AronRa on Abiogenesis

Evidence of Abiogenesis
AronRa | 26 Sept. 2024
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kUUTmZP1UDA

in fact it's a multi-stage 6:03 series of unrelated processes in 6:04 different chemical environments building 6:06 to cumulative 6:08 effect

So far, I have seen no reasonable series of chemical processes leading cumulatively to life.

I have also not seen any reasonable series of changes that would lead from ape communication to human language.

I can reasonably trace Spanish oso to Latin ursum. I can plausibly trace English father to presumed Proto-Indo-European *pχtehr in a similar way, which doesn't prove it happened, like *pχtehr was never documented. That's why it's spelled with an asterisk. χ is often spelled H2, and h H1, χ and h is inserting the sometimes presumed probable phonetic values for H2 and H1.

I cannot on any similar lines represent a transition from sound = word = message to sounds make up a word, words make up a message (in technical terms phoneme, morpheme, phrase).

There would be two logically possible inbetweens.

Sound = word, but words make up a message.
Sounds make up a word, but word = message.

The latter squarely remains within messages being strictly emotive or pragmatic as opposed to notional, and the former, by having too few words, doesn't allow for a transition to notional either.

So, what is your favourite series of unrelated processes leading from chemicals to life?

8:35 I'd second the idea that radiometric dating methods other than carbon are too unreliable to bolster your resumé.

12:31 to 13:17

Was the RNA in the experiment from Tokyo (2022) done to RNA-oligomers catalysed by Montmorillonite?

I don't think so.

The paper on Montmorillonite contains this paragraph:

A surprising observation was that montmorillonite also catalyses the formation of vesicles (a spherical body encapsulating water inside a wall composed of linear, 10-carbon carboxylic acids; Hanczyc et al. 2003). In addition, some montmorillonite were incorporated into some of the vesicles. This suggests the possibility that the small activated monomers could diffuse through the wall of the vesicle and react on montmorillonite to form larger RNA oligomers that cannot pass out through the wall of the vesicle. This experiment has not been accomplished at this time, because the conditions required for RNA oligomer formation result in the destruction of the vesicle (Monnard et al. 2002).

So, the paper that you showed the caption of is not a successful experiment in one of the stages leading up to life, nor just a collection of such, but also involves clear BLOCKS to it.

AronRa's Fans

answered me under this video:

Foundations of Feliforme Families
27th Oct. 2010 | AronRa
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pNrt90MJL08

which I answered in first comment below:

Hans-Georg Lundahl

05:07 "cave paintings tens of thousand years before the flood"

Creationism 101 for you: we do not consider them that old.

Egyptian panthers with a mane - a k a lions (which do not purr) - may with the leopard like creature from the cave painting (which presuably also did not purr, though the leopard cat exists) have a common ancestor aboard the ark (or one male and one female one, rather) from which variations in mane and coloration (spotted or not) have diversified up to the two art works. Egyptian and cave.

None of these animals made it onto Noah's ark for some reason.

Machaeradonts looked so close to panthers, he might have taken it for such?

OR, machaeradonts went extinct after Flood. Like most dinos.

Remember the dating problem ...

And, no, once again, I do not consider it likely that either dogs and bears or cats and panthers descend from tow sets of things looking like viverrids.

Any more than from each other.

I already challenged Dawkins to take a look at my compositions. They do not look similar because they descend from each other (very obviously, none of them either has descendants or descends from any except me) but because they have a common composer.

http://hglundahlsmusik.blogspot.com

The label "other composers that live now" as well as the label "music theory and history" are obviously outside the comparison, since no compositions of mine.

AlbertaGeek

"Creationism 101 for you: we do not consider them that old."

Reality 101: That's your problem.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Wow, instead of "Evolutionism 101" you go "Reality 101" ... how is that for prejudice and fanaticism?

AlbertaGeek

@Hans-Georg Lundahl I admit I am prejudiced in favor of reality. You're not, obviously, but as I said, that's your problem.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I am very prejudiced in favour of reality. It is evolution I am not prejudiced in favour of.

Bradley Willis

there are so many typos in your comment i can't even tell what you are saying.. If you are implying that evolution is a myth then i feel bad for what your family must be going through. If you are complimenting this video, and the hard work that goes into teaching this material, i agree. aronra is an excellent teacher.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Bradley, are you the kind of guy who takes "in favour of" as a typo for "in favor of"?

I am simply comparing British and US spelling as different degrees of traditionalism and favouring the more traditional one.

IF by any kind of chance you happen to find a real typo, tell me.

As to what my family is going through, depends on whether you mean creationist or evolutionist members of it.

Juan Joya Borja.

Sorry, but that cave painting definitely is 30,000 years old and predates Noah’s ark by a long shot. There’s no way to defend Noah’s ark with this.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Juan Joya Borja. 30 000 years old = 2.654 pmC left (in carbon 14 content).

If the samples did start out with 100 pmC, that does mean they are 30 000 years old.

If they started out with 2.654 pmC (which I don't think), they are less than ten years old.

But if they started out in c. 2935 BC with c. 3.9 pmC, the near halflife since then would have made 3.9 pmC sink to c. 2.654 pmC which means a carbon date of 30 000 years old.

Casey Cole and AronRa (Start of Video)

Answering a letter from a priest
1st of May 2021 | AronRa
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OjLZgX4W_pM

I

Ah, thanks for telling me that Breaking in the Habit = Fr Casey Cole.
Didn't know.

II

5:10 It is true that there is no Catholic dogma stating St. Eustace would have been saved even if remaining pagan.

But there is a very definite Catholic legend that Christ told him - from the cross between the antlers of a stag he had been hunting - that he had pleased Him, and this referring to his habit of almsgiving.

III

5:24 "all sins may be forgiven if you but believe"

Do you consider the Council of Trent was held by Sankey and Moodey?

It clearly says, while faith is necessary, it is not sufficient. It says you also need hope and charity and the latter virtue means living a life of love to God and to neighbour. Not only sins against the faith, nor those and those against hope, and in the case of charity, not just sins against charity to God can damn you. Charity against the neighbour is so important, if you don't have it, you lose grace. You are in for Hell.

That is why confession exists. You get a chance to repent. However, confession also means, a thief (if he can) needs to restore the stolen goods and if not at least tell those he stole from he's sorry. Unless he's risking death penalty, or something degrading to the faith, confession means usually he has to give himself in to authorities.

But even more, at least in theory, if you have been guilty of calumniating someone, in ways no court will judge you for, you still need to reverse your ways. E.g. if you have contributed to putting someone into mental hospital by lying about how he was acting when you met him, you'd have to own up, so he could get out, even if you got to gaol.

IV

5:33 Three Bible passages noted:

Matthew 12
[30] He that is not with me, is against me: and he that gathereth not with me, scattereth. [31] Therefore I say to you: Every sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven men, but the blasphemy of the Spirit shall not be forgiven. [32] And whosoever shall speak a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but he that shall speak against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, nor in the world to come.

[31] "The blasphemy of the Spirit": The sin here spoken of is that blasphemy, by which the Pharisees attributed the miracles of Christ, wrought by the Spirit of God, to Beelzebub the prince of devils. Now this kind of sin is usually accompanied with so much obstinacy, and such wilful opposing the Spirit of God, and the known truth, that men who are guilty of it, are seldom or never converted: and therefore are never forgiven, because they will not repent. Otherwise there is no sin, which God cannot or will not forgive to such as sincerely repent, and have recourse to the keys of the church.

[32] "Nor in the world to come": From these words St. Augustine (De Civ. Dei, lib. 21, c. 13) and St. Gregory (Dialog., 4, c. 39) gather, that some sins may be remitted in the world to come; and, consequently, that there is a purgatory or a middle place.

Mark 8
[28] Amen I say to you, that all sins shall be forgiven unto the sons of men, and the blasphemies wherewith they shall blaspheme: [29] But he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost, shall never have forgiveness, but shall be guilty of an everlasting sin. [30] Because they said: He hath an unclean spirit.

If someone levitates, you can claim he did so by an unclean spirit. If someone breaks bars of iron, you can also claim that. But if someone before your eyes makes people you know to be blind see, people you know to be lame walk, people afflicted with leprosy clean, and later on a man dead for four days live again, you are not entitled to say it's by an unclean spirit.

It's not a question of all and any disbelief.

The third passage is about something else:

Luke 12
[8] And I say to you, Whosoever shall confess me before men, him shall the Son of man also confess before the angels of God. [9] But he that shall deny me before men, shall be denied before the angels of God. [10] And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but to him that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven.

Denying Christ and speaking against Him are two different things. The people who deny Him are those who have already admitted Him, but who refuse to say so when the alternative is martyrdom. It specifically says, there is some kind of understanding for those who mistook Him for only just a man, if for instance they were not seeing His miracles. But there are also ways of being very hardened in disbelief - comparable to a Pharisee seing Him give eyesight to a blind. [and still refusing to believe]

[He seems to have deleted or youtube seems to have deleted reference to Italic quoted comments as being from Challoner. In DR revised by Challoner.]

V

7:30 "the entire history of the Catholic Church"

Is your historiography of that history indebted to Sankey and Moody?

Saranga Saikia came in under a video by AronRa (a long thread of 185 msg)

Saranga Saikia

@Hans-Georg Lundahl the Indian age of Kaliyuga and Krishna.... they're all mythology......not history....get your facts straight

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Saranga Saikia How much "mythology" can be history and how much can't? How do you tell the difference?

Saranga Saikia

@Hans-Georg Lundahl the historicity of Vasudeva Krishna in the Mathura region of Uttar Pradesh is to this extent- a local hero called Vasudeva elevated to a central status under the greater tradition or Cult of Vishnu in the greater Brahmamical pantheon under the aegis of Puranic Hinduism- a hero whose historicity can be at best pushed to the 1st- 2nd century BCE

@Hans-Georg Lundahl ok... so let's say that the idea of Kaliyuga actually has historical merit to it. But, the end of it's predecessor, the Dvapara yuga doesn't meet it's end by a flood. Nor does the beginning of the Kaliyuga represent the actual reset of the whole human race. It was just the end of the Kurukshetra war or more accurately, death of Krishna.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Saranga Saikia "Nor does the beginning of the Kaliyuga represent the actual reset of the whole human race."

I think Hinduism started among people who wanted to ignore there had recently been a flood. Nod nostalgics.

Saranga Saikia

@Hans-Georg Lundahl you think? What you think doesn't mean shit. And it's not Hindu, rather Vedic. The Puranas actually have references to a Flood, and a so called Manu building a huge Boat and Vishnu in his first incarnation as Matsya- a giant fish, saves him. But that happens in the Treta yuga, the age of the first Manu...or ancestral man. In the Puranic understanding of time...the age your Judeo- Christian tradition refers has no equivalence of any sort of population wiping. And don't say Brahmanism got it all wrong. Either all of this batshit is true or none is.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Saranga Saikia No, for a true religion, all of it is true, but for any false religion it is not true that "none of it is".

I don't have a habit of making a difference between Hindu and Vedic religions, though I see what you mean.

I am here talking of early post-Flood, perhaps not even post-Babel origins of both. And these obviously prior to both.

I think Rama was an early post-Flood and pre-Babel hero, and Nimrod would have been "Hanuman", and I think both this and the Flood were pre-posed to much earlier in order to leave a "continuity" between world wars of Nod East of Eden and the world of early post-Flood India - because the civilisation is in some ways built on nostalgia for Nod.

Later on specific wars and heros added an aura around the pre-Flood memories, like Kurukshetra and your view of "Krishna's" origin.

Saranga Saikia

@Hans-Georg Lundahl No, if we subject the myths to a chronological reading, as proposed by the Puranas, the Kurukshetra episode is placed after the events of the Ramayana.

And your claim of your religion being the one true and all of the rest being false just reeks of arrogance and haughtiness. FYI... though not saying they are in anyway true or hold scientific goodness, the Indian philosophical schools are characterised by far greater complexity of ideas and concepts about the Atman and Brahman and purush and prakriti, things that actually follow reason, than your Judeo-Christian traditions could ever grasp.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Saranga Saikia "No, if we subject the myths to a chronological reading, as proposed by the Puranas, the Kurukshetra episode is placed after the events of the Ramayana."

We would agree both Mahabharata, Ramayana and Puranas too were written way after events?

One of the things that oral tradition has a way of muddling up is, chronology. The Bible, even on purely human grounds, has a safeguard : from Genesis 2 to 11, the oral tradition later taken down by Moses and perhaps already by Abraham involved full genealogies from Adam to Flood, from Flood to Abraham (Genesis 5 and 11), and from Genesis 12 on, one can count on some kind of writing being used and also kept in the beduin tribe that would later resettle in Egypt.

Without such safeguards, one thing that can happen is chronological rearrangements. For instance, Germanic legend about the battle of Ravenna pits Ermaneric against Theoderic. When we go to written sources made by Romans (both Latin and Greek speaking, and including Romanised Germanics) we can however see that Ermaneric lived about a century before Theoderic.

The traditions about early kings in Denmark and Sweden come in two versions contradicting each other on the exact topic of chronology: both Saxo and Snorri agree Odin came to Sweden before Frothi Haddingson was king of Denmark. However, to Snorri, Frothi Haddingson was identic to Peace-Frothi, contemporary of Augustus, but to Saxo, they were Frothi I and Frothi II.

Whether one or the other manipulated or both took the tradition as heard from oral tradition bearers, chronology has been manipulated on at least one side.

When it comes to Snorri and Saxo, I think Peace-Frothi and Frothi Haddingson are one and the same, Saxo abusively divided him into two several centuries apart, and when it comes to chronology of Flood, Rama, death of Krishna, I think your tradition has abusively pre-posed Flood and Rama to before the death of Krishna.

"And your claim of your religion being the one true and all of the rest being false just reeks of arrogance and haughtiness."

I think I had already got that you are not a Christian, and I am well aware of that value being one of your errors ... thank you. But though I actually do claim that, and though I worded my expression accordingly, the gist of what I said is, a false religion or a religion not the true one will contain some error, but you cannot take any single statement from it and conclude it is erroneous just because of that.

"FYI... though not saying they are in anyway true or hold scientific goodness, the Indian philosophical schools are characterised by far greater complexity of ideas and concepts about the Atman and Brahman and purush and prakriti, things that actually follow reason, than your Judeo-Christian traditions could ever grasp."

For your information, I think St. Thomas Aquinas has both grasped that complexity and refuted it.

And as to your saying " though not saying they are in anyway true or hold scientific goodness," I think I respect Mahabharata and Ramayana more than you do. As sources for history.

Saranga Saikia

@Hans-Georg Lundahl there are a lot to say about everything that you blurted out. How most of what you said was garbage. But that's the whole point. It's garbage. The best I can achieve is losing my mental peace and balance. It's because you so blindly believe what you view is correct, so dogmatic has your upbringing been, it'll be easier proving that the earth is flat than showing somehow that something doesn't hold good chronologically, or asking you to take up an unbiased study of anything. The same thing holds true of all of these pastors that you flock to. They would scoff at anything that isn't their belief, ridicule the fact that anyone is having a world view that isn't centred on Israel. Well, I should have read the rest of your comments.

As for the treatment of Ramayana and Mahabharata, what you mean by valuing it more than is that you see it as a tool to confirm your history. You try to draw parallels between events in them and the Biblical narrative, to the extent that would increase the historicity of your story. Other than that, you don't care if anything else has any historicity, for all you care, it'll be better if they don't have any, something I can gauge from your comments, since in most of the cases, you argue that the other things are wrong. Anyway, you try to see the source as an actual, chronologically, correct, depiction of events. You see the depiction of a certain event, and you shout out, that is just as it happened (because it supports what you believe), and arbitrarily leave out or discredit other details. How I use it is corroborate it with other available evidence, archaeological and literary before ranking them on the basis of authenticity.We have sought, there have been multiple attempts to establish the historicity of the two stories in the time frame mentioned in the books themselves. We have failed miserably. The most blatant obstacle is, obviously, the Harappan civilisation. I can go into details about doubtfulness about authorship and other contradictions and missing plots and stuff. But that's not the main focus of our study. We try to see the events as being representative of the social, political, economic and cultural reality of the times, and by that I mean 5th century BCE- 5th century CE. In this exercise as well, corroboration with other and contesting sources, such as the Buddist texts and archaeological records is crucial for a balanced study and for yielding the best results. The didatic portions are very useful for the study of changing social norms and ideas about dhamma, complex relationships regarding authority as far as interpretation of law is concerned. There are different versions of the texts as well. Studying the variations helps us understand cultural contestations and contradictory socio- cultural norms. It is a beautiful exercise to use these two epics in understanding history of the early historic period of Indian history.

Thus, we can clearly see who respects the sources more and who is honest in their efforts.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Saranga Saikia I'm not commenting on some of your simple abuse. But you had some other things to say between a beginning and an end that were calculated to disparage me.

"It's because you so blindly believe what you view is correct,"

I believe my view is correct, so do you. Do you believe that blindly?

"so dogmatic has your upbringing been,"

Well, yes I was taught chemistry and round earth and how machines work ... lots of scientific dogmas ... you meant religious ones?

"it'll be easier proving that the earth is flat than showing somehow that something doesn't hold good chronologically,"

It so happens, I perfectly understand that if Puranas are correct, my chronology doesn't work, precisely as if the Bible is correct the one you attribute to Puranas as well as the one you hold as Evolutionist is not correct. I pointed out, before anything was written down in India you had some millennia even into the Kali Yuga - way after all of Flood and Rama, Krishna and his Kurukshetra war would have been finished.

"or asking you to take up an unbiased study of anything."

In history, one is usually not unbiassed.

"The same thing holds true of all of these pastors that you flock to."

Like, I haven't been to Church since 2012 ...

"They would scoff at anything that isn't their belief,"

Well, I didn't.

"ridicule the fact that anyone is having a world view that isn't centred on Israel."

I find it fairly respectable to have a world view at least somewhat centred on pre-Flood and early post-Flood world, as I take hinduism (with predecessors) to be.

"As for the treatment of Ramayana and Mahabharata, what you mean by valuing it more than is that you see it as a tool to confirm your history."

And in the process learning more of it. Josephus says Nimrod defended his brothers, one of whom was called Regma or Rama ... and Ramayana gives me context, I only weed out what is rooted in idolatry, like Rama being an incarnation (among several) of Vishnu or Sugriva or Hanuman being both gods and monkeys. The Protestant pastors you think of would, most of them, throw out all of Ramayana.

Genesis says the earth was full of violence or injustice - Duryodhana both abetting Yudhishthira to gamble and faking the game and when winning Draupadi humiliating her gives me one key of what that could be about (I get other keys from archaeology too), and some vague hints about nuclear bombs or pollutions gives me even more such.

"You try to draw parallels between events in them and the Biblical narrative, to the extent that would increase the historicity of your story."

I think I don't quite need to increase it, but a confirmation is not quite bad anyway.

"Other than that, you don't care if anything else has any historicity,"

On the contrary, the only things I clearly and definitely disagree about historicity with these is where they either contradict theology (Krishna being a god) or Biblical history (sequence of events, timeline).

"for all you care, it'll be better if they don't have any,"

Not the least. I actually went out of my way to mention that Odin came to Uppland region in Sweden ... while I think he was a man, not a god, the pagans before Christianity came to us counted him as the supreme god. I am very well comfortable with maximal historicity of non-Christian sources, within the proviso that they cannot be historically accurate where actually directly contradicting the Bible.

"since in most of the cases, you argue that the other things are wrong."

How about taking a look at in what aspects I thought them wrong?

"Anyway, you try to see the source as an actual, chronologically, correct, depiction of events."

Actual, yes, chronologically, no. Correct, mixed.

"You see the depiction of a certain event, and you shout out, that is just as it happened (because it supports what you believe), and arbitrarily leave out or discredit other details."

I discredit only what my faith cannot accept, and accept most of the rest.

"How I use it is corroborate it with other available evidence, archaeological and literary before ranking them on the basis of authenticity."

Archaeological evidence doesn't speak for itself. It is therefore weaker than narrative. Narrative evidence is obviously of various accuracy, varying between 50 and 100 %, most sources falling in between, and I am taking optimistic views of all sources, until I find evidence to the contrary of something, like my faith does require rejection of certain timelines or attributions of godhood.

"We have sought, there have been multiple attempts to establish the historicity of the two stories in the time frame mentioned in the books themselves. We have failed miserably."

Well, the problem is, you take carbon dates as literal truth. I don't. A pre-Flood event, like Mahabharata, would date before 40 000 BP in carbon dates. A post-Flood but pre-Babel event would date between 40 000 BP and 9600 BC. Harappan civilisation would have carbon dates younger than Göbekli Tepe, which I take to be Babel.

"I can go into details about doubtfulness about authorship and other contradictions and missing plots and stuff."

I don't believe Vyasa was a relative of Mahabharata characters and back then spoke or wrote anything like Indian languages. Before Babel, all spoke some type of Hebrew. I think Vyasa was put that far back in an attempt to both hide the Flood had happened after that and pretend that these Indians had a very reliable history of all details. You would arguably agree on anything of this except for Hebrew as pre-Flood language and Flood as post-Kali-Yuga-starting event.

"We try to see the events as being representative of the social, political, economic and cultural reality of the times, and by that I mean 5th century BCE- 5th century CE."

I believe you when you say that you see politics and culture of the 1000 years around the birth of Christ as mirrored in Mahabharata. How much of that was really totally new back these times? Obviously, if Homer attributes iron weapons to some, he is living in the Iron Age, while those he wrote of lived in the Bronze Age. Some contamination is to be expected from later conditions.

How much was a repetition of pre-Flood conditions? How much of these repeats would have been provoked by a somewhat detailed tradition of them surviving after the Flood through the descendants of Regma, son of Kush? I don't know. But I am optimistic it is fairly much.

"In this exercise as well, corroboration with other and contesting sources, such as the Buddist texts and archaeological records is crucial for a balanced study and for yielding the best results."

It seems we have different criteria on what makes a historic fact reliable. To me one good source, even if it is a partially bad source, is enough, as long as it isn't discredited by better sources. To you, confirmation by other sources is a must ... I can only say, with that criterium, there is lots of history which can't be treated as such. Did Caesar build a bridge over Lake Geneva when battling Orgetorix? Bellum Gallicum book I is the only text that says so, and the earliest manuscript is from Carolingian times.

"The didatic portions are very useful for the study of changing social norms and ideas about dhamma, complex relationships regarding authority as far as interpretation of law is concerned."

I would say the theology of any written work is the theology of its writer. That involves its moral theology. However, this need not mean the seeds for the Indian ethos were not sown in Nod east of Eden before the Flood.

"There are different versions of the texts as well. Studying the variations helps us understand cultural contestations and contradictory socio- cultural norms."

This is like asking what a Medieval text about Troy has to say about the Middle Ages. But recently someone found that a 15th C. text involved detail found archaeologically to be correct about Troy itself. Like 2500 years earlier, before Homer.

Saranga Saikia

@Hans-Georg Lundahl seems like anachronism is your mojo. If that's the kind of flawed methodology that you wanna pursue to reinforce your beliefs, be my guest. No one can teach a blind goat.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Saranga Saikia I'm leaving you the final word.

https://assortedretorts.blogspot.com/2021/04/saranga-saikia-came-in-under-video-by.html

AronRa and "Wil" Answered

Transitioning out of Catholicism
AronRa | 4.II.2020
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2RyY2Rkp4lQ

You know the rules, I hope. My words below are not a standalone essay, they are a time signature by time signature criticism of the positions of AronRa and "Wil" as expressed in the above video.

I

4:41 I think the actual words, whether of St. Augustin or of St. Jerome, were more like "told after the manner of a popular poet".

What this means is not "it's not literal", it means "it's not detailed in a philosophically accurate way".

Like, probably both of them believed, as did Aristotle and Ptolemy, that there were solid spheres from fix stars down to Moon, and they see the Bible speaking only of one Firmament. On their view, this is bc it was not intended as a text book in astronomy or philosophy. The one firmament meant each sphere and all of them together, as far as they were concerned.

They did not doubt the "firmament" was put in place on day two, either literally shortly before or metonymically same moment as Adam was created.

The distinction could be put better if you compared your own creation account big bang or evolution described in a scientific paper or a pop or rock song (there was one made for Tiktaalik, I think).

You would hardly say a song about Tiktaalik cannot literally be taken as Tiktaalik being ancestral to land animals including us, you would just say it's not expressed the same way a scientific paper would. At utmost, you would state that for "Tiktaalik or similar". You would definitely not take this as a metaphor for Tiktaalik created on day five and the next day all land animals were created, for instance.

II

6:32 Novus Ordo Catholics are basically "enforcing" evolution belief sufficiently to silence in actual fact a Catholic who is a Creationist.

But very correct, over the field as a whole, they cannot "enforce" it, since they would go against Vatican II, and against historic reliability of Genesis 3 account.

Creation vs. Evolution : Disagreed Mr. Greenblatt!
http://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2020/02/disagreed-mr-greenblatt.html

Creation vs. Evolution : Is Dei Verbum a Young Earth Creationist Document?
https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2019/10/is-dei-verbum-young-earth-creationist.html

Creation vs. Evolution : How do We Know the Events of Genesis 3?
https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2020/01/how-do-we-know-events-of-genesis-3.html

III

7:04 AronRa's example from the school reminds me of a more recent conflict.

You may have heard of Robert Sungenis (and myself) promoting Geocentrism.

One David Palm opposes him. When it comes to the Patristic part, he does his own show, or shares with Karl Keating, but when it comes to the astronomy part, he has leased out the argumentation to one Alec MacAndrew, an Atheist.

Interestingly enough, the site of David Palm used to be public, but is now restricted access.

However, here is a pdf by Alec:

“Here Comes the Sun” by Alec MacAndrew
https://www.geocentrismdebunked.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/Here-Comes-the-Sun-Alec-MacAndrew.pdf

And here is my answer to it:

New blog on the kid : Answering Alec MacAndrew
https://nov9blogg9.blogspot.com/2014/04/answering-alec-macandrew.html

As you can see, the site name in the pdf matches the one in David Palms post, now restricted access:

https://sites.google.com/site/geocentrismdebunked/the-unanimous-consent-of-the-fathers#PrinciplesOfFaithAndScience

No, wait, the site is still up, here I am accessing it:

https://www.geocentrismdebunked.org/

And here is the page I failed to access:

Welcome to GeocentrismDebunked.org : Geocentrism and the Unanimous Consent of the Fathers
https://www.geocentrismdebunked.org/geocentrism-and-the-unanimous-consent-of-the-fathers/

IV

8:31 I must say, I never had to look to AronRa to get a basic understanding of Evolution and how it is supposed to be proven.

Details in modern very recent updates, possibly yes (I was more into rise of mammals series by a female youtuber, forget her name, was years since I watched them).

V

14:28 Immaculate conception, defined by Pius IX in 1850's, 1854, I think.
Assumption Body and Soul into Heaven, by Pius XII in 1950, exactly.

VI

20:09 As Star both Trek and Wars and other Space Opera admittedly is fiction ... I have obviously in my day met the question why, when both Lord of the Rings and the Bible are books and both contain non-mundane stuff (not sure if any event in LotR, if real, would meet Catholic criteria of a miracle), I pretend to know one of them is fact and the other fiction.

Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : Bible and Fantasy (quora)
https://assortedretorts.blogspot.com/2020/02/bible-and-fantasy-quora.html

Not the first and not the last time I make this response, I think. (OK, it could theoretically be the last time if I die tonight, but ... I hope that's not the case).

VII

21:16 We actually have tradition about Gospel authorships too.

The one about St. John is ambiguous, insofar as there seem to be a very few but still Early Church Fathers who do not take the opinion of St. Irenaeus that St. John the Gospeller was the son of Zebedee, one of the 12, but not more ambiguous than tying the Gospel down to when a contemporary of Jesus earthly life was still alive. The traditional date is c. AD 100, after Apocalypse completed earlier on Patmos in AD 90.

And the tradition also states that the Synoptics were all written before St. John wrote his Gospel.

Furthermore, the way the words are chosen for Christ's enemies (not collectively called "Jews" in synoptics, but collectively called "Jews" in St. John, as narrator speaking, and again not so in Christ's words!) show there was a change in Jewish attitudes to Christians between, answered by a change in Christian attitudes about being identified as Jewish.

The idea of accepting modern scholarship for late Gospel dates, but using tradition as an alibi for transmission, is in fact not traditional.

VIII

21:24 A well organised tradition does not lend itself to a telephone game situation.

Take transmission of songs while people including fiddlers were usually analphabets.

Fiddler's Green is not likely to get garbled into Molly Malone (even if both deal with the afterlife).

Someone likely to insert Molly Malone lines into Fiddler's Green is not likely to have become an Irish Fiddler.

Can we give Catholic (or as some would say Orthodox) bishops at least as much credit as we give to Irish Fiddlers?

21:34 No, it's not an unfalsifiable hypothesis.

It's a fairly clear conclusion. Telephone game situations are not typical of tradition anywhere else, so they need to be proven, not assumed.

In cases where I see non-Christian traditions as garbled aout anything, I do not detect telephone game, I detect deliberate lying. Or at best honest mistake from the start.

Here I take fellow Creationist Georgia Purdom to task over crediting too much to telephone game situations:

Creation vs. Evolution : Babel, also to Georgia Purdom
https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2020/01/babel-also-to-georgia-purdom.html

As to Hercules, people who believed in Zeus and believed he was a lecher may honestly have concluded he was "son of Zeus" (and you bet I believe the tradition he lived before the Trojan War and his descendants took Sparta 80 years after the Trojan War!).

As to Puduhepa getting confused with the goddesses she worshipped as a priestess, Hittite equivalents to Venus and Amaterasu, as I stated here ...:

Φιλολoγικά/Philologica : Bill Nye on Japanese Tradition
https://filolohika.blogspot.com/2020/01/bill-nye-on-japanese-tradition.html

... while I think there would have been continuous genealogies from Puduhepa to Aeneas and Jimmu Tenno, they crossed lines of different religious traditions, which tended to garble the idea that she was only a priestess to the love goddess, only a priestess to the sun goddess.

That situation, more closely resembling telephone game than anything else I have seen, but not very close either, there is not sufficient time for in the case of Christianity.

IX

23:05 I definitely think people who would correspond to the psychological diagnosis "homosexual" can live Catholic lives.

I do NOT think people into the LGBT agenda can do so.

Living out one's Catholicism and living out one's homosexuality, for those who have both, is mutually exclusive. As Josh Weed correctly considered about the somewhat stricter Mormonism he was into as a teen, than to what he is now.

A certain Chaput was doing the correct thing in Philadelphia on this account:

New blog on the kid : Philadelphia!
https://nov9blogg9.blogspot.com/2017/01/philadelphia.html

The horrible news is, he is being replaced by James Martin.

X

24:26 I don't know if you know a French journalist called Christine Pedotti.

As she presents what happened, very radical trads and very radical progressives made agreements on verbal content which could be ambiguously interpreted as to its real content.

In Dei Verbum, which deals with the Bible, you do have a paragraph 3 that is clearly Young Earth Creationist, you also have a passage a bit later on which on some views (including that of the progressives) opens very wide a back door to reinterpreting all that, if one accepts "myth" is a genre. No, "myth" only becomes a genre to those who believe no more it is true history. Like philosophies ranging from Plato to Epicure for very different reasons reject the literal truth of Homeric theology (not necessarily historicity of Iliad along with it) and they came to diverse agreements on how one could nevertheless use "hoi mythoi" (the word means "the stories") of the poets. But there is no evidence Homer intended it that way.

So it would be very problematic to assign Genesis 1 - 11 to the genre "myth" and from there on deny it literal truth - because such a treatment presupposes a break in theological world view. One which cannot be traced between Moses and Early Christians, for instance. Or a complete naiveté on how philosophers and their followers projected their own views back on a Homer who didn't share them. Hence, the passage about genre doesn't open this back door that widely, but this is unfortunately very little known.

And of course we have Catholics rejecting Vatican II, of which the most logical position as far as I am concerned is having a Pope who also rejects it. Hence, Pope Michael is my Pope.

24:54 Note, when AronRa says "you have a Pope who goes against a lot of what previous infallible Popes" etc, he is spot on about "Pope Francis". He would not be spot on about considering "Pope Francis" my Pope, however.

Creation vs. Evolution : Two "Magic Wand" quotes
https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2020/01/two-magic-wand-quotes.html

25:16 "no, his infallible Eminence misspoke"

In fact, Popes can do that, but with Bergoglio it would be unreasonable to make that kind of assumption about his views on salvation for atheists or truth in evolution.

However, a little peeve : Eminence is not for Popes, it's for Cardinals. And Popes are called His Holiness in third person or Your Holiness in second person.

XI

30:30 Unforgivable, according to St. Thomas:

"Summa", II-II, Question 14. Blasphemy against the Holy Ghost
http://www.newadvent.org/summa/3014.htm

XII

34:11 How would he know the Mormons have a shorter story of sex abuse scandals?

He means those getting out? Possibly, since US has shown more favour to Mormons than to Catholics. And Mormons have been comparatively absent from France.

But I think the scandals start coming in the 1940's. Previous to that, there was a plan of defrocking any offending priest, but I think this is about when some totalitarian governments started to take too big an interest in defrocked priests, so the step became equivalent to handing priests over to secular justice in the hands of Catholic Church haters.

In the day of Émile Combes, a priest who was still a priest could normally not very well have been a sex abuser. At least not of a male.

How abusive the relation would be between a priest and a mistress is another question, but that was fairly well done away with back then.

XIII

35:15 AronRa should learn to distinguish between three types of Christian denominations.

Apostolic Continuity : Catholics, Orthodox, Copts, Armenians, Assyrians.
Restorationists : Mormons, JW, Restored Church of God.
Ecclesio-Imperfectionist or Branch Theory : the usual outcome of the Reformation.

Actually, one type of Baptists do make an Apostolic Continuith claim, the Ruckmanites. However, they do not seem to be very good at Medieval history.

35:18 In 1053 one can disagree on which side was wrong, but to both Catholics and Orthodox, clearly one side was wrong. Its stance was not willed by God anymore than a traffic accident killing people is so.

35:20 Unlike 1053, for 1520's, it is really easy to spot at a glance which side was new, and therefore wrong.

36:08 Now you mention it, one more type of restorationist : 7DA.

36:27 I'd think there is some difference between Jesus actually physically speaking to St. Peter and the other eleven and Joseph Smith claiming to be the one person whom God spoke to through a revelation. That latter guy seems a bit closer to Mohammed.

How I chose my Church. Not because it's me, but because as defending one can be chosen, I should be able to give an account of how.

• 1) Apostolic Continuity holds (as against Restorationism or Ecclesio-Fallibility) and it needs to be verifiable (as against Ruckmanites).
• 2) Exeunt Copts and Armenians as Monophysites and Assyrians as Nestorians, two diametrically opposed errors against Chalcedonian Orthodoxy.
• 3) Chosing between Catholic and Orthodox was kind of the tricky part. I have been on both sides (though not very exclusively on one of them while Orthodox), and with the Orthodox, I was ticked off by Modernism here and Anticatholicism there (you don't often find a corresponding degree of Anto-Orthodoxy in even very traddy Catholics!) or even both overlapping. Plus dishonesty in hagiography. I don't believe in the account usually given of "St. Peter the Aleut" and I don't believe in Theophan the Recluse' account on how St. Ephrem foiled Appollinaris, and I don't believe in how Paul Ballaster describes his conversion from Catholicism to Orthodoxy, specifically on account of how he describes the text of St. Robert Bellarmine in De Papatu (part of De Controversiis).

Φιλολoγικά/Philologica : Was Peter the Aleut a Martyr?
https://filolohika.blogspot.com/2012/09/was-peter-aleut-martyr.html

Φιλολoγικά/Philologica : Do Not Trust "Saint" Theophan the Recluse on Hagiography
https://filolohika.blogspot.com/2020/02/do-not-trust-saint-theophan-recluse-on.html

On Paul Ballaster:

deretour : Mystagogy posts certainly false allegation on St Robert Bellarmine
https://hglundahlsblog.blogspot.com/2009/10/mystagogy-posts-certainly-false.html

deretour : Pseudoquote identified. What De Romano Pontifice, book IV, chapter V really says (quote)
https://hglundahlsblog.blogspot.com/2009/10/pseudoquote-identified-what-de-romano.html

deretour : Further faults of fact in the Mystagogy post
https://hglundahlsblog.blogspot.com/2009/10/further-faults-of-fact-in-mystagogy.html

37:51 Centre positions over left and right deviations seems reasonable - if correctly applied.

My point against Monophysites and Nestorians as said.

To apply this about people living today is however to forget today's positions are very extreme in certain directions that are very marginal historically, like Atheism, like "anything goes-ism" about procreative and non-procreative sex, like Epicurean metaphysics and Stoic morality.

XIV

38:30 No, Catholicism does NOT claim being with the Church is enough to be forgiven.

38:47 Am preferring Catholicism over some real "totally binary" things I second hand experienced, not through my mother, but through some Non-Conformists (Freikirchen, Evangelicals, Holiness Churches) she was at times hanging around with.

First, Catholicism does state Catholics can go to Hell, over mortal sins against other commandments and virtues than the Faith, second, in order to avoid Hell, you can do like a minimum thing, keeping commandments, avoiding mortal sins, receiving sacraments other than Holy Orders, or you can do at least two more holy types of living.

In other words, just because there is a very holy Catholic who abstains from reading novels, it doesn't mean every Catholic is required to not read novels.

The amount of beer you can licitly take varies (apart from resources needed for your family, it is a mortal sin to deprive children of food so you can have beer, I think most beer loving gentlemen would agree) on your state.

Can you go for getting a bit tipsy? In the first category yes. If you are a monk, no.

St. Benedict even goes so far as to say "today it is difficult to persuade monks to totally abstain from wine" and hence he declares that a portion of a bit more than a pint is an acceptable daily ration (to be divided between lunch, supper and smaller sips as energy drinks, probably). In other words, he is encouraging the third and highest order of perfection (but not requiring it to do so) to abstain from wine.

I have seen "churches" that say "if you want wine, you don't have all your joy in God, and if you don't have all your joy in God, you are not accepting Him as your Lord" meaning they would consider one as "not saved" and "bound for Hell" over liking beer with one's meal.

THAT'S binary for you!

XV

39:46 What would "white nationalists" mean "historically" if I may ask?

I mean, Franco was certainly a nationalist, but I can't see how he made whiteness a very specific point in it, and Salazar even provided for some colonials of non-white colours gaining Portuguese citizenship. Sure they would need to be good at Portuguese and not be non-plussed over eating bacalhao or someone else at least reciting Camoes, but if these requirements were met, being racially very indigenous in Moçambique or Angola was not a problem. Or dito for the somewhat more light brown shade of Goa.

Some nationalisms were white by default, as in didn't have any non-European colonies. Long the case with all Germanies, for instance.

Hence, Dollfuß and Schuschnigg had no non-whites in Austria to be fair or unfair to.

XVI

40:59 Batman I had read long before becoming Catholic and even before becoming Christian.

On Harry Potter, I have taken a stricter stance, and I would presume even apart from magic in it being very like witchcraft (debateable) it is bad in other ways.

I begin for instance to suspect Ron, Hermione and Harry were having a fairly unsound "love triangle" ... part of the tragedy being, modern school systems make a lot of them hard to avoid in real life as well.

I interceded for Narnia and LotR with Pope Michael (whether necessarily or not) and it seems he is not banning Harry Potter either.

New blog on the kid : Could Da Vinci Code be read by Mature Catholics? And what about Potter?
https://nov9blogg9.blogspot.com/2020/01/could-da-vinci-code-be-read-by-mature.html

XVII

43:52 The one para-Christian denomination you forget to point at here is Western Atheism.

44:30 "Wil" - did you seriously call JP-II a good philosopher?

But, this is also a selling point another denomination, specifically the one you forget to mention as such, has in common with Catholicism.

I don't consider Russell good, but he can be passed off as that before an un-experienced Atheist who has learned to play language games and other games of excluding himself from information while young.

45:06 "psychology, sociology, anthropology"

Did you just call those things "fields"? I mean, Latin is a field, Greek is a field, Classic Antiquities comprising both is a field, and so is ASNaC. There really are hard facts and undisputable facts to learn in them.

Edward the Confessor was not grandfather of Horse and Hengist and Arthur was a Roman Brit, not an English or Angle, or Saxon or Jute. Anglo-Saxon, also known as Old English, has four cases in nouns and five in adjectives and certain pronouns. While Greek has five (not the same five) and Latin has the Greek cases, except some uses of Greek dative or genitive are instead served by Ablative, a sixth case.

That's facts. It's harder facts, better known, than "electrons circle around a nucleus".

The named so called fields are nearly as non-secure as us descending from Tiktaalik or Earth rotating around the Sun. In other words, factoids, that should be called out as such.

45:50 Relying on condoms is not an adequate solution to AIDS.

I don't relish Antipope Ratzinger on some other accounts, but as far as I have heard, he said nothing which is wrong.

More like you are racist (or serving racists without realising it) since you want Africans to use condoms and have fewer children.

46:17 The only book by AronRa I find on Amazon is Foundational Falsehoods of Creationism.

If that is what you said, one reason more to say automated subtitles show computers don't really do language understanding.

Amazon : Aron Ra
https://www.amazon.com/Aron-Ra/e/B01JM0AP8U%3Fref=dbs_a_mng_rwt_scns_share

Some of those, while they were videos and transscripts (a format probably still extant), I have refuted.

Here is number one of my series:

Creation vs. Evolution : A Man not at all prejudiced against God is criticising Creationism (not me, we'll get back to who it is)
http://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2012/02/man-not-at-all-prejudiced-against-god.html

46:58 Specifically, lots of Old Earthers are owned by the Fossil Fuel industry ...

XVIII

two guys were asking if I had "conversations with myself" with the many comments, so I had to answer them no:

under 46:58

that is, under XVII

Mallory Worlton

@Hans-Georg Lundahl What exactly is your object in emitting all this sputum?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Mallory Worlton Writing is not prone to accidental emission of saliva as talking is.

@Mallory Worlton But as to the question, my object is a time signature after time signature criticism of the positions expressed in the video.

Here it is as a finished piece:

Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : AronRa and "Wil" Answered
https://assortedretorts.blogspot.com/2020/02/aronra-and-wil-answered.html

under 37:51

that is under XIII

John Bull

Are you having a conversation with yourself or someone else?

@John Bull I am not having a conversation at all, I am having a detailed criticism at the video in the time signatures.

Btw, it is now finished and available on a blog post:

Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : AronRa and "Wil" Answered
https://assortedretorts.blogspot.com/2020/02/aronra-and-wil-answered.html

AronRa Tried to Answer 4 QQ by Rabbi Gottlieb

Rabbi Dovid Gottlieb's questions for "evolutionists"
AronRa | 23.VI.2016
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NhASh8IOQUs

I

1:11 Pretending that things are true that can't really be true?

Like mammals evolving from first mammal having more chromosomes than he, or than any intermediate reduced chromosome number ancestor, even?

Isn't that what you evolutionists pretend?

4:10 And AronRa rants on two more times about how people applying label "truth" differently than he does absolutely must have a different definition to it, can't be anything like just a different methodology in finding out what is in fact true ... somewhat tedious.

II

2:48 Evidence against evolution being possible and therefore against it being fact : chemical abiogenesis (I know, technically not part of evolution, precedes it, but is presupposed as true when obviously wrong by lots of if not all evolution believers), origin of language and mind, origin of any chromosome in any mammal which is more numerous than the ones in the first (placental) mammal.

Mammals don't do viable tetraploid offspring (I know the claim the Red Viscacha Rat originated from a tetraploid, it is per se a diploid organism and shows no too clear signs of originating by tetraploidy).

Chromosome splits as envisaged by what's his name, P. Z. Myers are either impossible or would take too many steps to be possible.

One caution : while arguing this one I have presumed that telomeres are inherited just like gene sequences between meres. If telemeres are added to chromatids after conception and during gestation, well, my argument falls on this one. If they only grow larger, but have to be there to do so, it doesn't. I have not been able to get a straight answer on evolution believers or other scientists on this question.

Lack of evidence for evolution : you cannot prove geological column so called represents widely separated time periods, or that radiometric datings beyond Biblical time scale or even beyond other historic time scales (smaller ones within it) accurately show the chronology as to both order and extent of age.

This I have done studies on, pretty indepth. There are nodes, some of the links link in turn to more then one other link:

Creation vs. Evolution : Oil Drillers See Several Sea Layers
https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2016/10/oil-drillers-see-several-sea-layers.html

Correspondence of Hans Georg Lundahl : Contacting Karoo about superposition of layers and fossils
http://correspondentia-ioannis-georgii.blogspot.com/2015/06/contacting-karoo-about-superposition-of.html

Creation vs. Evolution : Feynman approach to YEC concepts?
https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2017/07/feynman-approach-to-yec-concepts.html

New blog on the kid : Phil Provaznik / Dalrymple on Potassium-Argon and on Principle, more on Fission Track and Isochrons (a debunking of...)
http://nov9blogg9.blogspot.com/2014/01/phil-provaznikdalrymple-on-potassium.html

Creation vs. Evolution : Ultra Brief Summary on Carbon 14 Method
http://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2018/05/ultra-brief-summary-on-carbon-14-method.html

Homology while pointing to a common origin is not distinnguishing between common ancestor and common creator.

Other node, to my chromosome number related evidence against evolution, here:

Creation vs. Evolution : Letter to Nature on Karyotype Evolution in Mammals
https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2011/11/letter-to-nature-on-karyotype-evolution.html

III

4:51 "If you're an evolutionary scientist and can't prove evolution is true, you are going to lose your job anyway."

That means quite a lot of jobs depend on pretending P Z Myers and a few more were never debunked by me.

It's excruciating there are job labels like "evolutionary biologist".

But there are quite a lot of other jobs where the observation is true enough. Biologist? OK, Carter is not losing his job, nor is Georgia Purdom, but they have great supportive networks in CMI and AiG and also not just don't pretend to believe evolution, but actively defend not believing it.

How about someone who has not their assets? Someone who has no actively creationist either outlook or organisation to back him?

And even with that, Mark Armitage lost a job.

4:56 There are lots of people who can prove evolution is false but aren't rich or famous because they are silenced.

5:42 "it can't be college professors are too busy to engage in religious nonsense"

Nice excuse. That's part of how the pretense is done and how the ridiculing is done and how the silencing is done.

IV

Questions by the Rabbi

Q1 a)

"when we have evidence for sth happening, we don't need to know the probability for that happening"

OK, "we have evidence for an invisible man creating everything by magic, so we can neglect that is improbable"?

What Christian, Jew or Muslim would you accept this quip from?

You'd say "that's impossible" I presume. Impossible means zero probability, but the evidence is not zero. The evidence is exactly the same evidence as for your theory of it happening, namely the result.

This being so, your argument can in essence be reduced to "God or evolution, but we can exclude God, so evolution". His is "God or evolution, but couldn't we rather exclude evolution?"

I second that.

"Everything that happened today is highly improbable, especially if you tried to predict it yesterday"

Noted, Sun rising this morning is so improbable, we should thank God for it actually doing so.

But this contradicts your dictum on what constitutes explanation, since you claim explanation is only be precedent. Reality as a whole hasn't any, therefore reality as a whole is unexplained. And if you try to counter "indeed it is, but within reality as a whole, there are explanations" I'd say the level of explanations you give are at least very close on giving explanations for reality as a whole, and very far from just providing explanations from within known reality.

A boy was born with non-mosaical tetraploidy and died within a year. I provide an explanation for it within known reality from precedent, mammals (especially human and similar) do not survive non-mosaical tetraploidy, non-mosaical trisomy 1 or trisomy 3. Probably too divergent type of instruction, or too divergent genotype for mother's immune system to not attack, or both. I conclude that placental mammals cannot (except perhaps rodents) have augmented chromosome numbers by tetraploidy.

This has implications making evolution a less likely explanation than God for mammalian chromosome numbers. Less likely, since impossible is less likely than "at least remotely possible" (let alone extremely probable on other grounds, to use your somewhat sceptic language). Unless you can show me a good source for telomeres totally forming only after conception, independently of previous presence or absence of such, in which case P Z Myers' model would work.

"those likely to work in social sciences are more likely to believe than those working in natural sciences"

Are you counting in history, linguistics, texts studies, juridics?

Because what is more typically modern and more typically referred to as social sciences would rather tend to have less likelihood of belief in God than Natural sciences, as far as I had gathered. But that could be an old statistic since then reversed.

"they would be the ones to find those clues"

Even if people of a certain philosophy are systematically discouraged and even if the clues are mostly philosophical in nature?

Krauss, Carroll, was the third one Stanger ... are they only having in common being good physicists, or are they also having in common a certain philosophy called naturalism?

In Krauss, that one is very prominent (I have actually seen him on video), and even involves heavily caricatured perception of the Christian outlook.

"probability of life being caused deliberately by a designer"

I think the comparison was rather like:

• of chemicals producing life by accident (as in without conscious intention but with every piece of determinism inherent in chemistry)
  vs
  
• of God supposed as existing producing life on purpose.

We know chemic reactions exist, we know fairly much on how they behave - for instance that phospholipids aren't produced by Miller Urey conditions (not sure your Mathematician knew that part), and we can at least define God and define what the probabilities are in relation to that definition.

You are proposing a comparison which is lopsided:

• chemicals producing life by accident ignoring probabilities or even impossibilities "since we know it happened"
  vs
  
• God on purpose being what caused life (calculated from what we know of life, not from definition of God).

This comparison is not correct. It could be replaced by two more correct ones, each having one of the sides:

• chemicals producing life by accident ignoring probabilities or even impossibilities "since we know it happened"
  vs
  
• God producing life on purpose ignoring probabilities or even impossibilities "since we know it happened"

That was one, the other being:

• chemicals reacting without purpose being what caused life (calculated from what we know of life, not from what we know of chemicals).
  vs
  
• God on purpose being what caused life (calculated from what we know of life, not from definition of God).

And this one is less directly accessible than the one Dovid was giving and I reconstituted in more explicatation:

• of chemicals producing life by accident (as in without conscious intention but with every piece of determinism inherent in chemistry)
  vs
  
• of God supposed as existing according to Theistic definition producing life on purpose.

Btw, I never caught out when you transitioned from 1a to 1b.

Q 2

Developing fish like features on part of dolphin, ichthyosaur, mososaur and cretaceous crocodile "being required if they are going to"

X being required if Y is going to Z does not prove or explain or cause X.

If Y consciously wants to Z, and sees X being required to do that, he may try to achieve X (and he may fail or succeed). If God want's Y to Z and sees X as one possible or best way, God will provide X insofar as Y (if a freewilled creature) poses no obstacle to X and therefore to Z.

But evolution is supposed to work without conscience, unless you are a spiritualist like Wallace. Then you can of course argue that the lifeforce present in a croc was pushing it to mutate in ways to achieve fish like features and pushing it towards aquatic environments where they would profit from it. But on Atheistic evolution, you can't posit such a thing.

Now, to be clear, convergent evolution does not disprove evolution, supposing it otherwise possible, since while each node of separate phyla is a diverging evolution between these, leading to reproductive barrier, one side of one and other side of other definite speciation will, without eliminating the already existing reproductive barrier possibly converge.

However, while convergent evolution poses no physical impossibility for evolution happening (there may be other ones, like chromosome numbers or a timeline only 7000 years old), it poses a logical impossibility of proving common ancestry from common features. Sure, if the common features are sufficiently many, like between rabbit and hare, they will arguably prove common ancestry. Most YEC (at least involved in creation science movement) would by now consider hare and rabbit are same baramin, same created kind. I would add, since hare has two chromosomes more than rabbit, in Europe, the ancestral type had at least as many chromosomes as the hare, and there were two chromosome fusions first to the chromosome number found in one American species, then to the chromosome number found in European rabbits. Going the other way in chromosome numbers would not have worked. But if the common features are fewer, like fourfootedness being common to frogs and dogs, it no more proves common ancestry than shapes of ichthyosaurs and dolphins do so.

And unfortunately for your argument, frogs and dogs are both supposed to evolve from sth like Tiktaalik based on such arguments.

"forced to adapt to that environment or die out"

Key word : or die out.

Q3

Intelligent design and Young Earth Creationism differ in approach.

ID is mainly about "this cannot have happened without God" while YEC is mainly about earth and universe "cannot/need not be so old" and also about frogs and dogs not needing or admitting a common ancestor.

This means, any ID argument (on their main issue as defined) is very eagerly approved by YEC, but parts of YEC are beside the point to ID which is compatible with deep time (as in Hugh Ross) and even with Theistic Evolution (though for some reason outspoken some TE's tend to distance themselves from ID movement, see Ken Miller).

Saying ID is a masque for (Young Earth) Creationism is like saying Francis Collins' Theistic Evolution is a masque for your atheism.

Can you name one creation scientist, formerly self identified as such, who now calls himself intelligent design proponent, without also having changed at least some part of what he stood for?

"disproved in a court of law"

Which didn't look at scientific arguments, but at the "expert witness" of scientific expertise.

So, no ID has not been scientifically disproven, or at all disproven.

Ken Miller's extremely dishonest testimony (H/T to you for actually directing me to that case a few years ago), is not scientific disproof of ID. It is definitely no Catholic theological disproof for ID either.

Ken Miller is not a real Catholic, as illustrated here:

New blog on the kid : Responding to Miller, Staying with Father Murphy's God, part 1
http://nov9blogg9.blogspot.com/2014/02/responding-to-miller-staying-with.html

New blog on the kid : Staying with Father Murphy's God, part 2
http://nov9blogg9.blogspot.com/2014/02/staying-with-father-murphys-god-part-2.html

Correspondence of Hans Georg Lundahl : Staying with Father Murphy's God, part 3 - Correspondence with Ken Miller
http://correspondentia-ioannis-georgii.blogspot.com/2014/02/staying-with-father-murphys-god-part-3.html

Correspondence of Hans Georg Lundahl : Correspondence with Ken Miller (part 4 of Staying with Father Murphy's God)
http://correspondentia-ioannis-georgii.blogspot.com/2014/02/correspondence-with-ken-miller-part-4.html

Q 4

You are showing to a paper discussing gene duplication as added information.

I'd consider as "added information" the addition of a new cell type.

Creation vs. Evolution : Microbes to Man - Happening Before Our Eyes?
https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2019/03/microbes-to-man-happening-before-our.html

"The latter being the key mechanism"

Speculation, as far as I can see baseless.

"If yes, such genes might help understand what makes us human. Here we report the first experimentally verified case of a human-specific protein-coding gene, FLJ33706 (alternative gene symbol C20orf203), that originated de novo since the divergence of human and chimpanzee. FLJ33706 was formed by the insertion of repeat elements, especially Alu sequences, that contributed to the formation of the first coding exon and six standard splice junctions, followed by two human-specific substitutions that escaped stop codons."

PLOS Comutational Biology : A Human-Specific De Novo Protein-Coding Gene Associated with Human Brain Functions
Published: March 26, 2010, Qing-Rong Liu , Liping Wei et al.
https://journals.plos.org/ploscompbiol/article?id=10.1371/journal.pcbi.1000734

This is an article presuming man and chimpanzee actually diverged from a common ancestor.

The "fact" of new information is not given before our eyes, but presumed as historic explanation behind our existence.

14:53 This other one posits loss of DNA which hasn't yet been showed to exist in any ancestor.

V

After questions, about the professors:

"they feel no need to educate"

Supposing they feel no need for apologetics. Where you honourably differ from them.

... "when they have sincere students willing to pay for it"

Meaning, as long as your business is working out fine, you feel no very strong urge to argue.

Science as we know it exists because Catholic Scholastics of 12th and 13th had other priorities. To a Dominican, truth is more important than money. I am not a dominican, I don't feel a need to prove what they have already proven. But I am kind of doing it anyway, so far.

AronRa Mixed Archaeology and History (Including Legend)

AronRa Mixed Archaeology and History (Including Legend) · In Answer to Robert Nett · Nett & More (Verbal Violence Warning)

How Archaeology Disproves Noah's Flood
AronRa | 29.VI.2017
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=24WbQkRx2_8

I

being a dialogue:

Raptor302

The world was created at 9am? Um, okay sure. On a round planet, it's 9am somewhere.

Omitting

some.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Probably it was not 9am Sunday morning all was created, but that LIGHT was created.

Jerusalem time zone.

Precisely as it was 9am Jerusalem meridian that the Holy Ghost descended on the Apostles.

So, the 9am part (to be understood : Jerusalem meridian) is from Acts 2:15 (third hour approx 9 am, if the twelve day hours go from sunrise to sunset).

II

0:55 Ussher dated the landing of Noah's Ark as the 5th of May in 1491 BC?

I don't think so.

4004 BC
1656 years from Creation to Flood.
2348 BC

III

4:50 Chinese calendar's start. Before Ussher / Masoretic date of Flood, but after the Roman Martyrology, after Syncellus it would be closer to Babel.

4714 or 4654 is a year which started in 2017
2017 xx 2017
2697 or 2637 BC = start of their calendar.

Now, that would be a bit before Babel on Roman Martyrology's timeline,

RM would have that a bit before Noah died, before the date 2607 BC. Syncellus would have that in after dispersion of tongues, since placing it in 2724 BC.

So Chinese calendar, even if taken as literally correct, and all about China poses no problem for LXX chronology.

In fact, cultures may preserve chronologies having taken place in earlier cultures they are unaware of. Classical Greece preserved a chronology for Trojan War, but Trojan War took place just after Mycenean Greece was ravaged. Classical Greek culture is very different from Mycenean culture, and also presumably different from a situation of breakdown immediately as it had been from that culture.

So, nothing says the calendar if true really was about what we would identify as China.

But furthermore, calendars and chronologies conflict in length. For instance, both Snorre and Saxo would say that the son of Frey (stepson of Odin) who was drowned in a vat of mead was on that occasion invited by one Frode of Denmark. However, Snorre considers him as identic to the Frode who was Peace-Frode and as identic to Frode Haddingson, in the time of Augustus. While Saxo on the other hand, considers him as Frode Haddingson = Frode I, several centuries before Peace-Frode, Frode II, who was contemporary of Augustus.

This means, either Snorre has shortened the timeline of the Ynglings, or Saxo has prolonged the timeline of Denmark.

This in turn means, chronologies can get distorted. So, if Chinese calendar had been in real conflict with Biblical chronology, or for those who take Ussher's timeline (with which it is in conflict), the answer would be Chinese calendar shows an inflated chronology. For my part, I don't need that, provided that its earliest years were before the men in China talked Chinese, perhaps even before they arrived in China. Which is perfectly possible, a culture can preserve a sense of identity over geographic distance, and also at Babel, the several tribes probably preserved in various portions a sense of identity with either their lineage or the Babel imperium, whichever had been more important to them before the dispersion of tongues.

"5777" Hebrew calendar is in fact a shorter version of the Ussher timeline.

A Protestant or a Catholic would take issue with Jews for saying we are not yet even 6000 years after Creation.

5:26 In fact, the Jewish calendar as we know it is not begun when Adam started counting years, it is, precisely like Ussher or Syncellus a projection back in time over counting patriarchs and post-Exodus years and the main difference or one of them to Christian versions of Masoretic timeline is a shortened one so as to get Bar Kokhba in line with appropriate week from command to rebuild the temple instead of Jesus Christ.

This obviously means, you are taking anything literally, as long as you can fit it into a conflict with taking the Bible literally, and you even imagine wrong about how Jewish calendar came to be.

Check https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronology_of_the_Bible

And Yazidis' calendar could:

• refer to a Biblical event prior to Flood but posterior to Creation in a non-Masoretic chronology;
• be a date for creation intermediate between Masoretic and LXX chronology;
• or refer to some fictional event.

IV

5:45 "on their calendar Noah's Flood should have been in the year 2409"

Supposing you date Biblical Flood to 2340 BC.

Here are a few alternatives, giving also Roman Martyrology and Syncellus as to their BC year of the Flood:

6766
2017
4749

4749 / 4749 / 4749
2340 / 2957 / 3266
2409 / 1792 / 1483

So, in relation to either Roman Martyrology or Syncellus, the year of the Flood given in Yazidi calendar projected backwards would give a date inferior to the 2242 years that both of the LXX chronologies place between Creation and Flood.

5:57 Whether Yazidis counted from Creation or from an event before Flood but after Creation, they continued counting from before they were Yazidis.

Kali Yuga, on chronology of Roman Martyrology starts a bit before the Flood, which is one of my clues to Krishna's death and the Mahabharata war being in pre-Flood times.

On Syncellus' chronology, Kali Yuga would even start in post-Flood times.

Either way, the original character behind Krishna died well before there were Hindus worshipping him as an incarnation of Vishnu.

"During and after a great flood around 4000 BCE, the Yezidis dispersed to many countries in Africa and Asia, including India, Afghanistan, Armenia, and Morocco. Returning from their adoptive countries around 2000 BCE the Yezidis played an important role in the development of the Assyrian, Babylonian and Jewish civilizations of the Middle East."

http://www.yeziditruth.org/

This means, the Yazidis also believe there was a great Flood.

However, 4000 BC is about 1050 years earlier than Roman Martyrology and about 750 years earlier than Syncellus.

So, my guess is, Yazidi chronology involves an inflated estimate of the post-Flood era.

Note very well, it involves sth else than one man starting it and then people just counting years from then on.

You know how some sitemeters can be applied to your blog well after it started, but the total count can still not omit the previous page views, since you program it to involve another counting start than 0? Well, if I were doing it, I would honestly start with the "all times" count given as an automatic stat, but the parallel in years would depend on their skills as to historic chronology - and on their honesty (as I could also give an inflated number to start from if I wanted).

I don't know why you are even including Chinese and Yazidi calendars in a video about archaeology, these things are about chronology as a historic discipline.

Is it that "history" sounds too much like "story" and "archaeology" sounds more like "science" to you?

V

6:26 2340 BC - beginning of Egypt's VI Dynasty.

According to a conventional chronology of Egypt which is inflated, and where carbon dates help the inflation, since carbon levels were lower then.

In my match between Roman Martyrology and carbon dates, according to my latest table, the year 2340 BC would have been 20 years after the death of Shelah in 2360 BC, and the surrounding "landmark subdivisions" for carbon levels mark that 2366 BC had a probable carbon level of 60.241 pmc, and would have a predicted carbon date of 6566 BC, while 2327 BC had a somewhat higher carbon level of 62.622 pmc, and would have been carbon dated as 6177 BC - way earlier than 1st Dynasty.

Just in case you think I might want a chat with Egyptologists on this one, I already had one. Or an attempted one.

Carbon Dated Egyptology? Coffin Club didn't want to tell How Much!
http://hglsfbwritings.blogspot.com/2017/07/carbon-dated-egyptology-coffin-club.html

Coffin Club as Mute as a Grave on my Question
http://hglsfbwritings.blogspot.com/2017/07/coffin-club-as-mute-as-grave-on-my.html

Third time over?
http://hglsfbwritings.blogspot.com/2017/07/third-time-over.html

And I even had a somewhat rougher non-communication with Melissa McIntosh over her remarks in third turn. Here:

Debating Manners and Priorities with a Psychology Minded Person
http://correspondentia-ioannis-georgii.blogspot.com/2018/07/debating-manners-and-priorities-with.html

In other words, Egyptologist have lots of collective ego and little facts on carbon dating to offer - at least a Creationist.

This obviously means, VIth dynasty was later.

6:46 I'd rather consider that the first dynasty had not begun by the time Abraham was born, either Abraham in Genesis 13 interacted with Narmer or with an Egyptian ruler previous to the Falcon Tribe.

Your methodological problem is, you give archaeology as a story, rather than giving the actual digs and datings and circumstantial evidence that are the most scientific part of it.

By the way, carbon dated 2340 BC is after Joseph in around 1700 BC misdated as c 2600 BC, and carbon dated 2900 BC is after Genesis 14 where En-Geddi's Amorrhites carried out temple vessels in reed mats dated to 3500 BC, but the real date was 1935 BC or sth.

As you see, the pmC is increasing (from 85.811 pmc in 1935, if it's carbon dated to 3200 BC or less if it's carbon dated 3500 BC to 89.685 pmc and only 900 extra years in 1700 BC), the extra years are getting fewer.

This is a serious challenge related to archaeology, if they will take it.

Preliminary Conclusion, with Corrections
http://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2018/05/preliminary-conclusion-with-corrections.html

Refining table Flood to Abraham - and a doubt
http://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2018/05/refining-table-flood-to-abraham-and.html

VI

7:05 The Pagan gods worshipped in Sumer around 3000 BC (carbon dated) come from an idolatry introduced by Ninos and Semiramis in real time c. 2300 BC carbon dated to c. 6000 BC.

Ninos et Sémiramis [en français]
http://filolohika.blogspot.com/2019/01/ninos-et-semiramis.html

VII

7:37 "all in different languages"

Tying in with Babel.

Take date for Babel around 2600 BC, take carbon level around 45 pmc, and you get a carbon date around 9000 BC.

45 pmc (left now or at start of decay) = 6600 years age (real or apparent extra years).

6600 extra years
2600 BC real date
9200 BC carbon date

Now, from Göbekli Tepe (my archaeological candidate for Babel) you do not have texts in many different languages.

7:49 "They should be telling the same story"

Supposing no one had a motive to distort it. Polytheists had at least a religious motive to do so.

"in the same tongue"

Supposing that this was before Babel, when it was really after Babel.

8:18 Writing is from after Babel:

3300 BC (carbon dated) - in Abraham's lifetime, around Genesis 14.
2500 BC (carbon dated) - a bit after Joseph in Egypt and especially his Pharao Djoser (Egyptians recall him as Imhotep).

8:45 Australians and Polynesians show artistic connections to Göbekli Tepe.

This means, colonisation of "New World" happened at least in significant part after Babel.

However, before Sumerian preserved writings in cuneiform.

9:16 No, everyone should not have spoken Sumerian and read Cuneiform at Flood, these are post-Babel, and therefore everyone should also not have Sumerian and Cuneiform elsewhere.

However, if you had dated a written language other than Hebrew to before Göbekli Tepe, you would have had an actual case.

And you cannot pretend to know anything about a "pantheon" at Göbekli Tepe.

9:37 And Egyptian coherent texts in Hieroglyphic writing are from 2600 BC (carbon dated) or younger, and that means, they are from the times of Joseph in Egypt (real dates c. 1700 BC).

9:45 "that practise would have stopped abruptly in 2340 BC"

Supposing the Flood were then, supposing writing weren't in fact later than 2340 BC.

The time when Egypt was flooded precedes the time of Nabta Playa.

Nabta Playa, Hieraconopolis and Buto
https://filolohika.blogspot.com/2017/08/nabta-playa-hieraconopolis-and-buto.html

VIII

10:04 Here is how Haydock identified the 40 years of wasted Egypt:

"Ver. 11. Years, till the third of Cyrus, who gave liberty to all the captives at the beginning of his reign. v. 13. C. --- Amasis reigned forty-four years in Lower Egypt, (Herod. iii. 10.) over the few whom Nabuchodonosor spared."

HAYDOCK CATHOLIC BIBLE COMMENTARY ON THE OLD TESTAMENT : EZECHIEL 29
https://www.ecatholic2000.com/haydock/untitled-1035.shtml#navPoint_1036

IX

10:55 Sumerian Kings' List. CMI had an article on them:

The antediluvian patriarchs and the Sumerian King List
by Raúl Erlando López This article is from
Journal of Creation 12(3):347–357, December 1998
https://creation.com/the-antediluvian-patriarchs-and-the-sumerian-king-list

The article mentioned Sumerian Kings' List excluding both first man and Ziusudra.

X

13:50 The idea of Antediluvian Patriarch having counted months as "years" was already stated by some ancient swag and answered by St Augustine.

At least according to Masoretic chronology, at least Henoch would have been a bit too young to be a father when he is said to have been so.

XI

16:09 I think I actually gave a response to your archaeological moment in time, before I really got started on carbon rise tables.

Yes, here:

Dating History (with Some Help from AronRa)
https://filolohika.blogspot.com/2014/07/dating-history-with-some-help-from.html

XII

16:45 Göbekli Tepe, as I already mentioned, is misdated due to carbon 14 levels being in the 40's of the pmC level. And rising, so that early parts are misdated by about 7000 years and later parts by about 6000 years. That's 42.879 pmC for atmosphere in early GT (ignoring the delay inherent in dating charcoal from trees where wood has an average carbon age higher than when felled), and 48.393 pmC for very end of GT, same reservation.

As it is between Flood (at Neanderthal démise) and Abraham (at early dynastic Egypt or pre-dynastic Egypt), it fits Babel very well.

And carbon levels in the 40's should also come in a carbon rise starting at 1.4 pmC at Flood and reaching 82 pmC by Genesis 14.

Oh, this rise implies a faster carbon 14 production than now, and it is in vain that I was asking one Ilya Usoskin to do a check-up on correlation of speed of carbon production and radiation levels.

Other Check on Carbon Buildup
http://correspondentia-ioannis-georgii.blogspot.com/2017/11/other-check-on-carbon-buildup.html

AronRa Takes on Mythology

How Mythology Disproves Noahs Flood
AronRa | 14.VII.2017
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DrDTaHjg2IQ

I

10:12 Malevolent creatures?

Well, suppose the Flood did happen.

Suppose the dinosaurs we find were mostly pre-Flood.

After Flood some were in Americas, since carbon dated dinos from there are usually younger than the 40 000 years I base on Neanderthal démise, some Dimetrodontes went off to Germany, where later the last was killed by Sigurd or perhaps if Beowulf was later in Sweden, (though the winged part suggests either serious mix-up over dragon biology or Beowulf killed some other palaeo-critter).

Where the children of Madai and Elam went (ancestors of Medes and Persians), there were no post-Flood dragons. Therefore, one could rationalise Flood as getting rid of them all.

Partly true, dino population was at least severely reduced by Flood.

Thou by thy strength didst make the sea firm: thou didst crush the heads of the dragons in the waters.
[Psalms 73:13]

Fairly good match to YEC scenarios of Flood and especially considering the number of creatures found without heads.

"maybe this is another attempt to explain fossils"

Meaning they were on this item clearly agreeing with Morris and more recent Flood Geologists.

II

12:07 Firmament of some type certainly is a Biblical datum.

Flatness of Earth is not.

Believe me, I have gone through the passages, none states flatly that the earth is flat.

Note very well, if Chinese were separated from the Hebrews, which they were, they may have interpreted the firmament in incorrect ways, as an actual solid body.

Job 37:18 notably has a clear reticence to saying this straight out.

Thou perhaps hast made the heavens with him, which are most strong, as if they were of molten brass.

Most strong is true of some things that are not solid bodies.

And molten brass is denied, not affirmed.

Four corners passages are possible for continents on a globe. If Americas don't count, but only count as biggest offshore islands, you are going to SW corner, near enough, Karoo. Otherwise, SW corner is of course Tierra del Fuego.

I do not see that all mythologies postulated a flat earth.

Odinism does, when it portrays Earth as one level of platforms in the crown of Yggdrasil, but Odin presumably had read both Kemetist and Zuist texts, and while world tree with snake echoes Zuism, flat earth echoes Kemetism. Osiris is each night under the Earth - not on the other side of a globe.

Celtic myths instead have Land of the Young, euphemism for Land of the Dead, in the West. Also allows sungod to shine on dead after shining on living, but without implying flat earth. Presumably Celts had had contacts with Phoenicians. Who presumably had observed ships coming into harbour, or getting out, as well as observing harbours and their towers from ships. Land of the dead under earth didn't work so well any more.

III

12:56 Agreed.

I have defended Flat Earthers from being stupid, from being - on that account by itself - heretics but never from being on that account wrong.

IV

13:00 No, you do not know there is no firmament, you know there is no firmament that is a solid body, at least as far out as Voyager I and II have ventured, presumably to the stars as well. But that is not necessarily what firmament means.

You also do not know there is no water above the firmament, since we have clear indications of lots of water above. Spectrography reveals interplanetary space "in solar system" and interstellar space has two very abundant molecules.

H₂
H₂O

I venture that both would have been described by Moses as water, since describing H2 as air is more inaccurate and since the language of his day had no other word for it.

Also, "hydrogen" means "water parent" or "water origin", German Wasserstoff means "water material" or "water stuff" and Swedish "väte" nearly means "wetness" (derived from "våt"="wet").

Type into google translate English to Hebrew:

water
contains
hydrogen



You will note, Hebrew too has the word for "hydrogen" derived from "water."

While outer space is not full of water, it certainly contains such.

V

14:01 "at least 1400 years older"

No, I don't think so.

"Utnapishtim (or Unapishtim) means day of life, or day-life, while Ziugiddu means Life-day prolonged."

Fine meanings to rename a Noah whose name you forgot in Babel.

Atrahasis, I think I recall means "super wise" - the original homo sapiens who was sapiens enough to build an ark.

OK, the race type actually existed before him.

Your words on Noah remind me of Calvin's.

If you don't know the strength of wine in advance, you are not guilty of drunkenness by physically getting intoxicated.

And the curse on one grandchild was when he was sober, and an act of judgement.

Imagine if the early retellers after Babel (or even non-Hebrews in Babel) were obfuscating this, deliberately?

Nice episode to forget, isn't it?

15:07 Yeah, I get it - Chaldean version differs mainly in wrong theology. Lauding rebellion and secrecy.

"And written by the great grandfathers of the Biblical authors."

Assortion, here presented without evidence.

"Many centuries before the Canaanite god etc"

Again, no evidence here presented.

Yes, they are polytheistic.

If a Christian person's grandchildren go Shinto, Hindoo or Atheist, and retell a story from his life which in his version involved God Trine and One, are the grandchildren very likely to retell it in his statements, conflicting as they do with their theology or anti-theology?

At most the Atheist grandchild would (having some Western culture partially heir to Christendom) "this is how gramp thought it was, but of course there is no God". The others would more probably retell a story in Hindoo or Shinto terms they needed make no reservations against.

VI

17:39 Genesis is the first coherent world history.

It is possible that Moses had heard of Babylonian accounts written perhaps 100 years before him, but he would have known they were not leading back to Adam and also not leading up to the then recent times, at least not in a fashion which could make sense of things.

Nearly all non-Hebrew accounts lack reference to the Tower of Babel. You mentioned one account where people were dispersed under (as distinct from after) the Flood, but it only dealt with geographic dispersion, as if they were either ignorant of linguistic diversity or thought it was totally explained by the geographic one.

If you know anything about English both sides of Atlantic and two / three sides of Pacific, this is not so.

17:48 "the Jews did not worship Jesus"

Moses and Aaron did. King David called his upcoming "son" (descendant) his Lord (Psalm Dixit Dominus).

However, at one point one certain Cohen Gadol Kaiaphas rejected Jesus when He actually came and fulfilled the prophecies, so Jesus replaced him with Simon Kephas (I think Kaiaphas and Kephas are the same name, Hebrew vs Aramaic versions, like Peter and Pierre are English and French versions of its Greek translation).

17:55 "Islam emerged from Christianity which obviously emerged from Rabbinic Judaism"

If any Judaism, Second Temple Judaism.

Catholic Christianity and Rabbinic Judaism both have some historic claim of being direct heirs of it. A bit like Roman Catholics and Greek Orthodox both have some historic claim of being direct heirs to First Millennium Catholic / Orthodox Christianity. Or like Judaism (broader sense, including Christainity) and Samarianism both have some claim of being direct heirs of Moses' and Aaron's religion, of the Tabernacle before the Temple.

And whether early Judaism was inspired by Zoroastrianism or the reverse is not a secular scholarly question. It is a debate between faiths.*

VII

18:06 Hinduism oldest in continuous practise?

That's a bit like saying Second Temple Judaism is still ongoing. Latest public and sovereignly endorsed Hindoo sacrifice of a horse was either before Ashoka, or on Iceland, but I wouldn't call it pure Hinduism on Iceland, considering how much Odin took over from Kemetism and Zuism.

VIII

18:19 Again, you are presuming modern scholarship on this matter is purely evidence based with no religious or anti-religious axe to grind.

Not true.

It is possible though that Moses got hold of the book of Job from his father in law Jethro. So, yes, it is possible it is older, not than all Genesis materials, but than Genesis as a single book.

Job has 42 chapters and Genesis 50. The chapter divisions were not put there by Moses, but as a reference convenience by a Catholic bishop c. 1200. But they are roughly similar length, so Job and Genesis would roughly be same length.

This means, Moses can have been inspired (not theological sense, but artistic) to the one volume by seeing Job.

6th C. BC is about 1 millennium too late. Those scholars have an axe to grind.

450 BC is a bit more than a millennium too late.

"that are thousands of years older than Genesis"

On your wrong opinion on when Genesis was written, that is.

IX

19:39 No, the schools didn't close.

Akkadian and Sumerian continued to be taught as Classic languages up to 1st C AD and 1st C BC. If Odin lived in the time of Caesar, he would have been able to read both languages, if he had had and taken opportunities to learn them. It was not for him as our inability to get a good thorough instruction in Etruscan.

Aramaic was official administration language of 1st Persian Empire (Achamenids or sth), the one which took over after Nebuchandnezzar II's near immediate posterity lost power.

Did I mention, the Aramaic of Persia was written in ... Cuneiform?

19:53 "no one could understand written language any more"

That explanation is, while not fiction in entertainment sense, still totally fictitious. About as fictitous as Protestant continuity within Christianity, as portrayed by Foxe's Book of Martyrs.

1st C BC is too late to account for an account in Genesis.

Aramaic of Persian Empire was also written in Cuneiform. Cuneiform was not the only type of writing available. Ergo, what you portrayed has never happened any more than Albigensians were Covenanters.

More than a thousand years - after Nebuchandnezzar II failed to complete Marduk Ziggurat?

No, that would mean 5th C AD before there was a written Genesis with a Tower of Babel account.

You are severely wrong on this one.

X

And your quip on how oral tradition irresistibly distorts is an heir from Protestant prejudice against Catholicism.

While your timeline for when it was supposed to distort doesn't work, it is still deleterious for Genesis credibility, since at least early parts of Genesis (up to chapter 12 and probably excluding chapter 1 account added by Moses) were so transmitted.

Fr George Leo Haydock in his commentary to Genesis 3 wrote:

// 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. H. //

HAYDOCK CATHOLIC BIBLE COMMENTARY ON THE OLD TESTAMENT : GENESIS 3
https://www.ecatholic2000.com/haydock/untitled-05.shtml#navPoint_6

Here is my French reply to a similar quip a few years ago:

New blog on the kid : Fiabilité de la Tradition
https://nov9blogg9.blogspot.com/2014/03/fiabilite-de-la-tradition.html

ajs1031

and thus we are convinced, that no word of sacred writers can be questioned

Thanks for admitting up front that you don't care about facts. It makes you really easy to ignore.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@ajs1031 Not caring about facts and not doubting a particular source one finds fully credible are two different things.

I most definitely find, as a Catholic like Father Haydock the Genesis totally credible, with each of its parts in a Douay Rheims or Vulgate, apart from questions of scribal errors, like which version has the right chronology, where I side with (moderate) LXX reading.

* Note to any and all upcoming Swedish translators, no, I do not mean "trosfråga", I would say that as "question of faith" and what I wrote I would translate into Swedish as "trostvist".