A Comment of Mine Sparked a Debate

I May Feel Like Exonerating Mike Gendron, But I Won't Admire Him · A Comment of Mine Sparked a Debate · Which Went On ... and Was Censored? · Continuing · Carolina Jackson Continued · Antecedent Will, Clarity of St. Paul, Access to Apostolic Tradition

[Under a video by Heschmeyer, see the post for that one]

53:41 "this is what was always believed"

Unlike a literary framwork theory for Genesis 1's creation days, invented in 1920.

Karl Keating, the founder of your private ministry (if you like to call it that) took on very unequal battles when confronted with Fundies in the days when he was not yet the Founder, but rather the Pioneer of Catholic Answers. He defended the Eucharist, the Sacrifice of the Mass, totally correctly. He defended Theistic Evolution, as if that were more traditional than literal acceptance of Genesis 1 through 11, when on that point the Fundies of San Diego were more Catholic than he.

EmberBright

@EmberBright2077

It doesn't affect the faith if the ancient fathers weren't aware of later scientific knowledge and harmlessly interpreted Genesis literally without express instruction to do so. Its ok for them to be wrong on this.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@hglundahl

@EmberBright2077 That it contradicts the faith of the Fathers and you elevate "Science" to a status contradicting this, and trumping this, is only part of it.

Three challenges for your scenario, all of them theological:

• if you believe Adam was born, not made an adult, show how he's both the first man and this is not cruel to him, a cruelty prior to his sin;
• show him old enough to be father of all men alive today (and also to all aborigines alive in Cook's time)
• show him young enough to have dictated the Genesis 3 account and got it faithfully transmitted to Moses.

None of these challenges are directly about "this is not what Church Fathers believed on this matter" ...

You are also welcome to show where you get the principle you invoked from.

EmberBright

@hglundahl Adam can be the first man by definition of being the first in the image of God, possessing a rational soul. I don't know what you mean regarding cruelty so I can't really answer that.

Humans, and prehuman hominids have been around for a very long time. The existence of such as the Aborigines is a challenge for the young earth creationist, not for me. As you would have to explain how people descending from Noah ended up in Australia in a young earth framework.

If the tradition ultimately received by Moses is from God, we may well expect it to be supernaturally protected from error or loss.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@EmberBright2077 "the first man by definition of being the first in the image of God, possessing a rational soul."

If you state he had progenitors who were not in the image of God, who did not possess a rational soul, this means they could not speak. Adam would have been a feral child, or if God made a miracle, that would have severed him from his own, so, cruelty to "child Adam" ...

"As you would have to explain how people descending from Noah ended up in Australia in a young earth framework."

Post-Flood Ice Age involved a much narrower Sahul Sunda strait, and Noah knew what was needed for shipbuilding, no challenge whatsoever.

The Mungo man or Mungo woman, whichever be more correct, the carbon dates are c. 20 000 BP, which in my calibration means somewhere in Noah's remaining time after the Flood.

"The existence of such as the Aborigines is a challenge for the young earth creationist, not for me."

Their descent from Adam is, or otherwise Adam's reach by tradition over time to Moses.

"If the tradition ultimately received by Moses is from God, we may well expect it to be supernaturally protected from error or loss."

1) God does not only provide supernatural protection, but also natural means for preserving tradition intact, for instance with the later Apostolic tradition, there is the apprenticeship that's usual before someone is elevated to status of a bishop, and it's fairly long. In a Young Earth scenario, part of the natural protection would have been a fairly short list of purely oral intermediates, before Moses, or maybe Abraham before him, put it into writing.
2) In an Old Earth scenario, and given supernatural protection from error or less, why are the genealogies in Genesis 5 and 11 losing so much? So many generations, that is?

EmberBright

@hglundahl Even if we were forced to interpret it that way (even though the events of so long ago are so hard to really discern the details of), it would be no more cruel than any time God calls His chosen to be set apart. Abraham, the Disciples, etc. come to mind. It must be so cruel to be raised up to friendship with God and given dominion over nature.

\\ Post-Flood Ice Age involved a much narrower Sahul Sunda strait- \\

Do you have any evidence of this? I might mention the heat problem, where if you take all the geologic change our planet has experience - and the necessary heat output - and compress it down to 4000 years, or 1 year for the flood, then the planet should have become a ball of superheated plasma killing everything on Earth.

Not to mention that humanity, under a literal reading of Genesis, sticks together until the Tower of Babel. So we have to imagine a large group of people in incredibly primitive conditions sailing across the globe, and forgetting how to do that for the next 3600 years until the Europeans show up. Dating shows the Aborigines to have been in Australia for like 65,000 years.

\\ God does not only provide supernatural protection- \\

You are presupposing a Young Earth to show Young Earth is plausible. I don't think God's tradition will die out because of sheer time alone.

\\ In an Old Earth scenario- \\

The genealogies not including literally all people or generations is only a problem if you force a literal reading onto the text. If you allow for the generations to cut some names out, or focus on the names of patriarchs, etc, we don't have this problem. We might look to the genealogies of Jesus, where the writer is cutting out some names for theological purposes. It is no stretch to imagine Genesis is doing the same.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@EmberBright2077 "Even if we were forced to interpret it that way (even though the events of so long ago are so hard to really discern the details of),"

The question of time does not change the question of inherent consequences. If you are serious that the progenitors of Adam were not the image of God, then the cruelty of feral child or of child set apart from his surroundings is there.

On the other hand, if you say that the progenitors had human language, you are simply not serious about them not being images of God, you are making "image of God" an unverifiable "theological extra" on top of an atheist anthropology which would then apply to them, they would have been real men in the atheist world view you borrow from. But in that case, they would have been real men, real images of God, and Adam would not have been the first man.

If I can say "I ate ice cream yesterday" that shows I'm an image of God. I don't need to be speaking of our utmost end or our lofty origins to be that. No monkey can say either "I ate ice cream yesterday" nor any decent equivalent of it.

"it would be no more cruel than any time God calls His chosen to be set apart. Abraham, the Disciples, etc. come to mind."

You are forgetting all of these sacrifices are required of nearly always adults, and also all of that happens after Adam's fall, that is, when God has an ongoing grudge on humanity as it is.

"Do you have any evidence of this?"

Uniformitarians posit a narrower Sahul Sunda strait during the Ice Age. They also posit Australia was peopled through very much more rudimentary rafts.

"I might mention the heat problem, where if you take all the geologic change our planet has experience - and the necessary heat output"

I don't think that's the case, really.

For one thing, when tectonic plates glides over magma, the generated heat melts part of the plate to magma. The plate is thick enough to protect us from the normal heat of magma (volcanos are between plates, typically), and therefore also to protect us against this extra heat, trapped as hot magma.

"Not to mention that humanity, under a literal reading of Genesis, sticks together until the Tower of Babel."

Not necessarily. Not unless "they" in "And when they removed from the east," has "all men alive at the time" as equals "they" ... St. Thomas in Postilla in Libros Geneseos considers it referred to an international élite.

"So we have to imagine a large group of people in incredibly primitive conditions sailing across the globe,"

Mainly walking, I am very open to post-Flood Atlantis sinking only after peopling of Americas, and the Behrings' strait route would also have been iced or over water due to the Ice Age, again, after the Flood.

Sailing across Sahul Sunda would have been the most daring feat of sailing of the peopling of continents. Some sailing on rafts was later involved in peopling of for instance Easter Island.

"and forgetting how to do that for the next 3600 years until the Europeans show up."

In fact, for someone to sail, there is no need for all mankind to be doing that routinely. So, no need for all of mankind to forget what they need not have known. Then, those who did sail would often have wanted to avoid someone, and therefore have had no interest in sailing back even for visits, no interest in keeping sailing alive.

"Dating shows the Aborigines to have been in Australia for like 65,000 years."

No. Thermoluminiscence and carbon dates disagree about Mungo Man (as often referred to) and the carbon dates are with my calibration perfectly compatible with arrival in the 350 years after the Flood when Noah was still alive, before Babel. 2957 to 2607.

In my newest tables, it would have been between 2738 and 2712 that he or she died ...

2738 av. J.-Chr.

11,073 / 11,069 pcm, donc daté à 20 938 av. J.-Chr.

2712 av. J.-Chr.

17,576 pcm, donc daté à 17 062 av. J.-Chr.

"You are presupposing a Young Earth to show Young Earth is plausible."

Your analysis of logic sucks. You have shown no vicious circle, and you have misanalysed my ambition to show Young Earth necessary as only wanting to show it plausible.

"I don't think God's tradition will die out because of sheer time alone."

A purely oral tradition in times of upheaval, and according to modern analyses of the hunter-gatherer situation, prone to abortion and setting out infants, with languages changing and word meanings changing, over 40 000 years, or 65 000 years, or 750 000 years it would naturally speaking be doomed to be changed beyond recognition from the actual facts.

"The genealogies not including literally all people or generations is only a problem if you force a literal reading onto the text."

No, it's a normal fact about genealogies that they are supposed (exceptions excepted) to include all ancestors. When Kunta Kinte's descendant arrived in his land of origin, the griots told Alex Haley the generations (at least with tolerable approximation) since his sister or younger brother was left free in Africa.

"If you allow for the generations to cut some names out,"

If you cut out Second Cainan from Genesis 11, that's a difference of 128 years, not of 40 000. Note, you said "some" and I'm taking that at face value.

"or focus on the names of patriarchs,"

In fact, the genealogies are the opposite of focussing on a specific name. They are giving a panorama of names. A "patriarch" is simply an ancestor to the Hebrew people. It's not a special position among ancestors.

"where the writer is cutting out some names for theological purposes."

Only true of St. Matthew, he leaves the generations that would be considered unclean for some questions of ritual purity in relation to guilt (i e the three generations after Athaliah, and one more). That only cuts out 10 %, you are asking for a "genealogy" that cuts out more than 95 %.

"It is no stretch to imagine Genesis is doing the same."

You are in fact imagining Genesis doing a wildly different thing.

EmberBright

@hglundahl Regarding there being other humans around, potentially with speech. We know there were people in the wider world, that Cain references when he is banished by God. He fears that anyone who finds him will kill him, and when he leaves, he comes across a city (granted in the ancient world a city is probably extremely small, but you get the point). Young Earthers will suggest that these must be other children of Adam and Eve, but the text doesn't support that. Adam and Eve did not have children prior to being banished from the Garden, and if they did have potentially millions of children, or even hundreds or thousands, it is odd that they are not in the picture until Cain is banished, and that in response to Abel's death, Adam and Eve have another child.

Regarding the idea of pre-image-of-God humans being a thing. We already see plenty of animals, most especially our closest relatives in the great apes, display the kind of intelligence that would be troubling to Young Earther's, like empathy, tool use, understanding of fairness, etc., even primitive sign language. It is not hard to imagine very primitive humans being of a more advanced sort than this without being in possession of what we might call a rational soul. To simplify: a highly sophisticated animal will, without the rational will. And indeed the difference in the time of early man may well be hard to spot, but it does not mean it is not there.

I'm not borrowing from an "atheist worldview", I am simply considering actual science.

\\ You are forgetting all of these sacrifices are required of nearly always adults- \\

And? You are presupposing a particular interpretation of a pre-fallen world, where God cannot call someone to stand apart and be raised up. I do not yet see a reason I must accept this interpretation.

\\ Uniformitarians posit a narrower Sahul Sunda strait during the Ice Age.- \\

Which leaves the burden of proof on you to show that this happens 4000 years ago (especially since we have so much that dates so much further back), and somehow account for the heat problem. You also have to show that this narrowing you propose happened was narrow enough that these people could/even would cross.

Regarding the heat problem. The heat involved is 20x hotter than the sun. There simply isn't enough Earth to protect us as you claim.

\\ In fact, for someone to sail, there is no need for all mankind to be doing that routinely.- \\

Ok, so if you want to propose that sailing was a lost technology of the Aboriginal world, could you point to some kind of evidence that they had it? Archeology, etc.?

Regarding "Mungo Man". Ambiguity about one sample is not sufficient to prove an entire worldview. We have other samples. The fact that I googled "Mungo Man" and immediately got a bunch of results from Young Earth sites tells me this is a case that is not considered significant in normative science but that young earthers are trying to milk.

\\ A purely oral tradition in times of upheaval, and according to modern analyses of the hunter-gatherer situation- \\

All well and good, in a perfectly naturalistic situation. But just as God has protected the Jews when other cultures have risen and fallen, and just as He has preserved the Church through all the troubles it has encountered, it is not a stretch to imagine God protecting His inspired tradition from theological error, even while allowing false conceptions of the world to be assumed by writers.

\\ When Kunta Kinte's descendant arrived in his land of origin- \\

To quote Wikipedia: "Kunta Kinte is a fictional character in the 1976 novel Roots: The Saga of an American Family by American author Alex Haley". Why are you using a modern fictional example to back up your interpretation of traditions that eventually became Genesis?

\\ Only true of St. Matthew, he leaves the- \\

So the only time this was ever done in history was with St Matthew?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@EmberBright2077 "Regarding there being other humans around, potentially with speech."

If they had speech, they were the image of God and Adam was not the first man.

What you consider "other humans" and being there in Adam's time, I consider descendants of Adam.

"We know there were people in the wider world, that Cain references when he is banished by God. "

Genesis 5:4 "and he begat sons and daughters" ... when Seth was born 230 years after Adam's creation, as he had been created adult, that had already gone on for some time.

"but the text doesn't support that."

Oh, it does.

"Adam and Eve did not have children prior to being banished from the Garden,"

Indeed, but that first child after the banishing was Cain.

" if they did have potentially millions of children, or even hundreds or thousands,"

No need for that many. Just some tens of children and grandchildren and greatgrandchildren would have been needed to scare Cain at that moment.

"it is odd that they are not in the picture until Cain is banished, and that in response to Abel's death, Adam and Eve have another child."

Actually not, since the information fits best symmetrically with the info that patriarchs in the pre-Flood era were typically not the youngest children of the father.

"Seth also lived a hundred and five years, and begot Enos. 7 And Seth lived after he begot Enos, eight hundred and seven years, and begot sons and daughters. 8 And all the days of Seth were nine hundred and twelve years, and he died." "And Enos lived ninety years, and begot Cainan. 10 After whose birth he lived eight hundred and fifteen years, and begot sons and daughters. 11 And all the days of Enos were nine hundred and five years, and he died."

It would be cumbrous to mention other children twice in the formula, they are mentioned twice, this is applied to the story of Adam and Eve, even if told in more detail.

"We already see plenty of animals, most especially our closest relatives in the great apes, display the kind of intelligence that would be troubling to Young Earther's, like empathy, tool use, understanding of fairness, etc., even primitive sign language."

Your empathy with young earthers is faulty. We can see very clearly, they do not have language. They can not speak about concepts, they can not apply concepts to the past or future or negative or conditional (even if they could suggest a conditionality of exchange by pointing to the actual objects). This is precisely the kind of thing one would need to learn in order to acquire human speech. It's only in the image of God.

"I'm not borrowing from an "atheist worldview", I am simply considering actual science."

Pretending one can have human language simply as a highly sophisticated ape is, not science, but atheist world view masquerading as science.

"You are presupposing a particular interpretation of a pre-fallen world, where God cannot call someone to stand apart and be raised up. I do not yet see a reason I must accept this interpretation."

Because you have not thought through what a pre-fallen world is.

"Which leaves the burden of proof on you to show that this happens 4000 years ago (especially since we have so much that dates so much further back),"

You have a burden of proof that "it dates so much further back" = "happened so much earlier" ... Sahul Sunda strait is by uniformitarians considered to have been crossed by land bridges 50 000 years ago, but it would have been a low water level at last glacial maximum, 20 000 BP, and carbon date wise, that's as mentioned, a bit before 2700 BC.

The reason why "50 000 BP" can't be lower than "20 000 BP" is that Ice Age = lots of water trapped in ice, which is now in the oceans.

"and somehow account for the heat problem."

You forgot when it comes to plate movement, I already answered it.

"You also have to show that this narrowing you propose happened was narrow enough that these people could/even would cross."

Michael I. Bird, Scott A. Condie, Sue O’Connor, Damien O’Grady, Christian Reepmeyer, Sean Ulm, Mojca Zega, Frédérik Saltré & Corey J. A. Bradshaw are doing it for me.

"Early human settlement of Sahul was not an accident" is their paper. 17 June 2019, on Scientific Reports volume 9, Article number: 8220 (2019).

I just disagree on the timing.

"The heat involved is 20x hotter than the sun."

The Sun has a temperature, not just an amount of heat. Now, what you are saying is presumably that the amount of heat generated would if staying in one spot (not granted) equal a temperature 20* that of the Sun, but it is impossible that friction heat generated on tiny earth could supersede fusion heat generated in the sun, as to amount of heat.

You have also failed to provide a source for that consequence, I think the source is Soroka and Nelson, and Nelson is to most known as the Atheist youtuber AronRa.

"could you point to some kind of evidence that they had it? Archeology, etc.?"

A once used technology that's laid to rest is not likely to leave traces in archeology.

"Ambiguity about one sample is not sufficient to prove an entire worldview."

I don't think that was what I was doing at this point. I was defending it against a specific charge, namely one in which to the best of my knowledge the Thermoluminiscence of Mungo Man plays a major role. That TL date being the oldest, as I had gathered.

"and immediately got a bunch of results from Young Earth sites tells me this is a case that is not considered significant in normative science"

No, it doesn't. Here is "Lake Mungo 3" on the wiki article "Lake Mungo remains":

// In 1987, an electron spin resonance test conducted on bone fragments from LM3's skeleton established an estimate of his age at 31,000 years, plus or minus 7,000 years. In 1999 Thermoluminescence dating work was carried out on quartz from unburnt sediment associated with the LM3 burial site with the selective bleach results indicating a burial older than 24,600 ± 2,400 and younger than 43,300 ± 3,800 years ago.[19] Later Thorne et al. (1999), arrived at a new estimate of 62,000 ± 6,000 years. This estimate was determined by combining data from uranium-thorium dating, electron spin resonance dating and optically stimulated luminescence (OSL) dating of the remains and the immediately surrounding soil.[20] //

Young Earth sites are simply responding to the best evidence Uniformitarians have to offer. See also this assessment further up in the wiki:

// The remains designated Mungo man (LM3) were discovered in 1974, and are dated to around 40,000 years old, the Pleistocene epoch, and are the oldest Homo sapiens (human) remains found on the Australian continent. //

I was right about my memory. Young Earth sites, and specifically Tas Walker, are not digging up some weird, unknown anomalous case, they are going for the best respected case.

"We have other samples."

Which ones are dated by carbon to more than 20 000 BP?

"But just as God has protected the Jews when other cultures have risen and fallen, and just as He has preserved the Church through all the troubles it has encountered,"

Moses to Jesus, 1510 years up to birth. Jesus to us, from birth, 2024 years. Nothing like 40 000 years, and both cases using writing in societies that are more stable than a very long Upper Palaeolithic is supposed to have been.

"even while allowing false conceptions of the world to be assumed by writers."

What do you call "writers" in 40 000 or 90 000 BP?

" Why are you using a modern fictional example"

It would seem from griots over there, the example is not fictional. It could be the real Kunta Kinte recalled by the griots was actually The Fiddler, rather than the Kunta Kinte of the book, but as far as I can see, it's probable enough that Kunta Kinte is not fictional.

"So the only time this was ever done in history was with St Matthew?"

No, you mentioned "the Gospels" and the only other one was St. Luke, which, while following another line, is not known to contain any gaps.

Again, gaps omitting c. 10 % of a genealogy (4 / 46 = 8.6 %) is absolutely no parallel to what you suggest about the Genealogies of Genesis 5 and 11.

EmberBright

@hglundahl \\ If they had speech, they were the image of God and Adam was not the first man. \\

Why?

Regarding Cain. There is nothing in the text of Cain's story that indicates a rarity of people. He seems to expect people to be out there in the world, in the same way anyone else would. He doesn't say anything like "I have family out there who will kill me", or "my cousins will kill me if they find me". Nor does the text of him finding the city in Nod read as a family reunion, like we see in other narrative in the Bible. It is generally mentioned when a person in the text is meeting with family, but we don't see that here.

\\ Actually not, since the information fits best symmetrically with the info that patriarchs in the pre-Flood era were typically not the youngest children of the father.- \\

I don't know what you mean to say here, I am sorry.

Regarding intelligent traits we see in animals. It seems rather arbitrary. My point is that the overlap between a highly sophisticated animal will, such as humans apart from Adam, and an undeveloped rational will, such as Adam might have, is significant.

\\ Pretending one can have human language simply as a highly sophisticated ape is, not science, but atheist world view masquerading as science.- \\

You have the burden of proof to show some kind of conspiracy has happened here. If you can't or won't, you cannot dismiss conventional science as being mere "atheist worldview". Apes do have primitive communication. It is not at all difficult to imagine more sophisticated apes having more sophisticated communication.

\\ Because you have not thought through what a pre-fallen world is.- \\

Then please explain, and please substantiate.

\\ You have a burden of proof that "it dates so much further back" = "happened so much earlier"- \\

Perhaps you are claiming that dating methods are inaccurate. This is blatantly false, as we have many different dating methods that all corroborate each other, from tree rings, to carbon dating, radiometric, varves, rock layers, etc. These dating methods can even be corroborated by texts written by civilizations when such a crossover exists. Either they all agree with each other because they are correct, or because God wants them to look correct.

\\ You forgot when it comes to plate movement, I already answered it- \\

I have already explained how your answer fails.

\\ "Early human settlement of Sahul was not an accident" is their paper. \\

I'll give it a read, thanks for the tip. Of course, 20,000 years for this dating still precludes your interpretation of the Flood happening 4000 years ago.

\\ Now, what you are saying is presumably that the amount of heat generated- \\

What I'm saying, is that the entire geologic column, which exists across the whole planet, has a radioactive decay. This is the basis of radiometric dating. When this decay occurs, there is a release of heat. The dating of the Earth according to this method is 4.6 billion years. It's worth noting that we have tried to speed up this decay in laboratories to see if it's possible, and have been unable to. If you want to say it sped up anyway, and squeeze all of that radioactive decay into a period of 6000 years, 4000 years, or 1 year, depending on the young earther, you have all that heat occurring at once. This is not concentrated on a single point - this is happening everywhere. The heat involved is enough to melt the crust of the Earth many times over, the planet being a molten ball. The entire planet would be at 100,000 degrees Celsius, compared to the Sun's surface being 5000 degrees Celsius. This is before we factor in the heat of tectonic movement.

I'm getting this from Gondwana Research, but if you don't like the numbers, then you have to at least acknowledge the principle: 1) that radioactive decay happens, and releases heat. 2) this decay happens at an unchangeable, measurable rate. 3) The amount of decay, and by extension its heat release, has been measured to 4.6 billion years. 4) If we compress the time of the decay, we also compress the time of heat release. 5) This necessarily means the Earth was hotter corresponding to the amount you have compressed the timeframe. Conclusion: The Earth - even if you don't like the numbers - must have been ridiculously hot all over if we imagine the radiometric dating is wrong and the decay has happened in such a short amount of time.

The numbers I've heard go up to about 100,000 degrees, but let's lowball it to 1000 degrees. This completely destroys the ecosystem, and kills all life on Earth. Even if we lowball it to 100 degrees. This is not even touching on things like the Flood would have killed all plant life on Earth by burying it all in salt water for a year, etc.

\\ A once used technology that's laid to rest is not likely to leave traces in archeology. \\

Fair enough. But that still leaves the question, where are you getting this from?

I did another look at the Mungo Person example. Fair enough - as far as I can tell, it is the oldest human remains in Australia. That said, we have evidence of the people being there that dates back to 65,000 years, in the form of axes and art tools. While Google can find this very easy, if you want me to give you something specific, look up "Australia human history 'rewritten by rock find'" on the BBC website. But, even if we ignore all that, 40,000 years still precludes a 6000 year old Earth.

Regarding God's protection of His traditions. You are right that the amount of time is greater than from the time of Moses or the time of Christ. And to that I just have to ask: so?

\\ What do you call "writers" in 40 000 or 90 000 BP? \\

In this case I mean the Biblical authors. But more broadly this same principle applies to those passing on tradition prior to them.

\\ Again, gaps omitting c. 10 % of a genealogy (4 / 46 = 8.6 %) is absolutely no parallel to what you suggest about the Genealogies of Genesis 5 and 11. \\

This is a difference in degree, not a difference in kind.

@hglundahl Also, this whole conversation has gotten off topic. All I came in to say originally was that we are not bound to treat a common opinion of Church Fathers as dogma if said opinion is not from the Apostolic Deposit - something the Apostles didn't teach them.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Two parts. 1) "if said opinion is not from the Apostolic Deposit - something the Apostles didn't teach them."

As Young Earth Creationism is Biblical and pre-Christian (you find it in Josephus), it is also Apostolic.

"Why?"

Because no animals not created in the image of God have speech. No beast on earth could communicate "I had cherry yoghurt and coffee an hour ago" ... (even apart from "hour")

"My point is that the overlap between a highly sophisticated animal will, such as humans apart from Adam, and an undeveloped rational will, such as Adam might have, is significant."

You haven't shown that humans apart from Adam (and those descending from him) exist, not to mention they had "highly sophisticated animal wills" and also not that Adam had an "undeveloped" human will. It's also a question about reason. Apes can't use human language. There is no possible transition shown, so far.

"You have the burden of proof to show some kind of conspiracy has happened here."

First you show "conspiracy" is my only option for explaining "atheist world view masquerading as science" ... what about a culture steeped in atheism? What about main researchers being atheists?

Michael Tomasello could be an atheist? Steven Pinker could be an atheist? Since Freud, that's pretty common among psychologists; William Tecumseh Sherman Fitch III is cognitive scientist and evolutionary biologist.

Isn't it suspicious how actual linguists are absent from the field?

"If you can't or won't, you cannot dismiss conventional science as being mere "atheist worldview"."

First "ape communications developed into human language" is not "conventional science" it is a field where basically no progress has been made since 1970. It's not a field of conventional science, it's a postulate for evolutionists.

Second, why would conventional science be some kind of default? THAT in itself is part of the most common atheistic world view, since most atheists believe in some version of scientism.

Third, atheists have sponsored academia in the pretty influential US, back when academia was younger and more malleable, like the philanthropist Carnegie, and also in the Evolution influential Soviet union, though not by private philanthropy. In the perspective of the history of ideas, even without any conspiracies, one would expect academia today to be infiltrated by the atheistic world view.

"Apes do have primitive communication. It is not at all difficult to imagine more sophisticated apes having more sophisticated communication."

A more sophisticated ape communication does not develop into human language. No one has shown the transition is remotely possible. It's not like resewing trousers until they become a different model of trousers or rebuilding houses until they become a different model of house. It's more like rebuilding a house until it's a trouser or resewing a trouser until it's a house.

"There is nothing in the text of Cain's story that indicates a rarity of people."

Nor anything that totally excludes, but you were the one stating that there would have been a rarity of people without non-Adamites.

"Nor does the text of him finding the city in Nod read as a family reunion, like we see in other narrative in the Bible. It is generally mentioned when a person in the text is meeting with family, but we don't see that here."

He obviously is assembling people not from his own line after Adam too.

"I don't know what you mean to say here, I am sorry."

When exactly do you expect in a formula to find the mention of Adam and Eve having other children than Cain, Abel and Seth? It depends on when in the formula Seth had other children than Enos. And the place picked for that is after the relevant son.

"Then please explain, and please substantiate."

Here is Apocalypse 21:4, about Paradise Restored:

And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes: and death shall be no more, nor mourning, nor crying, nor sorrow shall be any more, for the former things are passed away.

This is basically what Adam already had, therefore anything involving at least human sadness or human death would have been absent from Adam's existence prior to the fall.

"You are right that the amount of time is greater than from the time of Moses or the time of Christ. And to that I just have to ask: so?"

You have little to no know-how on how tradition is naturally preserved?

"In this case I mean the Biblical authors. But more broadly this same principle applies to those passing on tradition prior to them."

Over 40 or 90 millennia, it can't apply except by continuous miracle, very different from how Luke knew the Gospel or Moses the story of Joseph.

"This is a difference in degree, not a difference in kind."

Some differences in degree constitute differences in kind. This one does.

[Seems part 2, with lots of technical stuff, got deleted]

EmberBright

@hglundahl Why should a common opinion of pre-Christian Jews determine what is in the deposit of faith? Those same Jews mostly believed in Unitarianism.

What is the evidence that "you have to interpret Genesis as scientific history" is part of the deposit of faith?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@EmberBright2077 "Why should a common opinion of pre-Christian Jews determine what is in the deposit of faith?"

There is a difference between a fairly common opinion, especially if contradicted by Jesus or the Apostles, and the sole opinion, especially if not the least contradicted and actually confirmed by Jesus and the Apostles.

For those that don't take II Maccabees as canonic and inspired, but only as historic, and who don't take Onesiphorus as already dead when St. Paul prays for him, and who take "saved but as through fire" in Corinthians as referring to something totally different from Purgatory, our best go-to for Purgatory and Prayers for the Dead is "a common opinion of pre-Christian Jews, not rejected by Christ" ...

"Those same Jews mostly believed in Unitarianism."

Not all. And Unitarianism is specifically rejected in the New Testament.

"What is the evidence that "you have to interpret Genesis as scientific history" is part of the deposit of faith?"

Scientific history is an oxymoron. History is more empiric than the sciences are, and the truth of history does not depend on scientific knowledge.

You don't reject a historic fact like "Odin came to the Uppsala region" just because it was transmitted by people known to have believed in a Flat Earth. You don't even reject it because they have the wrong theology and imagine this Odin to be a god or even the highest of the gods, which is nonsense. That's why Saxo and Snorre, Christian writers, didn't reject it.

So, what is it you are contrasting "scientific history" with?

As clues about the past, I will prefer unscientific history over "Science" ...

EmberBright

@hglundahl I would imagine all the Church Fathers believed the Earth was flat, or believed in the 4 humors, and other antiquated notions. They probably believed these things unanimously. This does not make those things dogma.

Otherwise, I don't think our discussion over your attitudes about science are going to get anywhere, so I don't have much of a mind to continue that.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@EmberBright2077 "I would imagine"

Any specific source, or just a common notion among Evolution believers?

"all the Church Fathers believed the Earth was flat,"

Some probably did, Lactantius did. He's not a saint, by the way.

Some didn't care, St. Basil comes to mind.

Some clearly believed the Earth was Round as a Globe, St. Augustine comes to mind.

"or believed in the 4 humors,"

Those most suspect of believing that are round earthers, since they were into Greek philosophy.

Did any CF actually express the 4 humours, and if so, was it about something in the Bible and do other CCFF agree in using the 4 humours? I don't think so.

"and other antiquated notions."

The notion "antiquated notion" should be defined ...

"They probably believed these things unanimously. This does not make those things dogma."

When they did believe and express things unanimously about certain things in the Bible, as per Trent and Vatican Councils, yes, that does make it dogma. In Providentissimus Deus, Leo XIII says that when saints or CCFF disagree between them, we need not follow all that's in one of them, but he never said in so many words this would also apply on things that all CCFF agree on. Young Earth Creationism and Geocentrism come to mind.

"Otherwise, I don't think our discussion over your attitudes about science"

Oh, the discussion is only about my attitudes about science?

Are you the sole interlocutor, or did I fail to make clear I was also making it a discussion about your attitdes about history, faith, paradise, pre-Christian Jews and now also CCFF? Did I really miss saying that? My bad if so!

"are going to get anywhere, so I don't have much of a mind to continue that."

You are free to respond or not to respond, your choice.

EmberBright

@hglundahl \\ When they did believe and express things unanimously about certain things in the Bible, as per Trent and Vatican Councils, yes, that does make it dogma. \\

So when the Church officially permits us to believe evolution, would you say the Church is teaching falsely? From the Catechism:

\\ The account of the fall in Genesis 3 uses figurative language, but affirms a primeval event, a deed that took place at the beginning of the history of man. Revelation gives us the certainty of faith that the whole of human history is marked by the original fault freely committed by our first parents” (CCC 390). \\

Prom St John Paul II, in his "MESSAGE TO THE PONTIFICAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES:
ON EVOLUTION" (I would recommend reading the whole thing of course:

\\ Taking into account the scientific research of the era, and also the proper requirements of theology, the encyclical Humani Generis treated the doctrine of "evolutionism" as a serious hypothesis, worthy of investigation and serious study, alongside the opposite hypothesis. Pius XII added two methodological conditions for this study: one could not adopt this opinion as if it were a certain and demonstrable doctrine, and one could not totally set aside the teaching Revelation on the relevant questions. He also set out the conditions on which this opinion would be compatible with the Christian faith—a point to which I shall return. Today, more than a half-century after the appearance of that encyclical, some new findings lead us toward the recognition of evolution as more than an hypothesis.*

In fact it is remarkable that this theory has had progressively greater influence on the spirit of researchers, following a series of discoveries in different scholarly disciplines. The convergence in the results of these independent studies—which was neither planned nor sought—constitutes in itself a significant argument in favor of the theory. \\

________________

\\ Oh, the discussion is only about my attitudes about science? \\

Yes. You are what I would categorize as a science-denier. When I mentioned flat earth, I was half-expecting you to tell me that you believed in flat earth. And I simply don't care to waste time on that kind of discussion right now.

\\ I was also making it a discussion about your attitdes about history, faith, paradise, pre-Christian Jews and now also CCFF?- \\

Please tell me what the problems are supposed to be. I have not denied any historical truths, nor matters of faith. I haven't made any statements about paradise, and all I have said about the Pre-Christian Jews and Church Fathers is that their opinions are not infallible, which should not be controversial.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@EmberBright2077 "So when the Church officially permits us to believe evolution, would you say the Church is teaching falsely?"

Where are official statements from the Church?

CCC is from the Vatican II Anti-Church. Wojtyla is one its antipopes.

"Yes. You are what I would categorize as a science-denier."

Funny you should even have that as a category. Shows you believe, not that scienceS are thingS but that Science is A thing.

"When I mentioned flat earth, I was half-expecting you to tell me that you believed in flat earth."

Shows your prejudice against Young Earth Creationists.

"And I simply don't care to waste time on that kind of discussion right now."

Don't. Start a real discussion, about what I really say.

"I have not denied any historical truths,"

That God created Heaven and Earth 5200 years BC?

That the Flood was universal?

That history is known by record, not science?

"nor matters of faith."

That the CCFF when unanimous in exposing the Bible are infallible?

"I haven't made any statements about paradise,"

You did state sth about Adam taken away from his own, and this kind of sacrifice being compatible with pre-sin conditions of Adam.

"their opinions are not infallible, which should not be controversial."

Their individual opinions, when divergent, no, but their shared opinions, when not divergent, yes, that is very controversial.

Carolina Jackson

@carolinajackson7621

@EmberBright2077 "And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good." (Genesis 1, 25).

U cannot create God's Word & evolution at the same time.

@EmberBright2077 Genesis is historical narrative, like most of the Bible is.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@carolinajackson7621 Thank you!

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@EmberBright2077 So, it seems I am getting reinforcements, perhaps you want some as well, if you won't discuss this with me? Otherwise, I am simply supplementing part II of my answer, some turns ago, which seems to have been lost somehow.

For all your lip service to "Science" (the idol of the atheists) you are not all that keen on it when you discuss it.

"Perhaps you are claiming that dating methods are inaccurate."

Some of them are not only inaccurate but totally off.

"This is blatantly false, as we have many different dating methods that all corroborate each other,"

Usually not, actually.

"from tree rings,"

Like the other lignine based clue to the past, written documents from the time we are looking at, it's usually more and more fragmentary, the further you go back. At a certain point, it may be too fragmentary to give a good clue about absolute chronology.

"to carbon dating,"

My speciality. I am doing a re-calibration using Biblical chronology.

"radiometric,"

Other than carbon? Pretty useless, actually.

"varves,"

The periodicity of which cannot be guaranteed, so, useless.

"rock layers, etc."

You have rock layers of fish over rock layers of trilobites. Tells us which creatures escaped the mud of the Flood easiest.

You do not have rock layers of extinct mammals over extinct dinosaurs or of either over extinct pelycosaurs.

"These dating methods can even be corroborated by texts written by civilizations when such a crossover exists. Either they all agree with each other because they are correct, or because God wants them to look correct."

Or, simply, they don't all agree.

If Egyptian and Sumerian records agree with carbon dates, putting Third Dynasty of Ur or Narmer prior to Abraham (i e prior to c. 2000 BC), that's perhaps because Satan was well aware of the rising carbon levels, knew (from God) how carbon 14 would be used in end times, and was able to adapt the lies of Pagans to those misleading dates.

"I have already explained how your answer fails."

No, you haven't.

"I'll give it a read, thanks for the tip. Of course, 20,000 years for this dating still precludes your interpretation of the Flood happening 4000 years ago."

20 000 BP for glacial maximum is in a large degree dependent on carbon dates, like where vegetation was in the ground, it wasn't covered with ice, and vegetation can be carbon dated.

This triggers the recalibration I make for carbon, so glacial maximum is roughly a bit before 2700 BC.

"What I'm saying, is that the entire geologic column, which exists across the whole planet, has a radioactive decay."

You are in that case very deluded about what amounts of it include radioactive samples.

"This is the basis of radiometric dating."

Which is not done for most parts of the geologic column, like if you get a radimetric time for Permian or its periods, it's based on some samples in much more Permian geology and palaeontology. And they chose the samples that accord with Triassic being younger and Carboniferous being older.

"When this decay occurs, there is a release of heat. The dating of the Earth according to this method is 4.6 billion years."

That age is based on one or two meteorites, supposedly both hitting earth and starting their decay right when Earth was supposedly formed billions of years ago.

Two meteorites have sth like the weight of shall we be generous and say 5 metric tonnes?

Earth is supposed to be 5.972168 × 10^24 kg or 5.972168 × 10^21 metric tonnes, that makes Earth a bit more than 10^21 times more massive than those two meteorites. How is that a heat problem, even if I had suggested a more rapid decay, which I haven't?

// the uranium series from 238U to 206Pb, with a half-life of 4.47 billion years //

So, my suggestion is, if lead-206 is present in roughly equal mass to uranium-238, it's because it started out that way, rather than there being no lead-206 and twice as much uranium-238. That means zero accelerated decay, and zero heat problem.

"It's worth noting that we have tried to speed up this decay in laboratories to see if it's possible, and have been unable to. If you want to say it sped up anyway, and squeeze all of that radioactive decay into a period of 6000 years, 4000 years, or 1 year, depending on the young earther, you have all that heat occurring at once. This is not concentrated on a single point - this is happening everywhere. The heat involved is enough to melt the crust of the Earth many times over, the planet being a molten ball. The entire planet would be at 100,000 degrees Celsius, compared to the Sun's surface being 5000 degrees Celsius. This is before we factor in the heat of tectonic movement."

Since I don't believe in speeding up decay or that being necessary for accounting for the 4.6 billion years supposed age for a few tonnes of meteorite, you are adressing a straw man. I only have to deal with the tectonic movement.

"I'm getting this from Gondwana Research, but if you don't like the numbers, then you have to at least acknowledge the principle: 1) that radioactive decay happens, and releases heat. 2) this decay happens at an unchangeable, measurable rate. 3) The amount of decay, and by extension its heat release, has been measured to 4.6 billion years. 4) If we compress the time of the decay, we also compress the time of heat release. 5) This necessarily means the Earth was hotter corresponding to the amount you have compressed the timeframe. Conclusion: The Earth - even if you don't like the numbers - must have been ridiculously hot all over if we imagine the radiometric dating is wrong and the decay has happened in such a short amount of time."

I don't think we have even one sample for "The amount of decay, and by extension its heat release, has been measured to 4.6 billion years." See my take on those few meteorites. Apart from that, you are vastly overdoing how much of the so-called geologic column involves radioactive samples. The most present radiometric method would be K-Ar, and that's only for lava. And lava that cools quickly (like under Flood water) will contain lots of argon that was never potassium.

"The numbers I've heard go up to about 100,000 degrees, but let's lowball it to 1000 degrees. This completely destroys the ecosystem, and kills all life on Earth. Even if we lowball it to 100 degrees."

We don't have to.

"This is not even touching on things like the Flood would have killed all plant life on Earth by burying it all in salt water for a year, etc."

Under floating vegetation mats, pockets of sweet water can be preserved.

This supposing the water of the Flood was heavily salty. If it wasn't, the problem doesn't exist.

"Fair enough. But that still leaves the question, where are you getting this from?"

1) Australia had people prior to Cook and van Diemen.
2) These come from Shem, Ham or Japheth according to Genesis 10:32.
3) If we look at when crossing would have been easy, c. 2700 BC (alias 20 000 BP, "last" Glacial Maximum) would be an option.
4) That was c. 250 years after the Flood, Noah was still alive, so was Shem and presumably Ham and Japheth, all of which had helped to construct the Ark.
5) So, the facts show the technology would have been available.

"Fair enough - as far as I can tell, it is the oldest human remains in Australia."

Thank you.

"That said, we have evidence of the people being there that dates back to 65,000 years, in the form of axes and art tools. While Google can find this very easy, if you want me to give you something specific, look up "Australia human history 'rewritten by rock find'" on the BBC website. But, even if we ignore all that, 40,000 years still precludes a 6000 year old Earth."

I did.

// Radiocarbon dating was used on charcoal samples but this has a limit of about 50,000 years.

To go beyond that, the team used the method of optically stimulated luminescence (OSL). //

Charcoals dated to 50 000 BP now could be from pre-Flood wood. Perhaps vegetation that didn't survive the Flood, but lay around when Noah's family arrived, perhaps pieces from the Ark, which was built in pre-Flood times.

OSL would be one of the dating methods I consider as "fudge factors" ...

EmberBright

@hglundahl \\ For all your lip service to "Science" (the idol of the atheists- \\

This right here is why I don't want to have this conversation with you.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@EmberBright2077 Well, get someone else then ...

You do show a devotion to Science boarding on religious devotion, and you do show a reluctance to be called out on scientific error that boards on how a Catholic feels about being called a Heretic.

Is Science your second religion?

But you don't need to answer, feel free to get someone else for the discussion.