Gutsick Gibbon on Overturning Paradigms and Castile Formation

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

Same video as in the first one.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I

Kevin R. Henke

@Hans-Georg Lundahl I'm a geologist. At least two geologists reviewed this video for accuracy. The information that she presents is correct. Flood geology doesn't explain the Castile and Green River Formations.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Kevin R. Henke The geologist she is relying on and the two reviewing it are presuming as uncontroversial - which it is not in debates with YEC - that wharves are annual layers.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You switched the question.

Kevin R. Henke

@Hans-Georg Lundahl No. The video is correct. What Heerema and other young-Earth creationists say are inconsistent with the laws of chemistry and physics, as I explained in my original videos. Look at the 2006 issue of the Journal of Creation where YEC John Whitmore refutes a Flood origin for the Green River Formation. Also, look at the further comments on the numerous problems with both Oard''s and Whitmore's ideas in my original Green River video. Best to you, Kevin

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Kevin R. Henke You are referring to works I cannot access.

One more.

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

Btw, as long as you are just doing "correct" vs "incorrect" you remain in a switch of the question. My statement was about "basics" vs "contestable" which is something else.

II

Kevin R. Henke

No. Most of those that overturn paradigms as experts in their fields, such as Einstein and the discoverers of plate tectonics. It's clear from his earlier articles and presentations that Heerema did not know the difference between a lava and a magma, and other basics in geology and chemistry. He does not have the expertise .

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Kevin R. Henke My experience with Dutch is they can be very dense - expertise or not. Was his non-distinction between lava and magma relevant for the discussion?

Your examples are from the XXth C.

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

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

II b

Kevin R. Henke

No. Most of those that overturn paradigms as experts in their fields, such as Einstein and the discoverers of plate tectonics. It's clear from his earlier articles and presentations that Heerema did not know the difference between a lava and a magma, and other basics in geology and chemistry. He does not have the expertise to lead a revolution in salt geology..

Hans-Georg Lundahl

(old answer still standing)

@Kevin R. Henke My experience with Dutch is they can be very dense - expertise or not. Was his non-distinction between lava and magma relevant for the discussion?

Your examples are from the XXth C.

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

Kevin R. Henke

@Hans-Georg Lundahl Oh yes, it's very relevant in all geology. Because he did not know the difference, it's sometimes difficult to know whether Heerema is talking abouit a lava flow or a pluton. Because he did not know the difference, he coined the oxymoron "volcanic layer intrusion", which makes no sense to any geologist no matter their mother tongue.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Kevin R. Henke You call it an oxymoron because "intrusion" would mean "pluton" and "volcanic" would mean "lava flow"?

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

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

I looked up "pluton" and found this:

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


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

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

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

Hydrostatic sorting ...

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

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

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

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

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

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

Kevin R. Henke

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

See Whitmore, J.H. 2006c. Difficulties with a Flood Model for the Green River Formation, Journal of Creation, v. 20, n. 1, pp. 81-85.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Kevin R. Henke I suspected that was why Heerema was not taking Berthault ...

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

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

Obviously, halite getting layered could have happened after gypsum and calcite started solidifying, that is after the initial sorting. (Layman's guess).

Kevin R. Henke

@Hans-Georg Lundahl No the heat from the halite would degas and destroy any surrounding calcite. Also, how would a magma or lava produce individual mm-thick layers over 113Km? Again, no sorting is involved.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Kevin R. Henke When we deal with mm thick layers, I highly think some kind of sorting is involved.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Kevin R. Henke

No. See my comments on Berthaul's sorting mechanism below. Also, how would halite avoid dissolving if it was sorted by water?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Kevin R. Henke "Below" means what time signature (I opened each comment with one) - halite, you have a point.

Kevin R. Henke

Look at the original videos. The answers are there. Again, Berthault's and other sorting mechanisms cannot explain the varves in the Castile and Green River formations. Milankovitch and other cycles are seen in these formations. How would Noah's Flood counterfeit them?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Kevin R. Henke I will have to break down this a bit.

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

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

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

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

Berthault pure and simple, given halite, agreed.

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

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

Exactly in what way is Milankovitch seen in these formations?

If you tell me that - or link to time signature on this video, which I haven't finished watching yet - I'll be back on that one.

Kevin R. Henke

@Hans-Georg Lundahl In the replay below under your time stamp for 28:33

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Kevin R. Henke Oh, I was already over that, and it didn't prove Milankovitch cycles, only mention them.

Kevin R. Henke

@Hans-Georg Lundahl View my entire video on the Green River Formation. I explain the cycles and how they are fatal to young-Earth creationism.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Kevin R. Henke That would be another video, another comment, another discussion.

I believe you heavily overdo what natural science can examine and your conclusions are comparable to tea leaves' - but I save more detailed comments for when and if I see that video.

Kevin R. Henke

@Hans-Georg Lundahl Ok. Then we can discuss the Kirkland model for the Castile Formation and why it beautifully explains the chemistry, physical properties and mineralogy of that formation while young-Earth creationism cannot. Also, geologists can explain the Milankovitch and other cycles in the Green River Formation, but again young-Earth creationism cannot.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Kevin R. Henke I think I said I was taking that debate when I looked at your original videos, at my time discretion, btw, if you need that explicitly, if at all.

As for this video, Gibbon showed a clip with a CMI article stating there were difficulties with the uniformitarian model here.

Kevin R. Henke

@Hans-Georg Lundahl Sure, Oard and other young-Earth creationists claim that the uniformitarian model (for example, Kirkland for Castile) have "difficulties" explaining the Castile and Green River formations. However, my presentations show that they are absolutely wrong. The uniformitarian models work well. The various young-Earth creationist Flood and post-Flood models are total failures.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Kevin R. Henke I have your word for it, and that is another video.

Not this one.

Has Gibbon forwarded the links to my posts with my comments under two of her videos and another one, and my debate under that one and this one?

Kevin R. Henke

@Hans-Georg Lundahl Yes, if you want details on the Green River and Castile formations, you'll have to check out my presentations and my references.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Kevin R. Henke I'm also posing an experiment challenge to Berthault and it was transmitted - I hope - to Stef Heerema as well.

Search "Creation vs. Evolution" and "Could Guy Berthault Conduct a New Experiment, Please?"

Kevin R. Henke

@Hans-Georg Lundahl I haven't seen much from Berthault in about 20 years. We'll see if he responds. Again, he may be retired by now.

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

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

But of course Heerema is not invoking hydrostatic sorting.

Why is precession involved at all?

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

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

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

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

Kevin R. Henke

No. Berthault's sorting mechanism doesn't apply to the limestones and other salts in the Castile and the limestones in the Green River Formation. They're chemical precipitated and not clastics.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Kevin R. Henke Ah, two sorting mechanisms could combine? (Layman's guess again)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Kevin R. Henke

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

Hans-Georg Lundahl

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

You seem to have a problem about logic.

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

My whole point is bringing back logic.

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

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

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

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

Kevin R. Henke

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

Hans-Georg Lundahl

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

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

Not made up.

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

Kevin R. Henke

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

Hans-Georg Lundahl

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

Too bad for you.

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

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

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

@Kevin R. Henke Plus, you misdefine legend.

Kevin R. Henke

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

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

Hans-Georg Lundahl

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

I'm in the field.

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

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

Kevin R. Henke

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

Hans-Georg Lundahl

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

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

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

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

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

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

Kevin R. Henke

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

Now the answers to your questions:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hans-Georg Lundahl

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Newspaper reports from 1815 are opinions of ancient people.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Who's shown you the battle of Waterloo?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Kevin R. Henke

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

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

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

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

Hans-Georg Lundahl

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yes, so was the snake.

"They were dinosaurs and not unicorns."

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Any claims must be supported by contemporary records"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"What's the evidence for them?"

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you very much, I will.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Kevin R. Henke

I've debated Guy Berthault in writing about 20 years ago. He's a brillant lab sedimentologist, but he doesn't understand Steno's Laws or field geology. Besides a density issue, how would these flow movements create continuous and nearly flat layers over 113 km?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Kevin R. Henke The flume experiments of Berthault with hydrostatic sorting, not when water is calming down, but when it is hypersaturated, do create very thin layers, I saw the video.

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

But either way, they would be thin because of the hydrostatic sorting, and big like that because the Flood produced very big flumes.

Kevin R. Henke

@Hans-Georg Lundahl It's a straight distance of 113km. See my video at

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

Again, these are chemical precipitates. Berthault's sorting mechanism is a physical process and does not apply to the Castile and Green River formations. Berthault's sorting mechanism cannot explain all laminae.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Kevin R. Henke I'll have to ask him to do an experiment.

Kevin R. Henke

@Hans-Georg Lundahl Sounds good. I don't know if he's retired or not.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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