mission of interpreting authentically the Sacred Scriptures and of defending the dogmas of faith.

Pius XII didn't simply tell Catholics "investigate the science" he said: whether from science or from the Bible, see if it's probable or possible or not.

So far from being a blanket acceptance of Adam's bodily evolution, it's an invitation to discussion behind closed doors ("on the part of men experienced" = excluding non-experts, a condition no longer possible since non-experts have been dragged into the question) and the discussion can obviously both argue and even conclude that no, it's neither scientifically probable nor theologically possible.

In a case from 1830, there was a condition on submitting to a future decision of the Holy See in regards to how to interpret Vix Pervenit. The corresponding phrase here has often been taken as that, but Pius XII doesn't say "future" unlike the dicastery in 1830.

I think I have a right to reject the possibility from the previous decision on Session V of the Council of Trent.

Obviously insofar as I can prove that a bodily birth of Adam from non-human parents is incompatible with the traditional view of God's goodness before the fall and therefore with the fall.

2:51 "researchers converging"

Independently of each other? Not certain. Independently of a common framework, both ideological and in academy logistic and institutional? Certainly not.

"John Paul II" was in 1996 (if you got the year right, but you probably did if it's a different speech from the 1992 Galileo speech) scamming those in the Church who still held him to be Pope and to be obeyed as such (so, excluding Sedevacantists, Palmarians, Conclavists and FSSPX).

Anyone who thinks he's an actual saint needs to get him a credible excuse.

3:25 What God in the abstract can, given the relation between secondary causes and the primary one, is one thing.

What God actually did is another.

For the Galileo case, yes, God could given His omnipotence have chosen to act exclusively through inertia and gravity on the level of stars and planets around stars, and God could have created a Heliocentric universe. This doesn't argue that He actually did.

Because, Romans 1 says God is showing off His attribute "unending power" in some phenomenon visible with the naked eye and unmistakable. Which turning the universe around Earth would be.

And if the factors are gravity, inertia and God's action independent of and added to both, Geocentrism cannot be excluded, and that is also what we see.

To return to the primary and secondary causes, a thing can be a secondary cause (like the daily movement of the universe around earth) and still have only the primary cause as its own cause. Otherwise there would be a regress into infinity within secondary causes, which is what precisely we cannot have for Prima Via to work.

There may be similar or even weightier reasons to reject an "Adam whose body came from evolution" ...

3:43 "the document that binds ordinary Catholics"

Oh, CCC § 283. One reason to reject as non-Pope the "Pope" authorising that "catechism" ...

4:30 There is.

Nearly directly in Trent Session IV.

"It decrees, that no one ... presume to interpret the said sacred Scripture contrary to that sense which holy mother Church,–whose it is to judge of the true sense and interpretation of the holy Scriptures,–hath held and doth hold; or even contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers;"

But each and every one of the Fathers, while differring on detail, some denying there were six literal days, preferring a single moment, each of them was Young Earth Creationist. Therefore Trent Session IV is binding to Young Earth Creationism.

Again, Trent Session V. Adam was the first man. There were Neanderthals, but insofar as Neanderthals were men, which by now is amply proven, they were not before Adam.

This does not directly conflict with Gap Theory or Day Age theory insofar as you place all of the Anthropocene within the generations of Luke 3.

But by now, there are very good reasons against such scenarios, which are less likely than the standard Evolutionary one and also less likely than the Young Earth Creationist one.

Evolutionist views of the "emergence of man" (as per CCC § 283) require other views of the fall than Trent Session V authorises and requires, first three canons. Under pain of anathema.

And given datings of skeleta, accepting Deep Time but not the Evolutionist view is basically impossible.

Conor Foran

@UrielAngeli147

I think the Kolbe center has some answers to these, even if I don't support their strict literalist seven day position.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@hglundahl

@UrielAngeli147 They actually do support young earth creationism.

I'm doing parallel worok to them.

5:13 "Aquinas" distinguishes "how does this come from that?" (science) versus "why is there anything [rather than nothing]?"

Where exactly so?

I did not catch this distinction in the quinque viae.

Why is there anything seems to refer to Tertia Via:

The third way is taken from possibility and necessity, and runs thus. We find in nature things that are possible to be and not to be, since they are found to be generated, and to corrupt, and consequently, they are possible to be and not to be. But it is impossible for these always to exist, for that which is possible not to be at some time is not. Therefore, if everything is possible not to be, then at one time there could have been nothing in existence. Now if this were true, even now there would be nothing in existence, because that which does not exist only begins to exist by something already existing. Therefore, if at one time nothing was in existence, it would have been impossible for anything to have begun to exist; and thus even now nothing would be in existence — which is absurd. Therefore, not all beings are merely possible, but there must exist something the existence of which is necessary. But every necessary thing either has its necessity caused by another, or not. Now it is impossible to go on to infinity in necessary things which have their necessity caused by another, as has been already proved in regard to efficient causes. Therefore we cannot but postulate the existence of some being having of itself its own necessity, and not receiving it from another, but rather causing in others their necessity. This all men speak of as God.

However I think the question "how does this come from that?" is involved very much in Prima Via:

The first and more manifest way is the argument from motion. It is certain, and evident to our senses, that in the world some things are in motion. Now whatever is in motion is put in motion by another, for nothing can be in motion except it is in potentiality to that towards which it is in motion; whereas a thing moves inasmuch as it is in act. For motion is nothing else than the reduction of something from potentiality to actuality. But nothing can be reduced from potentiality to actuality, except by something in a state of actuality. Thus that which is actually hot, as fire, makes wood, which is potentially hot, to be actually hot, and thereby moves and changes it. Now it is not possible that the same thing should be at once in actuality and potentiality in the same respect, but only in different respects. For what is actually hot cannot simultaneously be potentially hot; but it is simultaneously potentially cold. It is therefore impossible that in the same respect and in the same way a thing should be both mover and moved, i.e. that it should move itself. Therefore, whatever is in motion must be put in motion by another. If that by which it is put in motion be itself put in motion, then this also must needs be put in motion by another, and that by another again. But this cannot go on to infinity, because then there would be no first mover, and, consequently, no other mover; seeing that subsequent movers move only inasmuch as they are put in motion by the first mover; as the staff moves only because it is put in motion by the hand. Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; and this everyone understands to be God.

For instance, not in an endless regress of moving cause behind moving cause ... by the way, I have seen one sentence given as:

It is certain, and evident to our senses, that in the world some things are in motion, like for instance the sun.

The word "creation" is actually not even mentioned in the Five Ways / Prima Pars, Quaestio 2, Article 3.

5:50 OK. Adam was engendered by humanoid creatures of roughly our anatomy, but as non-human obviously without speech.

How does Adam's soul, directly created by God, fare in such an environment?

Look up feral children!

So, given Adam's soul is an image of God, but being raised by beings without that kind of soul is a hindrance of expressing it, the Evolutionist scenario involves God committing an act of cruelty against Adam before he sinned.

Try to solve it by giving him "kind of parents" who could speak? You have just denied he was the first man, instead. In 1950, this option was not open to any theologian, and of those who took the previous one, some committed cruel acts to boys growing up. Look up Henk Heithuis. That kind of thing did not happen in Italy, where in 1962 or preceding years an Ottaviani had been planning to give the "future decision" by defining de fide that Adam was created like the Bible says. Among the episcopates who blocked this was the one where Henk Heithuis's malefactors were not being punished by superiors. The Vatican II has been called "The Rhine flows into the Tiber" and BeNeLux is clearly Rhine league at the council.

6:14 So, Adam could have had two progenitors who were not human, and he was human?

See previous for the cruel absurdity of this.

[To be continued? Well, someone has deleted the comments after the 4:30 one.

Update on YouTube Hiding Comments
Jun 2, 2026 | Anthony Repetto
https://oaklandthinktank.medium.com/update-on-youtube-hiding-comments-b11e212c0769]

Calling out Conspiracy Theories That Aren't Theories, But Real (Featuring the Basham Case, not all of the video)

Calling out Conspiracy Theories That Aren't Theories, But Real (Featuring the Basham Case, not all of the video) · NinjaMonkeyPrime Goes Toxic Control Freak

Answers in Genesis is a Conspiracy Ministry
Creation Myths | 4.VIII.2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0NB0hDAWKQY

9:39 For Tides Foundation, I could not verify beyond plausible deniability.

For Clinton and Gates, check here:

HILLARY CLINTON AFFIRMS SUPPORT FOR INTERNATIONAL REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH PROGRAMMES
https://press.un.org/en/1999/19990210.pop701.html

New name for Gates Institute for Population and Reproductive Health
https://hub.jhu.edu/2023/10/25/william-h-gates-sr-institute-for-population-and-reproductive-health/

Check this bit:

The institute is also unveiling a refreshed 2023-2030 vision, mission, and strategy synthesizing its strategic priorities to form five interconnected Global Programs, alongside its cross-cutting gender equity work:

Research, measurement, and data monitoring
Policy, advocacy, and community-building
Best practices scale up
Next generation leaders, and
Demographic futures, population, and environment

What was the last one again?

Demographic futures, population, and environment

I think at least two of the three very clearly do have an interest in population control, and this means you have no business calling Mrs Basham nuts

9:50 That Clinton and Gates promote Planned Parenthood is pretty obvious, and if Tides does so too, the plausible deniability disappears.

That kind of thing is an interest in population control.

I

shassett79

@shassett79

Counterpoint: it's actually in the interest of reproductive choice, which is well correlated with all sorts of positive outcomes if you're not being some weirdo who sweats and curses whenever trends indicate growth in non-white populations.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

hglundahl

@shassett79 I don't think any population can grow from aborting or contracepting.

But if it could, through integration in the world people like the Gates try to build, it's the wrong way to grow.

The old fashioned way of simply having children when you marry is perfectly OK, for non-whites too, in case you want it in explicit terms.

shassett79

@hglundahl Is English your second language? I'm wondering how you could possibly reach the conclusion that I was suggesting that abortion doesn't end pregnancy.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@shassett79 Is it your second language, or did you flunk logic?

No, it's actually my third language, but I seem to know it better than you ... because I don't do "dog whistle" exegetics to the point where an actual statement is hidden behind the supposed innuendos.

Both contraception and abortion are making the babies of the couple fewer. You have so far not helped to explain how that could help a population grow, except by integration into a world that persecutes decency.

shassett79

@hglundahl It's OK if you don't read English well. I'm not shaming your deficiency; I'm just trying to understand how you could be so wildly incorrect in your interpretation of what I said. But if you're so inclined, employ your amazing grasp of language and logic to point out the aspect of my comment which suggests I believe that birth control "could help a population grow."

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@shassett79 "if you're not being some weirdo who sweats and curses whenever trends indicate growth in non-white populations."

The phrase "growth in non-white populations".

shassett79

@hglundahl If you honestly think I was proposing that contraception increases growth in non-white populations then you really do need to brush up on your study of English.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@shassett79 OK, what exactly did your phrase mean?

Perhaps it's the word "indicates" I stumbled over.

II

Creation Myths

@CreationMyths

Dude. You need to get a grip.

a)

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@CreationMyths You know, there was this other video of yours where my comments kept disappearing.

Someone (not saying you, not saying not you) thinks I need to get out of the business of talking and into that of listening to your likes.

No thanks. Those people have stolen enough of my years already.

Creation Myths

@hglundahl I think you need to 1) sort by newest, and 2) touch grass.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@CreationMyths I really don't know what you mean by "sort by newest".

As to touching grass, some people bent on pushing me out of commenting publically are also pushing me out of decent leasure.

EvilGinger Miniatures Ltd

@evilgingerminiatures

@hglundahl don't blame Dan as nine times out of ten its Youtube and other folks can report comments and disappear them for a while

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@evilgingerminiatures Possible.

But shouldn't I get a notification "your comment has been flagged" in that case?

I haven't blamed nor exonerated him, I've asked.

If lots of people did flag, either Dan has some horrid followers, or "lots of people" in this case was my old foe "NinjaMonkeyPrime" who argues it's a bonus to control unplanned population.

Nah, sounds too anti-gypsy to me. Too anti-hippy. Too anti-people, overall, except those who plan everything or are "responsibly planned" which quite a few of us aren't and the rest mostly didn't turn out quite according to plan.

EvilGinger Miniatures Ltd

@hglundahl I have never had one & I get mine reported all the time

[Update on YouTube Hiding Comments
Jun 2, 2026 | Anthony Repetto
https://oaklandthinktank.medium.com/update-on-youtube-hiding-comments-b11e212c0769]

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@CreationMyths If "sort by newest" refers to order of comments under your video, like "trier par les plus récents" as I see it, I did that.

The problem persists.

Under a comment of mine, there are six comments to it, I answered five of them and the answers are not there.

b)

EvilGinger Miniatures Ltd

@CreationMyths I am even older than you & all my long life I have come up against people on the far right have keenly even eagerly anticipated a Malthusianism population collapse.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@evilgingerminiatures And then there are people who are concerned about one.

Whether you call us far right for being against abortion or not.

III

NinjaMonkeyPrime

@NinjaMonkeyPrime

Helping people plan parenthood is an interest in population control. It seeks to control the population of unplanned parenthood. Why someone would find that nefarious speaks to some serious mental health issues.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@NinjaMonkeyPrime What's wrong with unplanned parenthood?

One has to improvise?

How awful to certain control freaks!

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@NinjaMonkeyPrime Invoking "serious mental health issues" also argues a control freak.

In other contexts one who cannot handle unexpected outcomes of debates, but has to put them down like wildfires by suggesting the opponent is a madman.

EvilGinger Miniatures Ltd

@NinjaMonkeyPrime yup, its long been understood that spacing pregnancies is good for a woman's health mental and physical & that having a baby every 9-12 months is ruinous in many ways especially in a backward country which is pro natalist but does not give a tinkers cus about the resultant children post birth

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@evilgingerminiatures You know, child spacing can be done in other ways than contraception, like abstaining during lactation.

Plus abstaining during Lent, Fridays, Saturdays, Sundays before the evening, perhaps Wednesdays too.

I don't quite see how your comment isn't a slur on many children in poor families.

EvilGinger Miniatures Ltd

@@hglundahl Yes, but less reliably

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@evilgingerminiatures I did not say "child limitation" I said "child spacing" and that's fairly reliable.

Sufficient for health.

EvilGinger Miniatures Ltd

@hglundahl You do realise that women are human as well and therefore have human rights like bodily autonomy? So if a woman wants to limit the number of children she has that's hers to chose.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@evilgingerminiatures With due means, not undue ones and not involving breach of contract.

Contraception and abortion are criminal means, tending to malthusianism.

11:40 I'm sorry, but I did not hear Megan Basham complain about population control against white people.

I heard her complain about population control tout court.

Which I think is a pretty correct assessment, like when Fujimori allowed doctors to through force or deceit, forget which, sterilise Quechua speaking, so obviously non-white, women. Not the current president of Peru, but her father.

12:05 "This is the Antisemitic Great Replacement Conspiracy Theory"

Oh yeah ... when she didn't actually mention Jews?

YOU are the one claiming that attacking population control is some kind of attack on the Jews. As far as I can see, your words are more directly Antisemite than Megan Basham's are.

I

shassett79

You should probably acquaint your self with the phenomenon of "dog whistles" because they're everywhere in conspiracy-related thinking. It turns out you can communicate all sorts of things to a targeted audience w/o explicitly saying those things, and this is actually very common among such groups.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@shassett79 Have you heard the phrase: "some people detect dog whistles even if there are no documented dogs they whistle to"?

shassett79

@hglundahl I haven't heard that phrase. Did you make it up?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@shassett79 I wish I had, it's a good one.

shassett79

@hglundahl Returns literally zero results in a search engine, but OK

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@shassett79 shadowbanned, I met it on the internet

II

Mr Markers

@HarryTeasley

Most of the people out there concerned about population control are white nationalists. Look for the folks telling Americans to have more babies: also white nationalists.

And while you get a lot of white nationalists supporting Israel, and making a big show of hating antisemitism, that’s a lie. They believe war involving Israel will bring about the Second Coming, so they want to support that happening.

Being able to draw the association is not hard. I think he did a bad job of it, took the wrong road to get there, but he’s not wrong.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@HarryTeasley "Most of the people out there concerned about population control are white nationalists."

How do you verify that statistics?

By inflating the number of "white nationalists" in the group through "dog whistle" exegetics?

In fact, telling people to get more babies isn't bad, white nationalism or not. So, you are doing publicity for white nationalists, apparently.

AND ... just because Hagee is an Evangelical and Answers in Genesis are Evangelicals doesn't mean they are pushing for a war involving Israel.

Evangelicals aren't all that united.

III

EvilGinger Miniatures Ltd

Nope, but given the great replacement theory developed out of the Nazi occupation of France during world war two and the bitterness left by the Algerian war even if it has older roots and only got its current name recently. The theory sees all non whites and a threat to whites & would class the Jews as non white even though Jews have been a part of European culture time out of mind as they where a part near and middle Eastern culture for far longer.

The definition of white is also conveniently flexible. for these people.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@evilgingerminiatures I highly doubt Megan Basham could actually even get along with French Algerians rooting for OAS.

I'm probably one of the few who like both.

It seems you are more familiar with OAS than with the US pro-fertility movement, which involves Alveda King and very strong anti-Nazis and anti-Racists like Lyndon LaRouche, doesn't mean OAS defines them.

And you might want to tell me what the connection to the Occupation was.

12:17 She also didn't mention "the Western Civilisation" precisely as Lyndon LaRouche didn't when calling out Fujimori (the dad) back in the day.

The Clinton's aren't Jewish, even if they are pro-Jewish.

You could have spared me the knowledge there was some Jewish connection to the Clinton foundation, if indirect.

And what about Bill and Melinda?

"Bill Gates was raised in a Protestant Christian family and has no documented Jewish heritage."
[Melinda Ann] "French Gates, a Catholic, attended St. Monica Catholic School, where she was the valedictorian of her class."

So, no, not Jewish, however sufficiently indifferentist to have a Catholic / Protestant mixed marriage.

I looked up a result where Gates and Hirsch appear together:

"Before the Rothschilds, Andrew Carnegie, Warren Buffet and Bill Gates, there was Baron Maurice de Hirsch."

Again, this is also not a direct tie between the Gates and Judaism or Jewish community.

So, calling out Gates and Clinton Foundations for population control is Antisemite exactly how?

As to the Tides Foundation:

"The Tides Foundation, which backs several organizations involved in anti-Israel protests on college campuses and beyond, is facing scrutiny from the House Ways ..."

They are accused of Antisemitism for being pro-Palestinian, in itself a somewhat bad logic, but that hardly makes calling them out for involvement in population control an act of Antisemitism.

From Phil Stilwells Assessment of Me

Assorted Retorts: Phil Stilwell Gets Remedial Philosophy (quora) · In Answer to Phil Stilwell / Tokyo Taboo · Phil Stilwell Responded with a Paper. Answering the Abstract · Continuing to Answer Stilwell's Paper [1 through halfway through 5] · From Phil Stilwells Assessment of Me · New blog on the kid: This is Not a Response To Phil Stilwell, It's a Denunciation

Lundahl makes his most defensible concession when he says:

“As to the area where I really am subjective, perhaps it is one in which objectivity is not attainable.”

... But this concession changes the conclusion. If objectivity is unavailable, Lundahl cannot use private discernment as objective evidence that the Holy Spirit spoke.

It doesn't change my conclusion in the least.

I was not claiming to publically demonstrate the Holy Spirit spoke to me. If the Holy Spirit prompts me to give 50 c. to a fellow beggar, what I need in order to do that is to have the 50 c., not to convince Parish Priest, Bishop, Pope, Secular Authorities that I absolutely could do nothing better with 50 c. and even so needed a specific permission from the Holy Spirit to actually give the 50 c. AND then got it.

There are callings where someone has to assess if someone else is prompted by the Holy Spirit or just being a dumbass about himself. I am not pursuing any of these callings. I'm not standing before a monastery in order to become a novice, and I'm not standing before the gates of a seminary in order to study for the priesthood.

His interest seems too heavily similar to that of a shrink who wanted to poke into what he thinks I have decided or failed to decide.

What I have decided is to write, and both talent with words and knowledge of subjects are such that this decision is not totally whacky unless backed up by the supernatural.

What I've failed to decide is what I have left others to decide, namely when they will start treating me as an actual writer instead of attributing to me claims of prophecy or higher than usual Catholic callings.

If I claimed to be a monk, I would indeed be doing such a claim, but I am not claiming to be a monk.

If I claimed I absolutely wanted to become a monk ... which I probably haven't stated since last year in High School ... (I'm 57 now), I would again be close enough to doing such a claim, and I would need someone to verify the calling with. That someone is not Phil Stilwell.

I did a check on that, in early 2000, the monastery answered in the negative. I have since then been abiding by that decision, tried to get a wife and an income from writing, and I have been blocked by liars who mis-label my work as prophecy, unless it's demonic, prophecy, unless it's psychosis, and so on. As I am not claiming prophecy, I'm not obliged to tell the Blessed Virgin that the Parish Priest requested roses in winter to prove She was She. My name is not Bernadette Soubirous. And what I claim to do is not similar to what she claimed to receive.

If someone wants to be heard over seeing the Blessed Virgin, she had obviously better provide objective and miraculous evidence. Often it's girls not boys.

Meanwhile, I claim that theologically speaking Young Earth Creationism is a necessity. Gap theory and Day Age theory are not obviously heretical, but that's on the condition that they leave the creation of Adam as directly from the dust and the timeline from Adam to Jesus at least roughly speaking similar to Luke 3. One is not a heretic for preferring the Vulgate reading of Genesis 11 which has no second Cainan. But it should roughly speaking be similar to Luke 3. Which, since carbon 14 dating, a theory of an old universe and especially an old earth with an old atmosphere will not. So, when it comes to combining Day Age with a Biblical chronology from Adam on, that's theologically licit, it is actually done by the Watchtower Sect, often decent people by the way, but it is scientifically impossible.

If the atmosphere was billions of years old when Noah left the Ark in 2957 or 2347 BC, two dates in conventional Biblical chronologies, that of the Roman Martyrology and that of Ussher, that atmosphere could not leave organic material dating to 39 000 BP. It would most probably have dated to third millennium BC. And very certainly not older than fourth millennium. Human remains exist on either side of the carbon date 39 000 BC. To me, as a Young Earth Creationist, this means they were prior and subsequent to most probably 2957 BC. The Biblical timeline is intact at a point where no person is dying unless it's in the Flood (and if so the dating method will probably be Potassium Argon and give a much older date than carbon) and the persons alive being limited to Noah, his wife, Shem, Ham and Japheth and their wives (OK some may say Ham's wife was already pregnant). I have no problem with the conventional carbon dates given according to that convention, since I as a Young Earth Creationist belong to a school of thought according to which these can be reinterpreted variously to "much younger" or to my own more precise attempts of calibration, using Biblical events with archaeological traces as anchor points. But the moment you think the atmosphere has been around 100 pmC well before any of this and remained so with minor vaccillations, the moment you say the Neanderthal nicknamed Thorin really died 42 000 years ago, you have loads of skeleta you can't deny humanity to, and you would either have to stretch the timeline after Adam to 40 000 + years or you would have to pretend these skeleta belonged to actual human creatures before Adam. The one is inconsistent with the claims the Catholic Church traditionally makes for the Bible. The other is a heresy which the Church condemned by placing Isaac La Peyrère's book on the index.

I am very far from being a prophet, I'm a theologically concerned layman, and an amateur sleuth into questions that would "question" the Biblical narrative. And I have no duty to show anyone that the Holy Spirit prompted me to this position or to this activity.

Why do I bring this up in the context? Because in another place, and I don't care to cite, Phil Stilwell is half and half suggesting that I might have taken up the existence of a missionary because of what I took as a prompting of the Holy Spirit. Nonsense, if I live a less laidback life than I'd like it is not that I am sacrificing it to be a missionary, it's that people are sacrificing it to challenge me if my supposed decision to be a missionary wasn't stupid. It's pretty stupid to take me for a missionary in the first place.

And what I want to prove that my tables work is not show either an atheist or a priest that I'm led by promptings of the Holy Spirit, what I want to prove that is simply win an argument whether it solves a problem for Young Earth Creationism.

And if on some stretch of the Biblical and archaeological timelines they don't work, what I want to conclude isn't "perhaps it wasn't the Holy Spirit after all" but rather to rework the tables. From 2020 to 2024, I have been using a set of tables which in French are called: Tables de carbone 14 sur les bases révisées (I - VI) / Tables continuées (VI - IX) and which in English are called New Tables. Since Christmas 2024, I have tables I made even newer than that, so they are called Newer Tables: Preliminaries · Flood to Joseph in Egypt · Joseph in Egypt to Fall of Troy. But when in 2020 I called those tables "New" I implied they were newer than something else which I had previously elaborated and tested against archaeological items and the Biblical timeline. The weak spot of New Tables is the date of the corpses in the Mladec cave. In that now previous calibration, they were too many dead too soon after the Flood. I patched it with appealing to the reservoir effect, which is still an option, I have since remade the calibration in Newer Tables.

And I am sick and tired of people who do not share my polemic interest but also do not want to leave it alone, but make it a thing for them to worry about. Like worry about mental disease if you have Commie or Swedish Social Democrat inclinations to making Science your religion. Like worry about prelest as the Orthodox tend to illicitly do with the children of Fatima. Like worry about pastoral focus, since there are so many other topics I could preach about if I insisted on being a priest or similar. But I don't insist on it, I insist on not being it. I insist I'm not a seer. I insist being Young Earth Creationist is very far from a mental disease. If anything it's the Atheist who's delusional if he thinks his mind is a by product of matter via very complicated biology.

But let's give Phil Stilwell the benefit of the doubt. Perhaps he was not an umpteenth in between for some shrink trying to assess me without putting himself or his personnel at risk, perhaps he genuinely was just interested in the general question. Well, if so, there are other people than I who also would prefer to be left alone on such items. His original question never was one I intended to answer to the full, and I'm worried other Christians could be trapped into someone sidelining what in some sense promised to be a decent chat about the epistemology for accepting Catholicism at every step into "how are you making your decisions?" ... when it's none of his business nor of the kind of people I feel he reminds me of.

Hans Georg Lundahl
ut supra (vel infra ut in bloggo)

Continuing to Answer Stilwell's Paper [1 through halfway through 5]

Assorted Retorts: Phil Stilwell Gets Remedial Philosophy (quora) · In Answer to Phil Stilwell / Tokyo Taboo · Phil Stilwell Responded with a Paper. Answering the Abstract · Continuing to Answer Stilwell's Paper [1 through halfway through 5] · From Phil Stilwells Assessment of Me · New blog on the kid: This is Not a Response To Phil Stilwell, It's a Denunciation

I will here elaborate on the points, three here:

• the practical point of the individual evaluating whether to follow an inspiration
• the point of the hierarchy when on behalf of the Church evaluating whether an individual was a saint
• the question of the Church and Her divine origin.

1. The Question That Never Received an Answer

As mentioned in my answer to the abstract, I don't think his question really needs one.

The two questions "what do I do know" and "am I right in what I'm habitually convinced of" are distinct.

No reasonable man usually fuses them.

2.1 Absolute certainty is too much to demand

The serious question is therefore not:

Can the believer prove the Holy Spirit’s involvement with absolute certainty?

It is:

Does the proposed method make correct source attributions reliably enough to justify confidence, and how would we know?

A medical test need not be perfect to be useful. But we need some idea of its sensitivity, its false-positive rate, and the population in which it was tested.

A parallel insanity is proposed in:

3. The Logic of Discrimination

... No mathematical precision is required to see the problem. Lundahl supplies no defensible values, ranges, or even comparative arguments for the likelihoods.

Totally superflous, as already stated. Except perhaps internally for the Church. Which would not use Bayesian logic in mathematical form to make assessments of moral probability anyway.

The method the Church uses is, did this method of discernment make saints.

This leaves us with the external question whether we have reasons to believe the Church.

2.2 Historical inquiry is not identical to experimental prediction

...

This concession does not rescue Lundahl. It removes an easy escape. ...

I briefly halt here to note he claims the paper format is meant to reduce rhetoric that could be too vague, to logic barebones. (See: why answer in a paper).

The metaphors like "rescue" and "escape" and qualifiers "not" and "remove" are rhetorically calculated to give the impression I'm the person divagating, the one who needs some kind of schooling in logic. But does he back this up?

The problem is not that Acts fails a laboratory test.

A laboratory test is not applicable in the first place. As a rhetorical flourish, this sentence is of course OK. But as a serious objection, no.

The problem is that Lundahl treats the claims inside one religious narrative as if they independently confirmed one another,

Well, depends on what you mean by "independent". If you certainly want "independent" sources, it's not just the Christian account, but loads of others, that lack comparable outside confirmation. No one will say that Acts confirms that Caesar made or destroyed a bridge over the Rhine. Perhaps Livy will confirm it, but Livy is as little independent of Caesar's tradition (not necessarily limited to the text in Bellum Gallicum itself) as an early Church Father is independent of Acts and related oral tradition.

For the Battle of the Somme, we can have an account independent of French sources in English or German ones, but if we treat the West as one community, which it is, what would you answer a Japanese if he were to ask "are there any Indian or Chinese confirming sources?"

Communities are not lab teams that have agreed to double check on each other. If you want to establish that colchicine is good against gout, it may obviously help if both French and American doctors report it (however, they differ on posology recommended). Because American and French doctors are members of an international "meta-team" where national medical corps are treated as "local teams" ... that have since long ago agreed to check on each other's results. And usually to do so in open scientific polemic.

The epistemically correct "independent confirmation" in history is usually the independence of observations resumed in one source. If I knew nothing from the things Jesus said apart from His obviously being the one telling the disciples of the temptation by Satan, I would be reasonable to doubt it. But there are claims that are far easier to check than that, to the first Christians, because different people actually all saw them. If the story is true, which shouldn't be the first go to main issue.

The "religious narrative" is a resumé of the independent sources that were available to those formulating it, that is mainly to Luke and prior to him those whom he spoke to.

The fact that the narrative is religious doesn't warrant it a treatment of higher and all the way up to disingenuous suspicion nor exempt it from being the story of a community's immediate origin. And for non-religious origin stories, Stilwell will not put up this doubt. I have never heard him put any scepticism on the United States correctly remembering to have started out as thirteen colonies of the United Kingdom which then at a certain date broke off connections in a war. I have never heard him pretend George Washington didn't exist or that his actual role was very different.

then asks his critic to explain every missing stage of an alternative history.

If I pretended that George Washington was a British governour and obtained independence by first petitioning and then calling a referendum, I assume that Stilwell would want me to explain why a War of Independence and a second War of 1813 was inserted into the narrative. Stilwell might pretend we could easily solve the problem in another way, by appealing to British records. That's beside the point. I could push disingenuous even further and say British records were faked later on. I suppose that at least at this point Stilwell would require a coherent, if not the one accurate, at least a coherent and possible history of how the non-event in the series of events became an event in remembered history.

I am applying exactly that same test. I am being perfectly consistent about my criteria. I am just not treating "religious narratives" as a specially suspect category, but instead "immediate origin stories of actually existing communities" (and to a weaker degree "stories of the community's past, even outside the crucial point of immediate origin as the community started) as a specially robust one. Amnesia plus false memory is curious even in one person, and even more so collectively. A claim that a community first knew it's origin to be A, then forgot A and replaced it with B to the point of referencing B as knowledge of their origin is a remarkable claim which would require quite some evidence. I ask my critic to produce it. Or at least an explanation, if not evidence for it. Even that is apparently too much, and warrants irony in a paper pretending to use the objectivity standards of the paper format/

And by the way, I would have a coherent scenario of why Jewish sources don't confirm the Christian ones. Stilwell himself has called the general mechanism I'm speaking of "villain-driven irrationality" in a different paper. That Jews to this day have a very clear tendency to cast Jesus for a villain, though non-religious versions have weakened it, and some Jews even religious ones, living among Christians, have dropped it, can be seen in some of the comments by Tovia Singer.

4. Satan Makes the Proposed Test Harder, Not Easier

Even if a healing were genuine, a language genuinely unlearned, or a vision genuinely external to the recipient’s imagination, a second question would remain: Which supernatural agent was responsible?

For healings, we assume Satan cannot imitate a totally sudden healing. God has put limits on his power.

For a person's good or bad inspirations, we assume, if he didn't repent of them and if he was a saint, they came from the Holy Spirit. And guess what the one most crucial test for him being a saint is? Healing miracles. Which brings us back to God having put limits on Satan's power, some types of sudden never ever having been within angelic power, fallen or unfallen, and some powers Satan would actually have in his nature being made inavailable to him if it were about deceiving ... so much that when Biblical prophecy talks about the Antichrist doing "signs and wonders" some say they won't even include miraculous healings and others that he'd need real relics from real saints.

Lundahl says that good moral direction points to God and the wrong moral direction points away from the Devil. But this assumes that a deceptive agent must display his final aim in every local act.

A Christian praying to God for direction, if he were in good faith following a deceptive but apparently morally good inspiration from the Devil, would thereby merit God's protection from deception when it became crucially bad. This is to some degree also true of as yet non-Christians. And this is part of the reason why someone outside the Church if genuinely a Christian would come into Her.

If Satan can imitate signs of goodness, then orthodoxy, charity, success, and even wonders do not reliably identify the Holy Spirit. If Satan cannot imitate them, Lundahl needs to explain why the deception hypothesis appeared in his own account of imagination in the first place.

Has Stilwell heard of consistently and all the way versus not all the way and finally with some glaring inconsistency? When the Church evaluates if someone became a saint, the Church has some real clues on what went "all the way" (not saying this has been the case with the Vatican II sect accepting John Paul II as a Pope, but that's a different discussion). For the individual decision maker or decision accepter, again, the person doesn't quite as much need an epistemic as a moral guide. Though obviously being acquainted with the truths of the faith clearly helps in detecting fraud.

5. The Church Does Not End the Regress

[diagramm notation could not be replicated here]

In ordinary language: the authority is legitimate because the Church is protected; protection is known through a tradition certified by the Church; and miracles read through that tradition are then used to confirm the Church.

You forget that the tradition is not just "certified by the Church" (as by an institution) but is actually the memory of the community. The Church is not a parallel to FBI, not even to Supreme Court, the Church is a parallel to the United States. Stilwell has probably confused the two related concepts "the Catholic Church" and "the hierarchy of the Catholic Church" ... which in some contexts is actually called "the Catholic Church". The United States does not recall being founded by Kemal Atatürk and arguably never will.

The historical existence of an institution is independent evidence that the institution existed. It is not independent evidence that the institution possesses supernatural protection.

Granted, but irrelevant.

We independently know that Mormonism exists. That fact does not verify Joseph Smith’s plates.

It may verify the existence of the plates, which I could explain as demonic, or it may not verify it. Depends on the detail. For instance, could the people attesting the plates have been in on a con game? And THAT depends on the detail of the story.

While we are at con game, before you ask "why not the reports of Jesus' Resurrection" con men don't volunteer to risk martyrdom. And if you pretend that the one doing the con game and the ones being martyred are different persons, how do you account for the top tier of the hierarchy being the ones martyred? The criterium is consistent, it involves "con game is a possible explanation, except when it's impossible" ... and it sometimes is for an obvious reason.

We independently know that Islam exists. That fact does not verify Muhammad’s revelations.

It arguably verifies he had or claimed to have revelations. If he was sincere, there is a certain problem of discernment that is not solved by the Catholic Church canonising him, because the Catholic Church hasn't canonised him.

The continued existence of the Catholic Church establishes continuity of a community, not the divine truth of the community’s account of itself.

How about starting with the human truth of the community's account of itself? I don't appeal to divine protection of the US when saying I trust the US on George Washington. I appeal to the improbability of a real origin A being completely forgotten and replaced by a fake origin B taken by all as if the real one. Already a very problematic and improbable claim about individual memories, but pretty absurd on the account of the community.

Now, the Mormon account of the plates is on several levels perfectly compatible with human fraud.

• Few people present when the plates were given
• plates often in a closed chest
• plates absent when Joseph Smith produced translation with use of two or one seer stone (depending on stages)
• plates returned, so not kept as relics by the Mormon Church.

I'd like you to construct one level where the account isn't so compatible on principles perfectly consistent with those (oh, never mind, I forgot whom I was asking, but still) I'm using to exclude fraud within the Church's account of Herself.

And similarily, the single person who could verify that Mohammed had revelations from Allah was Mohammed.

In this context, I'm reminding that Islam makes claims about only five miracles for the founding of its Ummah:

• the Quran (good style vs illiteracy of Mohammed, scientific knowledge beyond the period have featured)
• the split Moon
• the expansion in military action with victory after victory
• the spider weaving very quickly a web before the cave
• the night journey.

The two last of these, like receiving ayah after ayah supernaturally, depend entirely on Mohammed's claim about his own experience. The split moon can be explained by social conformity within the Ummah and social and military pressure for the king in India who confirmed it (in the 13th C).

And I think one can agree after seing long term English misrule in Ireland, including a genocidal application of tenant's contracts in 1847 to 1853, military conquest doesn't prove divine protection from error. From our own Bible, we have an even more direct confirmation thereof:

And it was given unto him to make war with the saints, and to overcome them. And power was given him over every tribe, and people, and tongue, and nation
[Apocalypse (Revelation) 13:7]

Whether you believe the prophecy or not, I think you can at least relate to the principle. Vanquishing someone doesn't prove him wrong and doesn't prove oneself right.

Any more parallels? I'll give one about Rome. I'm accepting Rome was founded by Romulus in 753 BC, I'm just not accepting he was son of Mars or that Jupiter Capitolinus as his granddaddy promised prosperity to Rome forever.

The Church’s existence, age, influence, and selfunderstanding are all compatible with a successful human institution. None discriminates divine protection from institutional durability. The regress stops only because Catholic authority is declared a stopping point. Declaring the stop is not validating it.

The account of the initial miracles, primarily the Resurrection, leaves no reasonable room for deliberate fraud, for honest misunderstanding or for hallucinations, which do not exist as collective phenomena. Several people in the same hospital may hallucinate due to ergotine poisoning, but the ergotine poisoning won't make their hallucinations agree. Radical restructuring of what was initially reported and taught need substantiation. Dating of Gospels and then pretending they were the only reports available for the community and then selectively presenting cases for initial absence of claims of physical resurrection are clearly prima facie absurd solutions, would not have occurred to Stilwell to do with the United States, would therefore require at the minimum a model.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
St. Ruffinus of Assisi, Martyr
30.VII.2026

Assisii, in Umbria, sancti Rufini Martyris.

Dan Makes my Point Again

He Thought He Has Refuted YEC, Well, Not My Version · Dan Makes my Point Again

Directly Observed Mutation Rates Disprove Young Earth Creationism
Creation Myths | 29.VII.2026 (US TZ)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4i4eIQvNueM

Thank you again for making my point.

At some point in the past, for young earth creationism to work, we need to have had more mutations per generation and less weeding out.

Why is the time after the Flood ideal?

1) We see lowering life spans, suggesting degraded genome or mutations, as well as carbon 14 buildup and on my view even the Ice Age which I set earlier, all three of which hang together with more radiation.
2) Just after the Flood, mankind had pretty few mutations (though the Neanderthal inherited ones are from pre-Flood times), and therefore the arriving mutations were far less likely to do harm.

Noting

that my answers keep disappearing. On the next day, the objections except that of John still stand, but my answers to them are gone. Someone deleted. Not me. Last of July, I email Dan, first of August, they are not restored.

fol alibi

@folalibi2743

Poe's Law in action... :)

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@hglundahl

@folalibi2743 I had to look it up.*

No, my intent wasn't ironic, I'm a Young Earth Creationist, I'm also at loggerheads with CMI over a few things like whether Neanderthals were pre- or post-Flood.

And they have not been eager to look at my tables for carbon 14 build-up either.

* footnote

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe's law

Winnetouch

@noWinneTouching

Out of all the ancient human skeletons and fossil remains ever unearthed, why haven’t we found a single skeleton with the biological age of a 500 year old human? High radiation leaves clear pathological markers on bone tissue, yet ancient skeletons look biologically identical to modern ones dying in their 60s, 70s, or 80s. Taking patriarchal lifespans directly from bronze age mythic genealogies doesn't magically create the forensic evidence to back it up.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@noWinneTouching My point is, the genetics was such that a man of 100 or 200 back then would be biologically like modern 30 or 40.

Mutations changed that.

I'm not sure what levels of radiation you think of.

In my case, it's like maybe 10 to 20 times the modern background radiation.

fol alibi

(Since this doesn't seem to be a parody...) How were Neanderthal mutations inherited from pre-Flood? Through a ghost lineage that was not on the Ark? Or was Japhet's wife a Neanderthal and Seth's a Denisovan? Oh, and there's even less time before the Flood (6000-4350=1650 years) to have accumulated these mutations, especially since people in those times supposedly lived to hundreds of years old.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@folalibi2743 "How were Neanderthal mutations inherited from pre-Flood?"

Example, if one or more of Noah's daughters in law had a Neanderthal daddy, or if Noah had a Neanderthal mother. Or if his wife was half or full Neanderthal (but if so daughters in law of the sapiens type to account for genomic dominance over the residual Neanderthal genome).

"Or was Japhet's wife a Neanderthal and Seth's a Denisovan?"

Neither of them had non-sapiens mitochondriae, and Denisovan DNA is in a smaller proportion, so probably further off in the ancestry.

"Oh, and there's even less time before the Flood (6000-4350=1650 years)"

Let's speak in BC terms, 5200 - 2957 = 2242 years and probably that involves a misreading about Mathuselah and should be 2262 years.

Less time, but ….

"to have accumulated these mutations,"

Supposing they were only accumulated by natural process rather than accelerated by preternatural ones, involving at some level the Nephelim.

"especially since people in those times supposedly lived to hundreds of years old."

An old daddy obviously legates more mutations to his children than a young one

qiexia

@muskyoxes

Aren't you arguing the wrong way? If mutations are slower and generations are longer, we need a lot more time to account for the observed genomic differences

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@muskyoxes Lifespans were longer, generations maybe not quite as much (except the lineage in the Bible).

After the Flood, previously accumulated mutations were fewer, but the new rate of mutations was not just faster than before but significantly faster than now.

John

@John.0z

How widespread is this flood that you are talking about?

Does it perhaps extend far enough back to encompass the First Australian people... with their 40,000+ uninterrupted culture, without recording new arrivals, and that does not mention a flood at all? What is recorded in Queensland is the retreat on land from a rising sea level that drowned the earlier reef (about 30,000 years ago) and saw the growth of the Great Barrier Reef we now see offshore.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@John.0z I highly doubt that their own records can be ascribed a totally fault free chronology.

The 40 000 years date is from thermoluminiscence in sand, which I don't know how to calibrate, but I suppose it disfigures real dates more than carbon dates do.

Lake Mungo 3 (I recall) has a carbon date of c. 20 000 BP, which would be during the post-Flood Ice age or midway in Noah's post-Flood remaining lifespan.

Some time between 2725 BC and 2712 BC. Which are respectively carbon dated (usually) as 18,786 BC and as 17,081 BC, while the carbon 14 level in the atmosphere was rising from 14.329 pmC to 17.585 pmC. Yes, carbon 14 was, on my theory, produced faster than now, and significantly so.

The 30 000 years date would be 28 050 BC, between 2892 BC and 2870 BC, if obtained by carbon dates. Between 65 and 87 years after the Flood.

Phil Stilwell Responded with a Paper. Answering the Abstract

Assorted Retorts: Phil Stilwell Gets Remedial Philosophy (quora) · In Answer to Phil Stilwell / Tokyo Taboo · Phil Stilwell Responded with a Paper. Answering the Abstract · Continuing to Answer Stilwell's Paper [1 through halfway through 5] · From Phil Stilwells Assessment of Me · New blog on the kid: This is Not a Response To Phil Stilwell, It's a Denunciation

Here is it, the paper, starting with the abstract:

The Spirit in the Closed Circuit: Why Catholic Authority Does Not Solve the Problem of Discernment
By Phil Stilwell | Published 2026
https://www.academia.edu/170883041/_The_Spirit_in_the_Closed_Circuit_Why_Catholic_Authority_Does_Not_Solve_the_Problem_of_Discernment

How can a person tell whether an inner prompting comes from the Holy Spirit, a deceptive spirit, or ordinary human imagination? Hans-Georg Lundahl answers by recommending prayer, conformity to Catholic teaching, submission to Catholic authority, attention to moral fruits, and, in exceptional cases, later miracles. These practices may help a Catholic decide whether an impression is safe to act on. They do not identify the impression’s source. A thought produced by religious training can agree with Catholic teaching. An institution can approve a mistake. A decision can turn out well by coincidence, competence, or selective reporting. Even an event that remains medically or historically unexplained would not, by that fact alone, identify the Holy Spirit rather than some other supernatural or unknown cause.

Phil Stilwell seems bent on mixing two problems that have nothing to do with each other.

How do I know?

This is usually not what I or any Catholic of typical Catholic culture (though it wouldn't be heretical) would try to solve with attending to personal promptings of the Holy Spirit.

Nor are such promptings anything like why I converted to Catholicism.

What should I do?

Obviously a Catholic who already accepts the authority of the Catholic Church will not take practical decisions as occasions to put it in doubt.

I can come to doubt whether this or that version of the Catholic Church is the correct one if it's making it harder for me to get a correct decision started.

I have ditched more than one for this reason.

So, I kindly suggest to the author of the paper

to admit fairly and squarely these are separate problems.

And, when it comes to the practical one:

it doesn't even closely matter to you if we can in a given situation know with full certainty or moral certainty that the Holy Spirit actually was behind a prompting.

Far from being a philosophy paper asking a reasonable question, it would then become a kind of psychology paper, or worse, an undercover psychological examination of the one you are dealing with. I have more than enough of that rabble.

Also, you don't start questioning your presuppositions every time you take a decision, so why should I?

Now, let's go to "How do I know" ...

Lundahl tries to close these gaps by appealing to Christ’s promise to the Church, the Church’s preservation of the Gospel accounts, the prima facie credibility of tradition, the growth of early Christianity, and the beneficial effects of Catholicism. But these claims form a closed evidential circuit. The institution certifies the texts, the texts certify the institution, traditions and miracle reports certify both, and the institution’s alleged divine protection supplies the favored interpretation of those reports. Evidence that is genuinely independent—the mere historical existence of the Church, for example—does not establish the supernatural authority attributed to it.

Analysing an argument correctly is a good starting point before trying to answer it.

Stilwell tries to construct a circulus vitiosus in probando.

The institution certifies the texts, the texts certify the institution,

More like, every community that ever existed usually knows how it started. The opposite would be more improbable. The US is not likely to forget about George Washington and Lafayette and replace them with Kemal Atatürk. It is also not likely to forget the actual process and substitute sth like Moses parting the Red Sea or Seven day trumpet blows making Jericho's walls tumble down.

Therefore, it is a priori probable that the texts of an institution that's a community (which the Catholic Church is) and not just sponges of one (like the FBI on the US, I get the impression, when FBI targets Latin Mass Catholics as a security threat) actually do fairly historically accurately reflect the actual process by which the community came to be.

This paper reconstructs Lundahl’s position in its strongest form, then shows why it fails.

Stilwell is hardly likely to be able to do that if he:

• conflates two positions on two subjects with one single position
• generously pretends detecting circuli vitiosi in probando just for ease of refuting, which to me seems more like strawmanning than steelmanning.

It also refines the original challenge. Absolute certainty is unnecessary, and historical claims are not tested exactly like laboratory hypotheses.

Thank you.

The proper demand is more modest: a method must discriminate among the proposed causes better than chance, bias, and hindsight. Lundahl provides no such method.

I did not propose promptings of the Holy Spirit as the best way to evidence Catholicism. If Stilwell wants to evaluate what I'm doing when discerning anything, as if it were a medical cure, no thanks.

Doctors need to be able to verify the kind of medical cures they prescribe to others. People are very much entitled to try and persist in their home cures for coughs, colds, diabetes and whatever without continuously being poked by doctors trying to validate or invalidate their methodology.

If anyone wants to take away that right from me, I take that as a very inimical action. Sufficiently grave, as being a kind of slave hunt, to merit death penalty in a court and therefore sufficiently grave to merit a self defense that could be lethal.

So, I'll suppose we'll be dealing with evidence for Catholicism.

He offers an internally Catholic policy for managing impressions, not a publicly reliable way to discover who—or what—produced them.

Impressions are not public busines, and an internally Catholic policy is good enough for a Catholic.

On top of that, he insinuates that "public" and "Catholic" shouldn't go together, ideally obviously they should.

A dedicated objections section answers the strongest replies in his own words. A verification roadmap then identifies the conditions, possible falsifiers, and prospective tests Lundahl would need to establish his claims,

I hope this deals with "How do I know" in the credal sense. That's all that such verification roadmaps should deal with.

while two appendices supply a formal argument audit

Not sure what that even is. And given certain propensities for overdiagnosing circulus vitiosus, I'm not sure Stillwell is capable of doing one correctly.

and a practical discernment matrix.

This one on the other hand should be on "what should I do" ... thankfully the two appendices are separate items.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
St. Olaf
29.VII.2026

In Norvegia sancti Olavi, Regis et Martyris.