No, Genesis 1—11 was NOT taken as Non-Literal History in Patristic Times

Reviewing the WORST CREATIONIST CONFERENCE: "The Politics of Six Day Creation"
Gutsick Gibbon | 11.XI.2024
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZSYx7L2Rc_A

3:00 "non-literal history" is simply NOT an earlier interpretation.

If you have that from Joel Duff, sorry, he's a liar.

He mentioned St. Augustine and I sent him exact quotes from City of God, and he has neither to my best knowledge recanted from the lie, nor answered in my mail in order to even moderately try to defend it.

NinjaMonkeyPrime

@NinjaMonkeyPrime

What was said and what's the evidence that it's a lie?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@hglundahl

@NinjaMonkeyPrime You could have clicked the time stamp, but I will copy the transscript for you:

in part to a return to earlier interpretations of Genesis 1-11 2:57 as being non-literal history

There is an interpretation of Genesis 1 (just that chapter), in which the creation days are not literal days, but that involves creation being done in one moment.
There is also an interpretation of Genesis 1 (also just that chapter) in which the creation days correspond to 6 millennia of world history (Jews may believe this too, like that the Resurrection and Judgement may happen in THEIRS Anno Mundi 6000).

There are also interpretations of other events (chapters 1 to 11) in which they correspond to other things in the New Testament.

There is no interpretation whatsoever that they are not overall literal history, back then.

She, like Joel Duff, are scientists involved in Evolutionary stuff. They are not very savvy on the history of ideas. And I am.

I can look up what Church Fathers actually say online, and I know what kind of books by them to look up and where I can find De Genesi ad Litteram Libri XII, which is not available for free online.

NinjaMonkeyPrime

@hglundahl You're going to have to make it more clear. You're admitting that there are several different interpretations, including non-literal. But then you claim it's a lie to say that every interpretation is calling a literal translation of history.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@NinjaMonkeyPrime Well, exactly NO interpretation is calling it non-literal translation of history.

The fact is, the Fathers believed in more than one interpretation applying to the same text and a maximising version of this is the Quadriga Cassiani.

It basically says, any given story should be true in FOUR senses, only one of them, the first, being literal, but the story is true in that litteral sense too, because it's true in all four senses. And this doesn't just apply for Genesis 1 to 11, it applies to at least all historic books of the Bible.

When Isaac carries fire-wood for his own immolation, this corresponds to Jesus carrying the Cross to Calvary (same location). However, this does not mean that Isaac didn't do that.

The Jews (or the more conservative ones of them) are perfectly right that Isaac did. They are just wrong in rejecting the further intepretation of correspondence with the Via Dolorosa (or if the actual road was maybe shorter).

So, presence of an interpretation other than literal history does NOT equal absence of literality in the historic immediate context. Is this a bit clearer?

Specifically, literality of genealogies in Genesis 5 and second part of ch. 11, I sent Joel Duff these resumés with links to two books of St. Augustine's City of God, available online for free:

Book 15 Having treated in the four preceding books of the origin of the two cities, the earthly and the heavenly, Augustine explains their growth and progress in the four books which follow; and, in order to do so, he explains the chief passages of the sacred history which bear upon this subject. In this fifteenth book he opens this part of his work by explaining the events recorded in Genesis from the time of Cain and Abel to the deluge.

Book 16 In the former part of this book, from the first to the twelfth chapter, the progress of the two cities, the earthly and the heavenly, from Noah to Abraham, is exhibited from Holy Scripture: In the latter part, the progress of the heavenly alone, from Abraham to the kings of Israel, is the subject.

NinjaMonkeyPrime

@hglundahl "Well, exactly NO interpretation is calling it non-literal translation of history" Is there a reason why you keep using a double negative? Is it to be LESS clear? There are zero interpretations that are non-literal?

"So, presence of an interpretation other than literal history does NOT equal absence of literality in the historic immediate context. Is this a bit clearer?" Actually that's even worse and I can't help but think you're doing this on purpose.

"presence of an interpretation other than literal history" Yes, there are interpretations that state it was not meant to be literal. That's the entire point being made.
"does NOT equal absence of literality in the historic immediate context" Sorry but this is gibberish.

It feels as if you're ignoring the context of what's being discussed in an attempt to strawman what is meant. The part around 3:00 is discussing the difference between literal and non-literal translations. These obviously exist and that's the point. If Ken Ham demands that a day must equal 24 hours and that "created" absolutely means created from nothing, then that is obviously literal. Meanwhile the Cosmic Temple analogy, by definition of analogy, is non-literal. A day doesn't necessarily mean a 24 hour day and "created" doesn't necessarily mean created out of thin air.

Non-literal translations of the history exist.

EvilGinger Miniatures

@evilgingerminiatures5820

I would re read the city of god in the original language if I where you.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@evilgingerminiatures5820 Translators are competent.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@NinjaMonkeyPrime "There are zero interpretations that are non-literal?"

No. I mean there are zero interpretations that say the history itself is non-literal, overall, apart from one little word in Genesis 1.

"The part around 3:00 is discussing the difference between literal and non-literal translations."

Interpretation and translation are not the same thing.

Translation is, like when "king" is translated to "król" in Polish, interpretation is, like when "king" is interpreted as "male life-time ruler".

She was not at all discussing translations, but she pretended the OLDER interpretation is "non-literal history". It simply isn't. Non-literal interpretations are NOT about the history in Genesis 1 to 11 itself, it's about what it points to.

It's not "non-literal history" because it's not history but prophecy.

The interpretation that's about the history itself is also not "non-literal history" because it is literal history.

"Yes, there are interpretations that state it was not meant to be literal."

No. There are not. Not for the Patristic era. Not OLDER ones. She is repeating a lie.

"Sorry but this is gibberish."

Your lack of reading comprehension doesn't equal any lack of correct expression on my part.

Saying Genesis 22 POINTS to the Crucifixion doesn't equate to saying Genesis 22 didn't literally happen.

"Meanwhile the Cosmic Temple analogy, by definition of analogy, is non-literal. A day doesn't necessarily mean a 24 hour day"

The Cosmic Temple analogy is non-literal only about Genesis 1, not about Genesis 1 to 11. It is ALSO not an attested ANCIENT interpretation.

Day, I already admitted, that particular word does have non-literal interpretations, but "one aspect of a single moment creation" is the one that exists in St. Augustine, books IV to VI of De Genesi ad Litteram Libri XII. "Longer period" is again a much more modern one. ONLY after Lyell.

NinjaMonkeyPrime

"Interpretation and translation are not the same thing" Really? Fine. The section at 3:00 is about the literal vs non-literal interpretations that are used by people like Ham and others.

"She was not at all discussing translations" Just to shove this right back at you, she's not even discussing translations. She used the term interpretation.

"but she pretended the OLDER interpretation is ""non-literal history". It simply isn't" No, she is repeating what scholars have said now and in the past. There were non-literal interpretations in the past as their are now.

"Non-literal interpretations are NOT about the history in Genesis 1 to 11 itself, it's about what it points to" You've already admitted that different interpretations DO exist. Is it literally a 24 hour day? Not to many. Does "created" mean literally created from nothing? Not to many. That makes it a non-literal translation of history.

"The Cosmic Temple analogy is non-literal only about Genesis 1, not about Genesis 1 to 11" Genesis 1 is part of the history of the universe, and a key part of what Ham is talking about, and what SHE was talking about. It's like you're not even paying attention. Does it say the universe was actually created by God, or that it was adopted with rules by God? The literal interpretation by Ham is a different history than the non-literal suggested by a Cosmic Temple.

"It is ALSO not an attested ANCIENT interpretation" What does that even mean? It's not what people used to think so it's not rubber stamped? Even the interpretation from Ham doesn't match the older ones. You're trying to claim none exists and then saying none exist per the definition you decide. It's like saying you don't recognize an interpretation so it doesn't count and thus doesn't exist.

"Your lack of reading comprehension doesn't equal any lack of correct expression on my part" Actually it does. Word salad isn't my job to fix. It's bad enough you can't figure out how to avoid a double negative but you're also just creating strawman arguments and random "rules" about what "counts" in your mind.

The section is about Genesis 1-11, which is about history, and how the Ham interpretation is literal based while most others are not. If you want to really have a good faith argument you should start by actually sticking to what was said.

• Genesis 1-11 does cover history.
• Non-literal interpretations of Genesis 1-11 do in fact exist.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@NinjaMonkeyPrime "There were non-literal interpretations in the past as their are now."

Goalposts. Motte and Bailey. She didn't just claim there were non-literal interpretations, her exact words are

"part to a return to earlier interpretations of Genesis 1-11 as being non-literal history "

What I have said is, earlier interpretations fall into TWO groups, and neither is "non-literal history".

The two groups, which are usually not exclusive of each other, are:

• literal history (Genesis 22 means Isaac carried firewood)
• non-literal prophecy (Isaac carrying firewood means Jesus carrying the Cross).

Genesis 1 to 11 is in this respect no different from the rest of Genesis or the rest of historical books of the OT.

The category "non-literal history" would be a THIRD group, which does not exist.

"most Christians today as well as nearly all biblical Scholars of ancient Hebrew interpret Genesis 1-[11] as being allegorical"

There clearly are Biblical scholars of Ancient Hebrew who personally as Christians or Jews interpret it like that, but they would normally not attribute that interpretation to the hagiographers, whether they identify them as Moses or push them closer to our times.

"Is it literally a 24 hour day? Not to many."

To MOST of the ANCIENT commentators.

"Does "created" mean literally created from nothing? Not to many."

To ALL of the ancient Christian commentators. Because we take these two as canon:

For we are born of nothing, and after this we shall be as if we had not been: for the breath in our nostrils is smoke: and speech a spark to move our heart
[Wisdom 2:2]

I beseech thee, my son, look upon heaven and earth, and all that is in them: and consider that God made them out of nothing, and mankind also
[2 Machabees 7:28]

This means, ALL of the ancient Christian commentators take created as created from nothing.

"Does it say the universe was actually created by God, or that it was adopted with rules by God? The literal interpretation by Ham is a different history than the non-literal suggested by a Cosmic Temple"

Which is not an ancient one, at least not among Christians. Remember the one thing I contradicted her on is the interpretations of "non-literal history" being ancient ones, in a Christian context.

"It's not what people used to think so it's not rubber stamped?"

Partly. Matthew 28:16—20 means an interpretation that the Catholic Church has had since 33 AD cannot be wrong.

But remember, what I contradict her on is that kind of interpretation being ANCIENT ones. She's taunting Ken Ham with being ignorant about the original interpretation among Christians, while she is the one who is so.

"Even the interpretation from Ham doesn't match the older ones."

They do.

"You're trying to claim none exists and then saying none exist per the definition you decide."

IF you claim "Cosmic Temple" from pre-existing material existed as an old Christian interpretation, it's YOUR claim, so YOU have to show what Church Father and in what book, chapter, paragraph.

I happen to regularly read up in them, and I haven't found one.

"It's like saying you don't recognize an interpretation so it doesn't count and thus doesn't exist."

Not really. I don't recognise the "Cosmic Temple from pre-existing material" interpretation, but I very much DO say it exists NOW as a MODERN interpretation. Gutsick Gibbon is a contemporary person, so, at least one person, probably many more are NOW interpreting it like that.

However, I do not admit it exists like an ANCIENT interpretation. Now, Gutsick Gibbon is not older than Ken Ham, and she's definitely not older than Fr. George Leo Haydock. She's definitely not as old as the Church Fathers. This being so, the fact that SHE says "older interpretation" doesn't make it older, if you want to pretend it is still so, you have to trace it to an ANCIENT source. St. Augustine definitely does NOT hold to "Cosmic Temple from pre-existing materials" ...

"Word salad isn't my job to fix"

Nor your competence to diagnose. It's not MY word salad, it's YOUR incompetent reading skill.

"you can't figure out how to avoid a double negative"

Double negative is not there in a faulty way, because one of the negatives is part of a term, a citation from her word choice.

To correct your summing up.

• Genesis 1-11 does PRIMARILY cover history.
• Non-literal interpretations of Genesis 1-11 about OTHER THINGS THAN HISTORY do exist BACK THEN.

And that doesn't fix her point.

NinjaMonkeyPrime

@hglundahl "But remember, what I contradict her on is that kind of interpretation being ANCIENT ones. She's taunting Ken Ham with being ignorant about the original interpretation among Christians, while she is the one who is so" So you have something from the transcript that defines ancient exactly? Because just going by Wiki it is painfully easy to find the concept most definitely pre-dates Ham and his nonsense by a large margin.

Other Jews and Christians have long regarded the creation account of Genesis as an allegory – even prior to the development of modern science and the scientific accounts (based on the scientific method) of cosmological, biological and human origins. Notable proponents of allegorical interpretation include the Christian theologian Origen, who wrote in the 2nd century that it was inconceivable to consider Genesis literal history, Augustine of Hippo, who in the 4th century, on theological grounds, argued that God created everything in the universe in the same instant, and not in six days as a plain reading of Genesis would require;[2][3] and the even earlier 1st-century Jewish scholar Philo of Alexandria, who wrote that it would be a mistake to think that creation happened in six days or in any determinate amount of time.[4]

Is first century not "ancient" enough for her to have a point against Ham? Especially since that also predates the development of modern science, which is also the entire reason why she brings this up?

But wait, something sounds different. What did she actually say again?

*as being non-literal history most Christians today as well as nearly all biblical Scholars of ancient Hebrew interpret Genesis 1-1 as being allegorical or potentially a cosmic Temple analogy in the allegorical interpretation these chapters are seen as true but they are seen as symbolic or*

She's not saying the ancient interpretations at all. She's saying the *biblical scholars of ancient Hebrew*. That's not talking about the old interpretations. It's talking about the interpretations of people who study ancient Hebrew.

"To correct your summing up. * Genesis 1-11 does PIRMARILY cover history" Finally got you to admit that at least.

"Non-literal interpretations of Genesis 1-11 about OTHER THINGS THAN HISTORY do exist BACK THEN" And yet you're still refusing to admit you're wrong.

"And that doesn't fix her point" Probably because you're not even close to what she actually said. She didn't say "an ancient interpretation", she said "scholars of ancient Hebrew". But depending on what you call "ancient", there are allegorical interpretations dating back a long time so it's even a moot point trying to suggest they don't exist. But more importantly is this bizarre hill you decided to die on that a non-literal interpretation about Genesis 1-11 isn't actually a non-literal interpretation of history.

Ham
Genesis tells us that God magically created the world from nothing and the number of days it took in our 24 hour version of days. This is the literal history of the universe.

Others (since the 1st century)
Genesis is an allegory for how God affected the natural world. It is not meant to be the literal history of the universe.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@NinjaMonkeyPrime "So you have something from the transcript that defines ancient exactly? Because just going by Wiki it is painfully easy to find the concept most definitely pre-dates Ham and his nonsense by a large margin."

Well, I'll give you a broader context.

ham believes the world was created more or less in its present state by a specific version of 2:10 the Christian God roughly 6,000 years ago and that there was a global flood Noah's flood roughly 4,400 years ago 2:18 which only eight people survived by boarding a wooden boat smaller than the Titanic with two of every kind of animal 2:24 and that this flood is responsible for the geologic column from the Cambrian to the Cretaceous as well as every geologic 2:31 signal found therein kenam pushes these ideas through his website and these 2:36 attractions but the real bread and butter appears to be his dominance in the homeschooling industry here in the 2:43 United States the reason for the dominance of evolution accepting Christians is due in part to advances in 2:50 science and the availability of information and in part to a return to earlier interpretations of Genesis 1-11 2:57 as being non-literal history

Let's underline this bit:

the reason for the dominance of evolution accepting Christians is due in part to advances in 2:50 science and the availability of information and in part to a return to earlier interpretations

So, we are NOT dealing with older than Ken Ham, that is already "domination of Evolution accepting Christians", but we are dealing with what they supposedly RETURN to.

That would mean "ancient".

Now, let's unpack her quote.

"Other Jews and Christians have long regarded the creation account of Genesis as an allegory"

What she is going to unpack is not allegory.

"Notable proponents of allegorical interpretation include the Christian theologian Origen, who wrote in the 2nd century that it was inconceivable to consider Genesis literal history,"

He was the odd man out. St. Augustine argues against him.

"Augustine of Hippo, who in the 4th century, on theological grounds, argued that God created everything in the universe in the same instant, and not in six days as a plain reading of Genesis would require;"

In St. Augustine taking issue with six literal days is the odd item out. However, that issue he does have from Origen.

"and the even earlier 1st-century Jewish scholar Philo of Alexandria, who wrote that it would be a mistake to think that creation happened in six days or in any determinate amount of time."

That only concerns Genesis 1, precisely as St. Augustine's non-literality of days.

These people are NOT an argument against Young Earth. Ken Ham doesn't share the idea of one-moment creation, but if he did, it would take away a talking point or two, and leave the rest intact.

"But wait, something sounds different. What did she actually say again?"

You are quoting a follow up, as after what I originally responded to, in response to you mentioning those.

"Probably because you're not even close to what she actually said. She didn't say "an ancient interpretation", she said "scholars of ancient Hebrew"."

You are confusing what I originally responded to, namely items prior to time stamp 3:00 with an added item, namely what I looked up as after that time stamp.

"Genesis is an allegory for how God affected the natural world. It is not meant to be the literal history of the universe."

No, that is NOT what the ancients (including Origin and St. Augustine and including Philo) said.

That's a very incorrect summing up of their position.

NONE of them use "allegory" as about "for how God affected the natural world". ALL who USE "allegory" make it for Jesus Christ ... as in Genesis 2, Eve created from the side of Adam sleeping is allegory for the Church born from the side of Jesus pierced on Calvary. That's how allegory works.

Origen who actually does say "allegory, not history" (at least tentatively) is in fact saying Noah is an allegory for Jesus Christ.

NONE of them is saying the history of the universe given is an allegory for some OTHER history of the universe.

I actually DID look these guys up.

NinjaMonkeyPrime

@hglundahl "So, we are NOT dealing with older than Ken Ham, that is already "domination of Evolution accepting Christians", but we are dealing with what they supposedly RETURN to" No. Her point is the non-literal interpretation isn't new to Ham. It existed long before.

"He was the odd man out. St. Augustine argues against him." But he existed and his idea existed. Your claim the idea didn't exist by just saying "nuh-uhh" to one of the examples.

"That only concerns Genesis 1, precisely as St. Augustine's non-literality of days" And yet it matches to what she's saying about non-literal interpretations from a time long ago. You're just still trying to ignore it because it shows you're not correct.

"These people are NOT an argument against Young Earth. Ken Ham doesn't share the idea of one-moment creation, but if he did, it would take away a talking point or two, and leave the rest intact" Why are you imagining things that weren't said? The argument is literal interpretations and did non-literal interpretations exist. You've decided to ignore two examples in history that show non-literal interpretations existed.

"You are quoting a follow up, as after what I originally responded to, in response to you mentioning those" A strawman doesn't become any less invalid with age. Her quote remains about people who work with "ancient Hebrew" not the "ancient interpretations".

"You are confusing what I originally responded to, namely items prior to time stamp 3:00 with an added item, namely what I looked up as after that time stamp" Again, timing doesn't change a strawman.

"No, that is NOT what the ancients (including Origin and St. Augustine and including Philo) said." Then you've decided to ignore evidence, along with ignore her exact words.

"NONE of them use "allegory" as about "for how God affected the natural world". ALL who USE "allegory" make it for Jesus Christ ... as in Genesis 2, Eve created from the side of Adam sleeping is allegory for the Church born from the side of Jesus pierced on Calvary. That's how allegory works" I'm starting to think you don't know what allegory means. At the very least, claiming the universe was created in an instant and not 6 days is most definitely not literal. This alone supports what she said about Ham. If you want to update the Wiki section on allegory then go right ahead.

In The Literal Interpretation of Genesis, Augustine argued that God had created everything in the universe simultaneously and not over a period of six days. He argued the six-day structure of creation presented in the Book of Genesis represents a logical framework, rather than the passage of time in a physical way – it would bear a spiritual, rather than physical, meaning, which is no less literal.

"NONE of them is saying the history of the universe given is an allegory for some OTHER history of the universe" They are promoting the idea of a non literal interpretation of the history in Genesis. Which matches what she said.

Is the literal interpretation from Genesis 6 days? Yes.

Did people long ago argue against the literal interpretation from Genesis of 6 days? Yes.

Did she say that non literal interpretations of Genesis exist long before Ham? Yes.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@NinjaMonkeyPrime "Her point is the non-literal interpretation"

She doesn't say simply "non-literal interpretation" but "interpretation as non-literal history" ....

"But he existed and his idea existed."

And his idea is NOT what modern Evolution accepting Christians are "returning" to.

"Your claim the idea didn't exist by just saying "nuh-uhh" to one of the examples."

His idea was not an idea of "non-literal history", his idea was one of non-literal prophecy.

"And yet it matches to what she's saying about non-literal interpretations from a time long ago."

It actually doesn't. There is a huge difference between non-literal acceptance of one term and non-literality of a whole passage.

"You're just still trying to ignore it because it shows you're not correct."

I'm not ignoring it. I spent hours to study it in great detail, in St. Augustine's own words. As he stated it, it doesn't argue against either me or Ken Ham.

YOU are relying on an oversimplified summary of oversimplified summaries and saying I'm wrong because I'm actually aware of the real story.

"The argument is literal interpretations and did non-literal interpretations exist."

I have NOT said "non-literal interpretations did not exist". I DID and I still DO say interpretations as "non-literal history" did not exist.

"You've decided to ignore two examples in history that show non-literal interpretations existed."

They do NOT show that interpretations of "non-literal history" existed.

You are then giving strawman on strawman between what I originally answered and a later item in the time stamps.

AND ignoring what I said of the contemporaries, namely that professors of ancient Hebrew certainly would tend often enough to believe personally (if believers at all) that Genesis 1 should be taken as "non-literal history", but they would not attribute that position to the original text as taken by the original audience.

Those who perhaps by now do take it as such would be doing so by reconstruction, they would know they are not relying on a continuum of interpretation that has simply reached down to them.

"Then you've decided to ignore evidence, along with ignore her exact words."

You pretend I'm ignoring evidence, well, LOOK THE GUYS UP. Give me exact quotes from Philo, Origen, St. Augustine, where you consider them as holding Genesis 1 through 11 were somehow "non-literal history" ... her words and a summary from wikipedia is simply not detailed enough.

"I'm starting to think you don't know what allegory means."

If anything YOU don't know what allegory means, and most specifically not what it means in terms of Biblical interpretation. I'll give you the summary from St. Thomas Aquinas:

I answer that, The author of Holy Writ is God, in whose power it is to signify His meaning, not by words only (as man also can do), but also by things themselves. So, whereas in every other science things are signified by words, this science has the property, that the things signified by the words have themselves also a signification. Therefore that first signification whereby words signify things belongs to the first sense, the historical or literal. That signification whereby things signified by words have themselves also a signification is called the spiritual sense, which is based on the literal, and presupposes it. Now this spiritual sense has a threefold division. For as the Apostle says (Hebrews 10:1) the Old Law is a figure of the New Law, and Dionysius says (Coel. Hier. i) "the New Law itself is a figure of future glory." Again, in the New Law, whatever our Head has done is a type of what we ought to do. Therefore, so far as the things of the Old Law signify the things of the New Law, there is the allegorical sense; so far as the things done in Christ, or so far as the things which signify Christ, are types of what we ought to do, there is the moral sense. But so far as they signify what relates to eternal glory, there is the anagogical sense. Since the literal sense is that which the author intends, and since the author of Holy Writ is God, Who by one act comprehends all things by His intellect, it is not unfitting, as Augustine says (Confess. xii), if, even according to the literal sense, one word in Holy Writ should have several senses.

This is from Summa Theologiae, Part I, Q 1, A 10. It's the corpus of the article, namely what St. Thomas gives as solution.

And since you seemed to imply that taking one term in a narrative in a non-literal way ("day" in Genesis 1 for instance) makes that narrative an allegory, I'll give you objection 3 and its answer:

Objection 3. Further, besides these senses, there is the parabolical, which is not one of these four. Reply to Objection 3. The parabolical sense is contained in the literal, for by words things are signified properly and figuratively. Nor is the figure itself, but that which is figured, the literal sense. When Scripture speaks of God's arm, the literal sense is not that God has such a member, but only what is signified by this member, namely operative power. Hence it is plain that nothing false can ever underlie the literal sense of Holy Writ.

In other words, non-literality of a term does NOT spell out "allegorical narrative" ...

"In The Literal Interpretation of Genesis, Augustine argued that God had created everything in the universe simultaneously and not over a period of six days. He argued the six-day structure of creation presented in the Book of Genesis represents a logical framework, rather than the passage of time in a physical way – it would bear a spiritual, rather than physical, meaning, which is no less literal."

Yes, in books IV, V, beginning of VI, where he says taking the six days literally is not very subtle, but good enough for beginners.

More precisely, he argued that all "God said" in Genesis 1 simply spell out a single act of will, and that than the angels were made aware of this single act in six successive apprehensions of it, and that each of them involved "evening knowledge" (seeing things as they were in themselves) for all angels and "morning knowledge" (seeing things in God and giving Him glory for them) for the good angels.

This is NOT what "sensus allegoricus" means, and this is NOT the same as taking Genesis 1 through 11 in a non-literal way. I don't think the word "spiritual" was used in those books of De Genesi ad litteram libri XII (it's some years since, the library where I read them is open tomorrow, not today), and unlike what you summarise this as, St. Augustine definitely DID take this as how the physical world was produced.

"They are promoting the idea of a non literal interpretation of the history in Genesis."

Taking sensus allegoricus as existing beside or even (for Origen) instead of the literal history does not involve non-literal history. It involves non-literal prophecy. Like when Isaac in Genesis 22 is taken as a type of Christ. Another word for "allegorical interpretation" is hence "typological interpretation". This is not limited to Genesis 22. We can see it when Esther is a type of Mary, but Haman of Antichrist. We can see it when Joseph in Egypt is a type of Jesus.

"Is the literal interpretation from Genesis 6 days? Yes."

From Genesis chapter 1. And that is not the only possible "literal interpretation of the passage" but the most obvious literal interpretation of the term.

"Did people long ago argue against the literal interpretation from Genesis of 6 days? Yes."

They did not argue against taking Genesis 1 as literal event, and they most certainly did not argue against taking events further on as "non-literal history" ....

"Did she say that non literal interpretations of Genesis exist long before Ham? Yes."

She said that interpretations of Genesis as "non-literal history" existed long before him. It didn't.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@NinjaMonkeyPrime To be complete.

Is the literal interpretation from Genesis 2000—3000+ years from Adam to Abraham? Yes.

Did people long ago argue against the literal interpretation from Genesis of 2000—3000+ years from Adam to Abraham? No.

Including Origen. And it was when checking St. Augustine that I discovered it.

Did she say that an interpretation as "non-literal history" (including presumably non-literality of that time span) was older, not just than Ham, but than Ham's view of Genesis 5 and 11? Yes, unfortunately.

Gutsick Gibbon on C-14 (Second Half of Same Video)

Gutsick Gibbon on C14 (First Half of the Video) · (Second Half of Same Video)

If part 1 was about my own work in face of the Evolutionist principles, this part 2 is about reviewing and partly defending other Creationists which Gutsick Gibbon is trying to and sometimes succeeding in refuting on some points.

14:48 No, the ages here are NOT close to 50 000 BP, let alone 60 000 BP.

15:43 Two stages of the answer.
a) you said yourself that carbon 14 is placed into the samples tree ring by tree ring - however, one may consider that a tree is not likely to be 8000 years old before it dies, B U T
b) as per my views, carbon 14 would be building up in the atmosphere over the lifespan of the tree, meaning, not only is C14 deposed at different times in it, but from different atmospheric concentrations.

As for "other wood" and Geochron, I somewhat wonder why this is younger than my carbon age for the flood.

16:03 At least the ANSTO dates are both well within what I would expect from a flood sample. Actual carbon date 39 000 BP, but as wood is not grass, it contains older carbon than that, during a buildup.

Yeah, I know 37,800 is younger than 39,000, but notice error margin.
37,800 + 3,450 = 41,250

Obviously, for the younger Geochron age, I think I'll go for contamination as well.

17:52 I am not unaware of the reservoir effect.

I am also not Kent Hovind.

I actually use this to explain the carbon dates of the Mladec cave[s].

Carbon date 30 000 BP according to my tables would be just few decades after the Flood and not sufficient people would be present on earth to give us that graveyard. However, the people drinking calcium rich water, perhaps eating fish and shellfish there, would have ingested sufficient old carbon to appear older than they were. We know from examples in more recent human history that this can involve a difference of centuries. So, instead of two decades after the Flood, the Mladec caves would be at least a century later, or half that amount. But date to that time by reservoir effect.

24:19, by contrast, Aardsma in 1994 seems to have taken into account results involving mass spectrometry, namely in the works cited here:

(7) David C. Lowe, Problems associated with the use of coal as a source of "C-free background material. Radiocarbon 31:2(1989) 117-120.
(8) Fred H. Schmidt, David R. Balsey, and Donald D. Leach, Earty expectations of AMS: greatar ages and tiny fractions. One failure? - one success. Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research 829(1987) 97-99.

This seems to be prior to the RATE project:

A Search For Radio Carbon in Coal
Gerald E. Aardsma, Institute for Creation Research, 1994
https://digitalcommons.cedarville.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1312&context=icc_proceedings

The paragraph leading to the footnotes is this one:

These results seem to conflict with more recent measurements using the accelerator mass spectrometry (AMS) experimental technique. For example, Schmidt et a/. (8) reported finding 14·C in anthracite at levels greater than 1.5x10^-15 14·C/C , Vogel et al. (11) reported finding 4.8x10^-15 14C/C, and Gurfinkel (4) reported values greater than or equal to 3.6x10^-15 14·C/C. Finally, In a recent paper, Lowe (7) stated that it is fairly common for AMS labs to find 14·C present in coal in the range of 2.0x10^-15 to 4.5x10^-15 14·C/C.

29:17 "creationists don't adress it" ... you show a paper by Snelling from 2007.

How about this paragraph, actually adressing it?

These are all believed to be millions of years old, so would be expected to be radiocarbon ‘dead’ (meaning all detectable 14C has degraded back to nitrogen). However, for decades now, the radiocarbon literature has been full of examples of measurable amounts of radiocarbon, in supposedly ‘ancient’ (‘millions of years old’) samples. So ‘contamination’ becomes the catchword to explain all such ‘anomalies’.

"Carbon 14—still drawing a blank," a feedback answer by Gavin Cox, from 2020. On CMI.

He links back to an answer by Joel Tay from 2016, which I think erroneously states:

However, as you have pointed out, the same RATE project also found radiocarbon measurements in not just coal, but also diamonds. Diamonds, being primarily carbon and with atoms in a tightly packed crystal lattice, are quite impervious to contamination.

Yes, they would be impervious to contamination by added new carbon atoms, but not contamination by C-12 turning into C-14 at receiving radiation.

30:52 Look here, an author being very angry at his data being used for arguments he dislikes - why are scientists so often snowflakes?

How about the authors of the study showing why the interpretation by AiG or CMI of their data is untenable instead of claiming some kind of monopoly on interpreting data they already made publically available?

"This is OUR data! This is not what WE intended to prove by them!"

In debates on the internet, it happens all the time, myself or the other guy is confronted with an interpretation of invoked data conflicting with what one intended. So what?

Is making a non-creationist scientist angry by such means some kind of sacrilege to you?

31:32 "dozens of independent dating methods that corroborate one another"

This is outside C-14-dating as such.

It is also often pointed out by creationists that on site after site samples with different dating methods contradict.

It is also a fact that Evolutionists have a stake in chosing the older interpretation of each method, like 50 % U and 50 % Pb being due to decay of an original 100 % U rather than an original content of near 50 % / 50 %. It is also a fact that C-14 is the only dating method that has practical uses that would conflict with known data if tests were wrong too routinely (K-Ar also conflicts - when Creationists use that method on recent volcanic activity, but that is not routine).

31:19 "they are rarely repeatable with actual accurate proper methodology"

By now this has been repeated very often by Creationists, and I know someones who have a stake in disqualifying their methodology, whether it actually is bad or not.

32:21 As you mentioned human historic records ... when we go as far back as beyond Fall of Troy, the Bible is pretty unique in accurate chronological information well presented - like even if it has text problems making the distance from Adam's creation to Abraham's vocation between 3400 years and less than half that.

If you like, you may put that down to a scribal tradition weeding out conflicting versions, but in Egypt or Sumer, there actually are conflicting versions, so, like dendro, history is not a very great way to boost a constant 100 pmC (+/- peanuts) even prior to Fall of Troy.

33:04 I would agree my second half has been surface level, since it has dealt with discussing instances.

My first half however has gone some way to actually give a principled different approach to C-14, consistent with both Biblical chronology and the actual data (if not the interpretations favoured by the scientists presenting them).

34:07 I'd obviously reply by asking what exact sample you pretend matches so many independent methods of dating.

I think for some samples I would be stumped, I have made C-14 my speciality, neglecting others and leaving them to Snelling (not so with C-14, as you may have noticed), but for some I would have a hunch, and I also wonder how long your list would be.

Were you aware that the Mungo woman has conflicting dates, C-14 and Thermoluminiscence? Yes, C-14 for two types of tissue gives two ages close to each other, but not sufficiently close, and that is c. 20 000 BP (like "midway" in Noah's remaining lifespan after the Flood, in my recalibration), it's only Thermoluminiscence which gives 40 000 BP.

Hat tip to Tas Walker for the info, by the way. And no, his conclusion is mainly to discredit "dating methods" overall, mine is to recalibrate "20 000 BP" into c. 2834 BC, with an atmosphere having c. 15.8863 pmC back then. So, I am not just repeating his process of thought, I am just taking his data as good - like I would usually even for an Evolutionist scientist.

Gutsick Gibbon on C14 (First Half of the Video)

Gutsick Gibbon on C14 (First Half of the Video) · (Second Half of Same Video)

Radiocarbon Dating Precludes Young Earth Creationism (Diamonds, Dinos and Coal) | Bite-Sized Busts
Gutsick Gibbon, 6 July 2021
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3iY9iDHfDcQ

3:09 Dead sea scrolls are after the fall of Troy, so I expect the original carbon 14 content to have reached and started mildly fluctuating around 100 pmC.

Confer Flood, 2957 BC, carbon dated to 39 000 BP. The original carbon 14 content was lower in the pre-Flood world.

2957 BC to 1179 BC = carbon 14 is rising, and extra years by carbon mirage are getting fewer.

I think this is a consistent view of carbon 14.

4:03 I am obviously positing:
a) that a constant concentration is not factual, but more or less known (or insofar as I am wrong about details at least knowable in principle) over different parts of the Biblical timeline;
b) that the rise of C14 from Flood to Fall of Troy involved production rates that were higher, at times as much as ten times higher, but on average for all the period, five times higher;
AND that the higher production rate in part relate to the time of the post-Flood glaciation (ionising particles = cooling) and also to lowered lifespans (radioactivity = mutations).

4:52 And, unlike Setterfield, at least for carbon 14 I do not posit faster decay rates in the past, I have used the constant decay rate to calculate diverse gradations of production rates from Flood to Fall of Troy.

5:37 Dendrochronology gives a calibration, which for the last 3200 years shows wiggles.

This is sufficient to prove that C14 is not absolutely constant.

However, as I am discarding the dendro calibration in favour of Biblical calibration for previous times, it may be noted that dendro, like the other (often) lignine based method (written records) tends to become sketchier and sketchier the further back you go, because more of the evidence is totally lost, and more of what remains is in smaller fragments.

Hence, I state that before Fall of Troy, the concentration of C14 was less constant than the dendro calibration would have it.

6:18 This diagram about dendro is so pristine.

But it seems I saw some years, it only goes back to the 18th C AD - yes, in that range, dendro is very reliable.

14:33 Exactly how much more carbon would the pre-Flood atmosphere have had on my own view?

1) Part of the reason why the pre-Flood rise from possible zero to Flood year level was slower might be a slower production rate - less radioactivity, pre-Flood man living longer. This will be ignored now.
2) Supposing all of that slower build-up were explained as due to more overall carbon (12), what do I get? Expected concentration at 2242 years from creation = c. 12 pmC, actual concentration, 1.625 pmC.

12 / 1.625 = 7.385 times - that's all how much I need on this view pre-Flood carbon to have been higher.

Even less if other factors were more favourable (like a larger atmosphere - C14 formed higher up, with less N14 concentrations reaching there).

3) Snelling and I arguably differ on whether there were calcite caves in the pre-Flood world, I think there was, so, we probably differ on how much of the calcium rocks by now are due to the Flood. This is tentative on my part.

Gutsick Gibbon Answers "Classroom" and I Answer Her

Gutsick Gibbon Answers "Classroom" and I Answer Her · Debate under Gutsick Gibbon's Video

A) Gutsick Gibbon Answers "Classroom"

"Evolutionist" Teacher versus Creationist Student
Gutsick Gibbon, 12 May 2023
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l-JU2seTqjo

and B) I Answer Her

3:55 Is the hearing system really outside yours?

Apes acknowledged on all side as such and alive today have more robust parts of anything from outer ductus to stapes. This means, they cannot hear consonants, at the very least, they cannot hear front consonants, like labials or dentals. Doing the tongue and lip and teeth movements we do to produce a P or a T would possibly be physically possible to an ape, but it would be pointless, given that other apes could not hear them.

I think this is also the case for back consonants, and it's Australopithecus and Paranthropus that has ears that could pick out a K, if even that.

With no chance of articulating too many vowels, perhaps just ee and oo, and no or nearly no consonants that they can hear, they could never have had a sufficient phoneme repertoir to get a palette of phonemes not having, but distinguishing meanings. Hence no language structured in the typically three barrelled system human language uses, and all human language uses.

10:15 Is there any non-Lucy Australopith or Paranthrope with a foot size matching the Laetoli footprints? Or two of them with foot sizes around matching, or one of them with a foot size between what would match the two main walkers?

As a Creationist, I obviously think these foot prints were made while Flood waters were rising.

I consider the different levels of volcanic deposit and sediment at Laetoli are all from the Flood, and yes, I have a mechanism explaining why older argon dates match older column "dates" - as volcanic deposits thickened, even with sediment / mud between them, the water was less and less good at cooling, so more and more argon escaped.

This would obviously not account for any argon argon results, only for potassium argon results - but aren't the datings from the era when potassium argon ruled, and have they been repeated by argon argon since?

daft wulli

I think it makes sense to find arguments that are simple and undeniable. Every flood leaves behind a flood layer of debris, and flood layers have a very specific structure. The densest stuff gets deposited first then lighter and lighter stuff. So flood layers are very distinct from anything else. There is no worldwide layer. So there never was a wordwide flood. And yes I know some creationists try to claim the fossil layer woiuld be a flood layer, but it look nothing like a flood layer and is highly ordered and structured. No flood could do that.

daft wulli

Quote :"As a Creationist, I obviously think these foot prints were made while Flood waters were rising."

translation : as a creationist I just make shit up as I go along and try to shoehorn anything into evidence for my pet believes, no matter if they fit or not, and would not recognize actualö evidenmce if it hits me in the face

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@daft wulli Instead of trying to push this as a "translation" what about telling me what it is that doesn't fit the evidence, and how it doesn't.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@daft wulli Sorry for previous by me, I missed this one from yesterday.

"Every flood leaves behind a flood layer of debris, and flood layers have a very specific structure. The densest stuff gets deposited first then lighter and lighter stuff."

Certainly applies to floods with no saturation or oversaturation of sediment, as this deposits only after turbulence calms down.

You are missing out on Guy Berthault's research about depositing in fast streaming water oversaturated with sediment, this works out in a different way.

Also, as to structure at Laetoli, you compare the year long Flood of Noah to one flood, with no or only one volcanic eruption.

I hold that when this happened, the streams with oversaturated sediment came more than once and that volcanic eruptions also came more than once. The latter being part of the mechanism opening the "fountains of the deep" ...

J D

@Hans-Georg Lundahl Hey friendo...where did all the water come from that flooded the earth? Also, follow up question, where did that water go? Do you realize how much water you would need to flood the entire earth to the height of mountaintops?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@J D One km and close to two above sea level is feasible if deeps seas were significantly shallower up to the end of the flood. Mountains rose after the Flood.

I was obviously more specifically inviting to specifics about Laetoli, but OK ... at least it shows, you ran out of more specific ones quickly.

J D

@Hans-Georg Lundahl Ah. "If the world was magically and fundamentally different, then the math checks out". My man, why didn't you just say so? Of course it'd be easy to flood the earth "up to the mountains" if there weren't any mountains lmao

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@J D Oh, there were, up to one km high.

I consider Noah took off from the highest known and actually highest mountain.

I hesitate between the Meseta of Spain, bc there he could have had inlaws of both Neanderthal and Denisovan heritage, or Calvary, for theological reasons.

Either of them qualifies as a mountain if Mount Everest and Alps are not yet on the scene, and not even the Pyrenees, at least not full present height.

"different,"

From what? What we see now? Your own theory also says it has been different from that.
Or from what you expect according to your theory? Well, being different from someone's theory is not a slight on the beauty of the world. The theory could be wrong.
Or, perhaps, from a certain thing you think traces imply? If so, that would be really worth a debate!

22:04 Genetically distinct.

Stronger.

30 % of their genome is still available in modern human specimens, but typically more like 3 % in a single one (I wonder how many % Neanderthal Hercules and Beowulf were ....) The 30 % do not include mitochondriae or Y-chromosomes, looks like their heirs went over a bottleneck (if a Neanderthal man had a daughter with a Cro-Magnon woman, the daughter would have no Y chromosome, since a woman, and no Neanderthal mitochondriae).

No Neanderthal actual body remain found carbon dated to later than 40 000 BP. (Gorham cave is carbon dated later by charcoals, and is tied to Neanderthals by Mousterian tools, not Neanderthal remains - there were however Neanderthal actual remains in a nearby cave, carbon dated to 47 000 BP).

Could this be a pre-Flood race, perhaps either Nephelim or closer to Nephelim than Cro-Magnon race was (Cro-Magnon a k a "Sapiens" but since Neanderthals are equally made in God's image ...?) but perhaps less close than the Denisovan / Antecessor / Heidelbergian race was? Would fit genetical distinction, would fit being stronger, would fit not having any Y-chromosomes or mitochondriae, if the only representatives on the Ark were a daughter or more of Neanderthal fathers and Cro-Magnon mothers, and herself or themselves married one or more of the three Cro Magnon sons of Noah? Could this be why fullblood Neanderthals are not found carbon dated to more recent than 40 000 BP, and could this carbon date be the carbon date of the Flood?

22:16 Creationists these days tend to be Baraminologists, i e believe tigers and lions differentiated after the Flood from a single couple on the Ark. Like hedgehogs (Atelerix algirus) and hedgehogs (Hemiechinus auritus). OK, get your point, not phenotypically identical, fair enough.

I think the young man is however overdoing the point of "they are human, not ape" (as in what all sides agree to call apes).

daft wulli

Well humans are apes too, so he is not making the least sense here

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@daft wulli We aren't. Even from your p o v, you should admit we aren't what all sides agree to call apes.

And quit saying things like "doesn't make the least sense" about people who don't agree with your ideologemes, even if or even especially if, the ideologemes have some support in experts you'd refer to as "Science".

23:10 Claiming they are human and "Homo sapiens" should be renamed "Homo Cro Magnon" after very early skeleta found early on, since all are "sapientes" as in God's image might be less vapid, though.

daft wulli

Sapient does not mean in gods image, and there is a good reason why somne are homo sapients and some are not

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@daft wulli While sapient does not lexically mean in God's image, it presupposes being so.

There is no good reason why Neanderthals and Denisovans aren't Sapiens. Unless you'd argue one or both of them are giants, of which Baruch 3 says they did not find wisdom. For Erectus soloensis, they may have been victims of degenerating genetic experiments. Kind of like Saruman's orc breeding to take a fictitious example.

J D

@Hans-Georg Lundahl "This word means X"

"No it doesn't..."

"No it doesn't, but imagine if it DID..."

Hilarious response my fellow ape.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@J D I did not say "imagine if it did" I said "the actual meaning implies this too" ...

J D

@Hans-Georg Lundahl Right but it doesn't. Sapient doesn't imply we're made in God's image.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@J D Yes, it does, precisely as a rock being created not in God's image means the rock is not sapient.

J D

@Hans-Georg Lundahl I mean, that's not the definition of sapient doing the presupposition, that's YOU doing the presupposition. Sapience just means "greatly intelligent". You're presupposing that anything that is greatly intelligent is "created in the image of God".

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@J D Yes, even anything that's intelligent at all (unless you mean pragmatic and emotive "intelligence" which beasts don't lack).

Sclera, Communication, Evolution, Bible

I am begging Creationists to Stop Saying This
Gutsick Gibbon, 8 Feb. 2023
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0vNSN9EHA5k

3:00 From what I could see on the pictures, it's a question of exaggeration.

The white sclera exist, but the iris is so large they have to look sideways for the white sclera to show.

It is "sclerum, sclera"? If it was "sclera, sclerae" I put a singular as a plural!

Dialogue:

Hans Georg Lundahl

21 Aug 2014 we get the original article on CMI.

White sclera are a predominantly human characteristic.

Michael Tomasello is cited:

"In a recent experiment, our research team has shown that even infants—at around their first birthdays, before language acquisition has begun—tend to follow the direction of another person’s eyes, not their heads. Thus, when an adult looked to the ceiling with her eyes only, head remaining straight ahead, infants looked to the ceiling in turn. However, when the adult closed her eyes and pointed her head to the ceiling, infants did not very often follow. ... It has been repeatedly demonstrated that all great apes, including humans, follow the gaze direction of others. But in previous studies the head and eyes were always pointed in the same direction. Only when we made the head and eyes point in different directions did we find a species difference: humans are sensitive to the direction of the eyes specifically in a way that our nearest primate relatives are not. This is the first demonstration of an actual behavioral function for humans’ uniquely visible eyes."

So, Tomasello is some Creationist cook? Not really:

Michael Tomasello, then co-director of the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig, Germany.

Leipzig is in former East Germany, it's a heavily Evolutionist place.

If you want to read the article with the most correct information on the topic, it's from 21 Aug 2014, The whites of their eyes, How Hollywood makes apes look human, by Warren Nunn

Note

The whites of their eyes
by Warren Nunn, Published: 21 August 2014
https://creation.com/ape-eye-whites

The Emperor

Doesn't matter if it is predominant in humans the point is it exists in other animals as well regardless of how they function. Even if the white sclera is hidden, they still have white sclera.

Hans Georg Lundahl

@The Emperor And so?

Just means that some overenthusiastic people have slightly misquoted Warren Nunn.

His point is still a valid one. We definitely do use white sclera for communications, apes don't.

The Emperor

@Hans-Georg Lundahl Yeah, why does that matter?

Hans Georg Lundahl

@The Emperor For one thing, it's about how planet of the apes portrays apes as more human than they are.

For another, it's an umpteenth difference between how apes and men communicate.

In any line of slowly changes done to genotype and phenotype, all the inbetweens need to be still functional - that goes for communication as well. This makes for one more hurdle for apes and men being involved as two ends in such a process.

The Emperor

@Hans-Georg Lundahl We can teach apes to do the same things we do and they can be exceptional at it or just mediocre but they do a few things we can do. Sign language is a great example. We can teach them and speak with them that way. They're more human like than you realize.

Hans Georg Lundahl

@The Emperor We can't teach apes to communicate with sclera.

We can't teach apes concepts.

I have looked into the stories.

An ape using sign language cannot make sentences in it, like a deaf person could.

I suggest you look up this article on CMI:

Has an ape learned to talk?
by Carl Wieland | This article is from
Creation 25(3):52–53, June 2003
https://creation.com/has-an-ape-learned-to-talk

Claims are circulating widely that Kanzi, a bonobo or pygmy chimpanzee, has done just this. In fact, the reality is far more mundane than all the evolutionary excitement would suggest.

It has been known for some years that Kanzi and others had been trained to use simple symbols to represent concepts like ‘banana’, ‘grapes’, ‘juice’ or ‘yes’. And now it has apparently been shown, from analyzing tapes, that this ape has used four distinct sounds to represent those four particular concepts. Whether any other ape or human was meant to ‘understand’ them is not presently clear. ....

Just quoting first two paragraphs.

The Emperor

@Hans-Georg Lundahl So? We can't teach them a lot of things, I am talking about what we can teach them. They show a few human characteristics, enough to tell we share a common ancestor.

Hans Georg Lundahl

@The Emperor The characteristics they have in common, show a common creator.

The Emperor

@Hans-Georg Lundahl That is nonsense.

Hans Georg Lundahl

@The Emperor An ape could not say any of this. Or see any difference between sense and nonsense.

The Emperor

@Hans-Georg Lundahl That doesn't matter. When comparing them to other species including ourselves, it's what we have in common that matters. That is how we know we have a common ancestor. There is no evidence that suggests there is a creator.

Hans Georg Lundahl

@The Emperor The fact we can reason suggests there is a creator.

The fact that Adam spoke to Him suggests that too.

The fact that apes can't reason, suggests there is no common ancestor (and the Bible gives no room for that evolution either).

The Emperor

@Hans-Georg Lundahl
We can use reasoning to tell there is no evidence of a creator. Having that ability doesn't lead to the conclusion that there is one.

The bible doesn't matter. It's just a book written by humans.

Hans Georg Lundahl

@The Emperor We can use our reason correctly, or as you just did abuse it.

The ability is not there in apes, and it cannot have developed.

If it's innate in anything, doesn't seem to be the kind of body stuff we share with apes. So, if we aren't the main repositories of reason, what is? An eternal reason, a k a God. How did we get it when we are not that eternal reason? God gave it - also known as God created.

In order to ditch the Bible, you seem keen on denigrating human reason, though ...

The Emperor

@Hans-Georg Lundahl That is more nonsense. You're not very keen on using reasoning when it comes to God or Evolution that is obvious.

Evolution happened and that is demonstrable. The bible was written by humans that is undeniable. No evidence has suggested otherwise.

Hans Georg Lundahl

@The Emperor Men recorded the Bible as they lived through the events.

Even with no God giving any verbal dictation about it, how does a man who is fully grown believe he was created a few hours ago, and then that his wife was created when he slept, and then that the God who did these things for him gave him a command, that his wife and then himself also broke, and were chased out of Eden into a world with no other inhabitants, if that is totally not what happened to him?

Or, if only someone came to believe this happened to his grandfather, how come someone believes it of his grandfather? Especially as the grandson of Adam, Enos, could live 495 years that his grandfather also lived:

3 And Adam lived two hundred and thirty years, and begot [a son] after his [own] form, and after his [own] image, and he called his name Seth. 4 And the days of Adam, which he lived after his begetting Seth, were seven hundred years; and he begot sons and daughters. 5 And all the days of Adam which he lived were nine hundred and thirty years, and he died. 6 Now Seth lived two hundred and five years, and begot Enos. 7 And Seth lived after his begetting Enos, seven hundred and seven years, and he begot sons and daughters. 8 And all the days of Seth were nine hundred and twelve years, and he died. 9 And Enos lived an hundred and ninety years, and begot Cainan. 10 And Enos lived after his begetting Cainan, seven hundred and fifteen years, and he begot sons and daughters.

230 + 205 = 435
930 - 435 = 495

In order for the Bible to not be true history, it is very much not enough to assume it was "written by men and not by God" - it would involve very curious mistakes for men writing their history, if it were not the true one. That's why I said you have a very low assessment of human reason, in order to dismiss the Bible, and the historic evidence these people actually did meet God who actually sometimes spoke to them, and even otherwise took such care of them, that they did not make even normal mistakes in recording their history.

"Evolution happened and that is demonstrable."

From ape to man, that is demonstrably not true.

Saying that mud began to talk, because God omnipotent touched it, makes sense, or to some, it maybe doesn't, too bad for them.

But saying mud began to talk without any God so arranging it, or saying monkeys did so, is obvious nonsense.

The Emperor

@Hans-Georg Lundahl More nonsense. The bible is hearsay and most if not all events were written about years after they happened. No evidence was ever presented that God wrote it or appeared to anyone or influenced them. That was their imagination it isn't hard to understand that.

Evolution happened that is demonstrable. Pretending that we came from mud is stupid, no one has said that just you. If you think mud is talking because of God it makes sense you're insane that's about it. I'm really beginning to think you have little grasp on reality and how evidence works.

Hans Georg Lundahl

@The Emperor "The bible is hearsay and most if not all events were written about years after they happened."

Hearsay is a term used in courts. You can't witness in court against someone based on "a friend of a friend of a friend saw him do the killing, that's what I've been told in a phone call next day" ...

Tradition, and accepting eyewitness accounts, and writing down accounts that have been tradited orally, are all of them very different processes from the casual transmission and therefore plausible distortion of information that the courts term hearsay.

I do not think you have even clearly thought through what the terms mean.

"No evidence was ever presented that God wrote it or appeared to anyone or influenced them."

No one is saying God held the pen. For some passages, the context itself says there was a dictation from God. Audible to the writer. For other passages that is not the case, and God's authorship is involved in a more roundabout way, like protecting a researching chronicler (a k a a historian) from accepting a mistake as truth, or from omitting a truth God wanted told in that context.

But there actually are passages where you find "and God spoke to Moses and said" and there is obviously anyone who heard Jesus, if He claimed to be God and rose from the dead.

"That was their imagination it isn't hard to understand that."

Moses' imagination told him God wanted him to part the Red Sea with a gesture, and that just happened to coincide with a wind blowing a passage through some part of the Red Sea?

Joshua's imagination told him God would help him to stop the Sun and the Moon from moving away from lighting up the fight, and this just happened to coincide with an inexplicable retardation at the very least of earth's normal rotation?

In cases like these two and many others, it's actually extremely hard to accept the view that God wasn't involved, but their imagination just added "an invisible friend" to otherwise natural events. Extremely hard or rather impossible.

Given that tradition and legend don't distort as hearsay, and even hearsay would hardly distort non-miracles into miracles, the alternatives would be deliberate fraud or actual truth.

Deliberate fraud is in some cases hard to imagine because of the cost it would involve, and in other ones because of the difficulty in making it convincing.

I just took as an example, if you got hold of a man with amnesia, could you convince him, not just for days and weeks, maybe years, but durably, that you were God, and he was the first man you created? No, you could not.

If a boat survived a large regional flooding (and don't imagine end of the ice age as a good fit for such!) and the surviving crew came to conclude they were the only people left alive on earth, even if we grant it could have got stuck in the middle of the flooding and seen water on all sides around a small mountain top, how would it not change their minds to see other people later on who had survived outside the flooded area or in boats reaching the shore of it?

Not to mention, if you are stuck in the middle of a huge regional flooding, and water subsides around you, but you see no shore, you would need to be very lucky to actually survive, since it's unlikely all that water would disappear and leave you space to reach land.

"Evolution happened that is demonstrable."

As said, demonstrably not between ape and man.

"If you think mud is talking because of God it makes sense you're insane that's about it."

I didn't say it remained mud when it started to talk.

I did say, it couldn't have changed into a man and started talking without God. I also said, imagining an ape could start talking without God makes absolutely as little sense.

"I'm really beginning to think you have little grasp on reality and how evidence works."

I have concluded some time ago, you are a cultural Marxist, and as such a fan both of Evolution and of gaslighting with threats of psychiatry.

You have chosen your screename ill, you are not Emperor, thank God.

The Emperor

@Hans-Georg Lundahl The stories in the bible do not prove the bible's stories, that makes no sense. Try proving anything in the bible happened without using the bible.

Evolution is demonstrable. Including human evolution. If you don't understand that then you did no research. You're intellectually dishonest.

Hans Georg Lundahl

@The Emperor "Try proving anything in the bible happened without using the bible."

Try proving Julius Caesar basically conquered Gaul without using his Gallic Wars which we have from manuscripts starting 1000 years later than when he wrote it. On top of that from monasteries in France - a place where the Carolingian Renaissance was concerned with proving a Caesarian connection to the Basileis of Constantinople.

Historians still totally buy that the Gallic Wars are basically what happened, and what Caesar wrote about it. Do you know why? When you do, we can discuss how this applies to the Bible.

"Including human evolution."

I did research about the question of language origin. Enough to know that several theories from c. 100 years ago are already discarded and not really getting replaced with new ones (OK, perhaps "language from mating ritual" is the next new one, won't work either).

I also did enough research to know, all "human ancestors" either are clearly non-human in speech related anatomy (Australopithecus have ears unable to hear consonants, or at least front consonants, hyoids with hooks for the ape-like air bags, skull cups without any trace of Broca's area) or fully human (Neanderthals have fully human ears - erectus has mostly human ears - human hyoids, showing tear and wear of human speech when scanned, scull caps with traces of Broca's area, and the human version of the FOXP-2 gene). No clear inbetween has been found.

Gutsick on Radiometric and Heat - My Initial Comments with Answers

Gutsick on Radiometric and Heat - My Initial Comments with Answers · Continuing with Edelwise, and later Sumo

Have These Young Earth Creationists Debunked Radiometric Dating and Solved the Heat Problem?
Gutsick Gibbon | 28 Dec. 2022
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SgZptvRipvU

I

Hans-Georg Lundahl

4:30 How do you even test a halflife like 4.5 billion years?

5730 is easy. Half of it is 2865. Quarter of it is 1432 (.5). Eighth of it is 716 (.25). Sixteenth of it is 358 (.125).

We can take carbon positive samples known from 716 or 358 or 1432 years ago. We can, despite wiggles in atmospheric C14 content, see that these years (at least roughly) correspond to eighth or sixteenth or fourth root of 1/2. 91.7 pmC, 95.76 pmC, or 84.09 pmC are expected sample values.

If enough samples correspond to that with the known dates, as known from history, that means we have successfully tested the halflife of C14 to be 5730 years.

Anon Ymous

Why do we need to test what we understand functions on a mathematical relationship? You don't need to sit there and observe it decaying for billions of years. You can watch it decay and count how many atoms decay per unit time.

Easy does not mean true.

Michael Eco

You've answered your own question. You do basic math.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Anon Ymous "Why do we need to test what we understand functions on a mathematical relationship?"

The problem is, do we?

"You can watch it decay and count how many atoms decay per unit time."

Seeing one billionth of a curve over 4 and a half years may give a very wrong idea of the whole curve. With carbon 14, we can verify significant parts of the decay curve.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Michael Eco I have answered that it is impossible for U-Pb. For carbon 14, it is easy, but for U-Pb it is impossible.

If you know anything about graphs, you know that one billionth of a curve is inadequate for accurately plotting the whole of it. One sixteenth isn't.

Anon Ymous

@Hans-Georg Lundahl So you missed the part of the video where GG explained how we know, confidently, that these decay rates are consistent?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Anon Ymous Is it after 4:30? If I comment under the video at time signature 4:30, this proves I have seen the video up to 4:30, not all of it.

I refuse to watch a video twice, first all through and then once again when commenting.

Now, you may not have noted, but I did not attack the idea of "constant decay known" but (for decay rates far slower than carbon 14) "known decay rate" - you see, the decay rate for an isotope is not obtained from the law of radioactive decay, it is a value you have to insert into it. For a decay rate like 4.5 billion years, you don't.

Michael Eco

@Hans-Georg Lundahl "If you know anything about graphs, you know that one billionth of a curve is inadequate for accurately plotting the whole of it. One sixteenth isn't.'

It's literally the exact same process. Are you trolling me? Are you only pretending to be this stupid as some kind of joke? Do you really think some science lab was sitting around for 358 years to measure the 1/16th life of carbon 13?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Michael Eco "It's literally the exact same process."

Except whether it's doable or not.

You can measure a door with a twelve inch ruler, but you cannot measure a mountain with it.

@Michael Eco "Do you really think some science lab was sitting around for 358 years to measure the 1/16th life of carbon 13?"

We have samples guaranteed 358 years old by historic facts.

And I'm dealing with the halflife of carbon 14, not carbon 13.

Michael Eco

@Hans-Georg Lundahl lol, no, that' snot how it works.

@Hans-Georg Lundahl "You can measure a tree with triangulation but you can't measure a mountain with triangulation."

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Michael Eco "lol, no, that' snot how it works."

You tell me how ...

And the reason you cannot measure a mountain with triangulation (using an inchstick and shadows) is that you cannot measure how far in the base of the mountain is right under the tip.

Even if you instead used the kind of triangulation kit that surveyors use, you can measure a mountain with it, but not space.

For every measuring device, there is a limit beyond which it cannot go.

Michael Eco

@Hans-Georg Lundahl You can measure things in space from triangulation. It's how we measure the distances to stars.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Michael Eco I was for a very specific reason saying the triangulation equipment used by surveyors.

As for the triangulation used to get the distance to the Moon or the Sun - it doesn't involve triangulating a tree by a small inchruler. You need places on earth somewhat distant from each other to do that.

My point being, the original value and the long accepted value on C14 decay rate have been corrected by reference to historic objects. An object 360 years old can be dated by associated documents. So can an object 716 or 1432 years old. And these are significant parts of the overall halflife.

What we can date historically isn't that in relation to a halflife 4.5 billion years long.

Michael Eco

@Hans-Georg Lundahl Sure. You specified that because you're trying to weasel out of the point.

"What we can date historically isn't that in relation to a halflife 4.5 billion years long."

Yes, we can. Any given sample of uranium.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Michael Eco We cannot date any sample to 281,250,000 years ago by history.

That's what corresponds to 358 years in carbon dating if the halflife is really 4.5 billion years old.

Michael Eco

@Hans-Georg Lundahl "We cannot date any sample to 281,250,000 years ago by history."

Good thing we don't need to.

"That's what corresponds to 358 years in carbon dating if the halflife is really 4.5 billion years old."

Fortunatly fractions can go smaller than 1/16th.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Michael Eco Yes, but smaller fractions are lots less useful.

That's why the original "lab time fraction" studied by Libby got corrected to 5730 years, in one or two goes.

I have two stories about it.
A) Libby got closer, but then corrected by using larger fractions from archaeology to 5568 years, and this was presented as the Libby haflife, and further use of larger fractions got the halflife corrected (back a bit) to 5730 years, the Cambridge halflife;
B) Libby's method, whichever it was, directly led to 5568 years, and it needed to be corrected from the very start.

Whichever it is, those using carbon have found it useful to correct any expectations from purely lab observations of decay to adher more closely to data from historically known samples.

One more. 5 years is margin error for carbon 14.

That's 0.0008726003490401.

That fraction is 3,926,702 years for a 4.5 billion year decay.

Michael Eco

@Hans-Georg Lundahl "That fraction is 3,926,702 years for a 4.5 billion year decay."

Which fine. Because that's a tiny fraction.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Michael Eco Well, it's such a tiny fraction, that for the same fraction carbon 14 says "margin error" - and even that tiny fraction is too big to verify historically.

Michael Eco

@Hans-Georg Lundahl And it's the same margin of error for U-Th. And no, it's prehistoric so there's no verifying it historically. That's what we have radiometric dating for.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Michael Eco Well, the exact problem is, radiometric dating is worthless when even the halflife cannot be verified by historically dated samples.

Antik Sur

@Hans-Georg Lundahl Um, you do know that we can derive that half-lives are constant from current quantum mechanical theories, right? So, what exactly is your proposal, huh? That the laws of physics themselves were somehow different in the past, because they do not agree with my religious belief? Even though we don't see any signs at all that they may have changed, nor do we see them changing right now, even though we have instruments with the required degree of accuracy to measure such things?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Antik Sur I think you are bad at reading - or pretending to be.

The proposition is still not that they aren't constant. It's that those longer than carbon 14 aren't known.

Aaron Polichar

@Hans-Georg Lundahl "With carbon 14, we can verify significant parts of the decay curve." What is the cutoff for whether a part of it is significant or not, and on what basis?

@Hans-Georg Lundahl It's called inductive reasoning. That's how science works. Those half-lifes very precisely predict rates of decay that are used in industry. Experimental results agree with them, theory agrees with them, and there is no evidence contradicting them. That's good enough for science. You don't have to have corroboration with historically known quantities going back hundreds or thousands of years. And why is 1/16 better than 1/1024, or even less, if you have precise enough measurements? Half-life is just a mathematical expression. There's nothing special about waiting until half of the amount has decayed, or any other fraction.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Aaron Polichar Take a look at carbon 14 dating.
5 years is margin error for a date. 5/5730 = the cutoff.

That precise ratio is 3 million years for U-Pb.

@Aaron Polichar "It's called inductive reasoning."

I'm not the least sure you know how to detect the process of inductive reasoning here.

"That's how science works. Those half-lifes very precisely predict rates of decay that are used in industry."

The halflives used in industry are shorter than C14. Those that are longer are not used in industry.

I was thinking, isn't C14 used in medicine? Yes, but only because it emits radioactivity and is a tracer, not by the precise half life.

So, no, the halflives used for putting earth at 4.5 billion years are not used in industry.

"Experimental results agree with them, theory agrees with them, and there is no evidence contradicting them."

For as long half lives as that, there are no experimental results that don't agree with anything else.

"That's good enough for science."

Perhaps for Science as practised today, but not for a correct philosophy of science.

"You don't have to have corroboration with historically known quantities going back hundreds or thousands of years."

The quantity is not historically known. The remaining quantity measured now gives a date that can be checked with real historical dates. Both C14 and dendro-chronology were early on checked to each other and confirmed each other in late pre-Columbian samples from Arizona. Pueblo Indians in Arizona.

"And why is 1/16 better than 1/1024, or even less, if you have precise enough measurements? Half-life is just a mathematical expression. There's nothing special about waiting until half of the amount has decayed, or any other fraction."

The minute detail of decay is stochastic. If the fraction is too small, the small irregularities in the decay can come through.

Aaron Polichar

@Hans-Georg Lundahl so why are you talking about 358 years?

@Hans-Georg Lundahl You're mixing a bunch of things up. I wasn't talking about determining the age of the earth. All sorts of radiocative decays are used in industry, just maybe not what you're thinking of. I'm not just talking about dating things. A half life is just an expression of a rate of decay, which is measurable.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Aaron Polichar "358 years" - because they are above the indicated limit of too small a ratio and can be dated historically.

"You're mixing a bunch of things up." - You wish.

"I wasn't talking about determining the age of the earth" - I got that.

"All sorts of radiocative decays are used in industry," like that of rubidium or something used in smoke detectors, to determine how long it can last, I suppose.

"a rate of decay, which is measurable." - As already indicated, measuring a rate of decay, to my mind, is impossible with sufficient exactitude unless you have a significant fraction of the halflife. Not at 5/5730 of it. The decay rate may still be sufficiently clear for industry, but that doesn't prove the halflife is correct.

Plus, where does the decay rate for U to Pb come into play in industry, at all?

Benkai

@Hans-Georg Lundahl the earth is old kid move on

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Benkai 7200 years is kind of old, so there you have a point.
I am not your kid, actually not an adult goat either, and I'm pretty fine in this chair.

Benkai

@Hans-Georg Lundahl the earth is billions of years old scientists would love to have a talk but fairy tales have rotted your Brain kid move on

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Benkai Fairy tales don't rot brains.

Prejudices like yours do.

Get lost!

After this

I tried to block Benkai, could only signal him, and did so for harrassment or intimidation concerning me.

II

Hans-Georg Lundahl

6:22 You are here correctly resuming the idea of Setterfield.

I do not subscribe to it, I believe radiometric decay was mostly constant, possible smaller samples accelerating hard melt style being excepted, and that could account for the argon in volcanic samples from the Flood being argon 40 rather than 39.

For the main problems, my answer is "the quantity of original parent isotope is directly speaking unknown and reconstructed in the wrong manner" - plus for decay rates slower than carbon, exact decay rate would tend to be unknown.

I agree that Setterfield's idea would give you a heat problem. But I am not buying it, and I've said so.

ADvorak

So where exactly is the reconstruction being wrong? Please give me more than “I don’t like the results” …

You do not doubt the reconstruction is correct, you claim it is wrong, therefore you get to show the proof it is wrong.

Never mind that we often talk about parent/daughter ratios, not absolute values …

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@ADvorak The problem can absolutely be restated as what was the initial parent/daughter ratio? Assuming it was 100 % parent equals assuming the daughter isotope only exists as daughter isotope, which is more than we know.

"So where exactly is the reconstruction being wrong?"

It collides with other known facts, like the chronology of the Bible.

If you don't think Biblical history is factual, you do you. In a debate, you should be ok with me doing me.

Where is the reconstruction wrong? = You are a heretic for not thinking us able to get it right. Well, by your standards I am.

Antik Sur

@Hans-Georg Lundahl Since when is the chronology of the Bible known to be true? In a comment below, you express your disbelief in half-lives being constant due to lack of direct records, and yet the Bible is true, when it has infinitely less empirical evidence for it and lots against it, and further we know was written decades after the incidents described?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Antik Sur "Since when is the chronology of the Bible known to be true?"

Since history was a thing?
Or if you mean known beyond the shadow of a doubt, since Christ rose from the dead.

"you express your disbelief in half-lives being constant"

No. Read again.

"due to lack of direct records, and yet the Bible is true,"

Because it is precisely a direct record.

"when it has infinitely less empirical evidence for it"

Historic records aren't empirical evidence for history?

"and lots against it,"

Such as?

"and further we know was written decades after the incidents described?"

You have pretty much disqualified yourself from discussing history. The Exodus (around which time Moses wrote Genesis) was 1447 years after the Flood we are discussing here.

Antik Sur

@Hans-Georg Lundahl History was a thing before the Bible, dear. In fact, historical records show us ancient civilizations comfortably surviving through Noah's flood. But, of course, hypocrites like you ignore history when it's inconvenient for your narrative. Also, it's the very same history that shows us how the Bible derives a lot of its myths from previous stories like Mesopotamian legends and the Tanakh. And, when you say foolish things like "Jesus definitely rose from the dead because a book said so," don't wonder why people laugh at you.

Oh, really? How is it a direct record? Did God himself write Genesis? He must have, since only he could have witnessed Creation. What about Noah's flood? Did Noah write it, since no other humans survived it? Do you know what the word "direct" means?

Evidently you don't know what the word "empirical" means. A big part of empirical evidence is reproducibility, i.e. you can repeat the experiment in some way to verify if you get the same results. Since you can't do that for historical events, there is no "empirical evidence" for it, as we use such a term in a scientific context. And, writing in a book is definitely not empirical evidence in the least.

Oh, so it was not written decades after, just hundreds of years after. That makes your argument so much stronger, doesn't it? What's hilarious is that you pretend that the entirety of the Bible is made of direct records, yet you undermine that very point here.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Antik Sur "History was a thing before the Bible, dear."

Sure, Adam was writing chapters before Moses wrote Genesis. Moses wrote Genesis before John wrote the Gospel. All books were written before their final collection was decided on in mid to late 4th C in Carthage and Rome. By then history certainly was a thing all over the place and structured around the same principles as the Bible.

"In fact, historical records show us ancient civilizations comfortably surviving through Noah's flood."

No, they don't. Historical records from Egypt and Sumeria don't fit into a coherent chronology that's hard to find chinks in. It is well known that Sumerian ideologues serialised parallel kingships, because only one city at a time could have hegemony over all Sumeria. I suspect something similar went on in Egypt. If you want to bolster an anti-Flood chronology from carbon dated objects surrounding clay tablets and papyri, this poses the question how we know that the original carbon content was 100 pmC - unlike the decay rate, 100 pmC is not a natural constant.

"But, of course, hypocrites like you"

Are you trying to flirt with me? If you are male or above thirty, forget it!

"ignore history when it's inconvenient for your narrative."

Or refuse to confuse historic record with archaeologic dating.

"Also, it's the very same history that shows us how the Bible derives a lot of its myths from previous stories like Mesopotamian legends and the Tanakh."

In case you didn't know, Tanakh is simply the Old Testament of the Bible - with some copying mistakes and without some of the books. And no, it's not a historic fact recorded in records that Moses copied Mesopotamian myth, it's reconstruction.

"And, when you say foolish things like "Jesus definitely rose from the dead because a book said so," don't wonder why people laugh at you."

I rather said "a book definitely got the history right, because He who rose from the dead said so." And "He rose, because the Church says so" - which is a different thing from your parody.

"How is it a direct record? Did God himself write Genesis? He must have, since only he could have witnessed Creation."

If you mean God wrote 1:1 to 2:4, fair enough, He gave that to Moses on Sinai.

" What about Noah's flood? Did Noah write it, since no other humans survived it?"

Noah or his sons or even their wives, yes. Recorded in written or oral form. And preserved pre-Flood records from Creation of Eve to Genesis 6 and the building of the Ark. Whether the direct record was written or oral, it was transmitted orally to Abraham, who after presirving that started keeping better record of the remaining 78 % of the chapters. That bulk of Genesis was written by five generations from Abraham to sons of Joseph and finally put together with beginning and his own vision of creation by Moses.

"Do you know what the word "direct" means?"

I use direct record in opposition to inference from indirectly connected facts.

Some of above was inference on my part, Genesis wasn't.

" A big part of empirical evidence is reproducibility, i.e. you can repeat the experiment ..."

History is empirical and NOT reproducible. You are confusing empirical history with empirical sciences.

"Since you can't do that for historical events, there is no "empirical evidence" for it, as we use such a term in a scientific context."

Science is not my religion, I was using empirical evidence in a non-scientific but historic context.

"That makes your argument so much stronger, doesn't it?"

No. It makes it weaker, as you would suggest. I only say it remains sufficiently strong.

"you pretend that the entirety of the Bible is made of direct records, yet you undermine that very point here."

I think I said Genesis was written millennia after the earliest events in it. I did very much not say that each part of Genesis was redacted only then. Each part of Genesis remains direct record. Redacted orally or in writing on the spot. The first 11 chapters consist of pieces that are easy to learn by heart.

Antik Sur

@Hans-Georg Lundahl "All books were written before their final collection was decided on in mid to late 4th century C in Carthage and Rome."
Except you pulled that right out of your ass. Oh no, sorry, "that must be the case because it doesn't fit my narrative otherwise!"

You suspect that's the same with Egypt? I don't care about your suspicion. Prove it. Provide incontrovertible evidence that proves the vast majority of historians wrong. And what about China? Chinese proto-writing existed back then. So did Indian for that matter. All of these can be hand-waved away too, am I right? No need to provide conclusive proof of anything. Just give a vague suggestion as to how they're wrong but don't give anything conclusive.

Also, the question you asked about radiocarbon dating just shows your painful lack of knowledge. We can know how much C-14 (conc) existed at any place and date in the past because C-14 is generated only through cosmic rays in the atmosphere, and hence a record or a calibration curve is preserved in tree rings of trees which lived during that time. That's why Dendrochronology is used hand-in-hand with radiocarbon dating.

It's amusing to me how you can definitively assert that the Tanakh, which came before the Bible has "copying mistakes". The sheer arrogance is astounding. Also, yeah, it's totally a coincidence that the Mesopotamian flood myths are quite similar to the Biblical Flood Myth. Perhaps to you, who has literally rejected such a possibility point blank, but for us rational people, it's much more compelling.

How do you know He who rose from the dead said such a thing? Or, where did the Church come to know such a thing? Oh, that's right. It's the Bible that said it.

It's very easy to show that the form of "empirical evidence" you hold in esteem is much weaker than empirical evidence in science. Which is what I meant. Same as what you mean by "direct record". Which is why scientific evidence trumps historical evidence, i.e. a book every time. And that's why direct records are only direct when they come straight from primary witnesses. Also, "science is not my religion." How much more blatant can you get?

You don't get to decide what "sufficiently strong" is. To anyone who is not blinded by religious fervor, it's easy to see how pathetic this part of your argument is.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Antik Sur "Except you pulled that right out of your ass. Oh no, sorry, 'that must be the case because it doesn't fit my narrative otherwise!' "

In so far it was an admission to your argument, what's your point in contesting it?

Why would a council in 382 AD (the one in Rome) list books that weren't written yet?

Or why the heck would history not be a thing well before 382 AD?

"You suspect that's the same with Egypt? I don't care about your suspicion. Prove it. Provide incontrovertible evidence that proves the vast majority of historians wrong."

We certainly do have periods of Egypt with parallel dynasties, we certainly do have ynasties missing from burial places between extant ones, and we certainly do have an ideology considering the Pharao king of "upper and lower Egypt" - i e denying the possibility of division. It stands to reason that they would be tempted to see past divisions, say "this won't do" and pretend the contemporary pharaos were successive ones.

This is not incontrovertible evidence, but neither is "the vast majority of historians" in an age when Academics raise people like you to utter suspicion against the Bible.

Tell you one more thing. This would be near impossible with people dating Anno Domini. Suppose a land in Europe was divided in the 8th C, for 100 years, it would be impossible to claim the one set or rulers ruled 700 to 800 AD, and the other set of rulers, instead of ruling another part of the country, ruled all of it in 800 to 900 AD. Not just because Europe was several fairly interconnected countries, but also because they were dating Anno Domini and before that ab Urbe condita or Anno Mundi. The Egyptians had no such epoch - a year could easily be designated as "13th year of Ramses" or whatever, but there was no equivalent to the long term epoch.

"And what about China? Chinese proto-writing existed back then. So did Indian for that matter."

Proto-writing is not historical record. Once a writing involves deciphered narrative, and that's what historical record means, it is no longer proto-writing.

This means, you have no historical evidence from when proto-writing is from.

"All of these can be hand-waved away too, am I right? No need to provide conclusive proof of anything. Just give a vague suggestion as to how they're wrong but don't give anything conclusive."

You were the one saying there was conclusive evidence against the Flood, and that means you are the one required to give conclusive evidence. I'm not required to do more than show why yours isn't conclusive.

"We can know how much C-14 (conc) existed at any place and date in the past because C-14 is generated only through cosmic rays in the atmosphere,"

Basically only, radioactivity on the ground can also cause it. A place with a nuke experiment suddenly had carbon dates 3000 years into the future. However, we do not have total certainty on how much C14 is generated in the atmosphere at a given time, except from calibrating historic evidence.

"and hence a record or a calibration curve is preserved in tree rings of trees which lived during that time. That's why Dendrochronology is used hand-in-hand with radiocarbon dating."

Works pretty well for the last 3000 years. Someone pretended it was valid for last 6000 years, and made a calibration curve - Minze Stuiver and Bernd Bekker. I think they are overoptimistic for the previous 3000 years.

"It's amusing to me how you can definitively assert that the Tanakh, which came before the Bible has "copying mistakes"."

The Tanakh we have now is from c. 1000 AD, earliest manuscript.

"The sheer arrogance is astounding."

From the perspective of a Jew who believes the text of 1000 AD is strictly identic letter for letter (except vocalisation) to one in 1000 BC for octoteuch and books of Samuel and Job .... it is more realistic to compare to translations for which we have evidence before the earliest complete Hebrew text. Like LXX and Vulgate. Of these the LXX is older than the Vulgate.

Also, yeah, it's totally a coincidence that the Mesopotamian flood myths are quite similar to the Biblical Flood Myth. Perhaps to you, who has literally rejected such a possibility point blank, but for us rational people, it's much more compelling.

"How do you know He who rose from the dead said such a thing? Or, where did the Church come to know such a thing? Oh, that's right. It's the Bible that said it."

A community usually has a pretty correct memory of its past. The Church goes back to the man who rose from the dead. The NT, in relation to this, is basically the notepad of the Church.

"It's very easy to show that the form of "empirical evidence" you hold in esteem is much weaker than empirical evidence in science. Which is what I meant. Same as what you mean by "direct record". Which is why scientific evidence trumps historical evidence, i.e. a book every time."

Why haven't you shown it?

"And that's why direct records are only direct when they come straight from primary witnesses. Also, "science is not my religion." How much more blatant can you get?"

If you read a letter by Abraham Lincoln in a text book, is it a direct record, because the letter is identic to the one written by Abraham Lincoln? Or is it only indirect record, because the letter was copied into a text book that wasn't written in Abraham Lincoln's time? I would say, unlike surrounding explanatory text, it was direct record. The difference with Genesis is, Moses didn't add tons of paragraphs of surrounding explanatory text.

"You don't get to decide what "sufficiently strong" is. To anyone who is not blinded by religious fervor, it's easy to see how pathetic this part of your argument is."

I certainly do get to do so for my part, and I feel no need to bow down to those blinded by anti-religious fervour (which is also religious, but somehow doesn't count its idol "Science TM" as a religion).

III

Hans-Georg Lundahl

7:23 The solution to tectonic plates is, the original positions were so much less Pangaea and so much more like our continents than what AiG or CMI propose.

Edelwise

That's not a solution, there's a reason how we know what continents were like before Pangea. You'd be once again facing a deceptive god problem, kind of a problem for YECs when no matter how they twist it, their model is always incompatible with their faith.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Edelwise The thing is, we YECs do not have the least reason to suppose there ever was a Pangaea. We can afford having, and I as amateur do have a very different model for where the continents were before the Flood. Pretty much where they are now, except Australia and Antarctic got squeezed out, India squeezed in, and Himalayas being part of a squeeze that also affected Alps and Andes - over the centuries after the Flood.

Edelwise

@Hans-Georg Lundahl They do need to accept Pangea because it's the necessary logical implication of observable data.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Edelwise I do not think these data necessarily imply Pangaea.

If you think otherwise, you go and fetch me a link to an observation proving it existed.

And quote the most relevant passage.

Edelwise

@Hans-Georg Lundahl You'll do fine making a simple search yourself.
Pangea is necessitated by geology and the fossil record.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Edelwise Neither the one nor the other.

If you cannot even resume the argument from one of the sites you read, you didn't understand it, and are in no position to assess the logical claims of the proof.

By the way, one part of Pangaea theorem coincides with the Bible, and that is single pre-Flood continent - from, on my view, Americas in the West to Australia and East Asia in the East. With the Atlantic even post-Flood still partly filled by the Atlantic.

This is sufficient for landways for certain fossil species to have moved. Plus human agency to move them in vehicles was available.

Edelwise

@Hans-Georg Lundahl The "sites I read" is textbook geography class from high-school.

@Hans-Georg Lundahl Humans with Vehicles were available on Pangea??? Now how about you find hundreds of millions year old evidence for that claim

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Edelwise There are no hundreds of millions of years anyway.

The claim is not based on archaeology, but on an assessment of the pre-Flood world.

Noah had reduced technology use, I would say, but even he built an ark, in size equal to what has only been since reached in the XXth C. Other people made the pre-Flood world so connected that there was basically no haven. That's why God provided eight people with one, plus some relatives who died before the Flood, plus perhaps occasional hired workers who didn't appreciate and stay.

You cannot make the world interconnected without vehicles. And you cannot destroy human lives over an entire world without connexions.

Edelwise

@Hans-Georg Lundahl You would destroy a species by going down to 8 people. Such a genetic bottleneck causes extinction

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Edelwise That is not what the population of Pitcairn island suggests.

Edelwise

@Hans-Georg Lundahl Also no evidence of any human activity or even presence in the layers of what's understood to be pangean fossils.

@Hans-Georg Lundahl the population of what.
For someone who cries about "not getting sources" for most basic facts about geology and history of the earth you make the absolute most outlandish claims with not even a basic explanation.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Edelwise For one, there is no evidence that the pre-Flood fauna of the year in the Flood did exclusively include "pangaean" fossils.

I take it, that corresponds to one or more eras or epochs, things like Cretaceous and Palaeogene, like Maastrichtian and Danian. But these are labels that say more about local fauna than about times.

Pitcairn Island has a wikipedia article. Its population is very well known from within a few decades from the Mutiny of the Bounty to the present day.

By the way, the article you should read is Pitcairn Islanders.

"Pitcairn Islanders, also referred to as Pitkerners and Pitcairnese, are the inhabitants or citizens of the Pitcairn Islands. The Pitcairn Islands are a British Overseas Territory, mainly inhabited by Euronesians of British and Tahitian descent."
"There is also a Pitcairn diaspora particularly in Norfolk Island, New Zealand and mainland Australia. Fearing overcrowding, in 1856 all 194 Pitkerners immigrated to Norfolk Island aboard the Morayshire (including a baby born en route) but 16 of them returned to Pitcairn on the Mary Ann in 1858, followed by a further four families in 1864."

I would say the 40 Pitkerners descend from only few people, and the Norfolk Islanders came in three waves, third from Pitcairn.

@Edelwise Sorry, closer look at Norfolk Island, it's only populated from Pitcairn, since all previous settlers (convicts) were removed.

So, Pitcairn and Norfolk Island are two places with one population descending from very few Mutineers of the Bounty with Polynesian wives.

@Edelwise On Norfolk Island, the population is 2188 by 2021.

No reason to fear dying out after the bottleneck of 1789.

Edelwise

@Hans-Georg Lundahl There was never a bottleneck of 2 or 8 in human population, and both would lead to quick extinction

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Edelwise The bottleneck following the Mutiny of the Bounty was not much bigger. Definitely well below the 500 claimed to be minimal viability.

Also, the genome has deteriorated, so smaller bottlenecks were possible without extinction nearer God's perfect creation.

@Edelwise For your textbook, I suppose part of the argument was dating of "Pangaean" fossils? Plus obviously necessity, or presumed such, for the animals to get from one part where they lived to another on their own? Because, if that was so, it's answered, I can leave it aside.

Edelwise

@Hans-Georg Lundahl "For one, there is no evidence that the pre-Flood fauna of the year in the Flood did exclusively include "pangaean" fossils."

There's no evidence for a flood to begin with so you wouldn't know what is or isn't pre-flood except for maybe pure guesswork at what animals do and don't appear in the bible.

"But these are labels that say more about local fauna than about times."

It's both. If you don't find a fossil in some place among other fossils it indicates it didn't live there at that time.
In case of humans, you won't find any human fossils among dinosaur fossils anywhere on the planet.

@Hans-Georg Lundahl I don't see any relevance unless there were only 2 up to 8 of them and they had never gone into relation with anyone else for multiple centuries even a single time.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Edelwise "There's no evidence for a flood to begin with so you wouldn't know what is or isn't pre-flood except for maybe pure guesswork at what animals do and don't appear in the bible."

The evidence of the Flood is twofold. Historical, biblical and otherwise. Fossil. Most of the fossil layers are from the Flood.

This means, a pre-Flood animal can be identified fairly well by appearing as a fossil.

"It's both. If you don't find a fossil in some place among other fossils it indicates it didn't live there at that time."

I would put it at "there" - for land vertebrates you don't find layers piled on top of each other. We are dealing with separate biotopes in the year of the flood.

"In case of humans, you won't find any human fossils among dinosaur fossils anywhere on the planet."

Tell me what guy you ever met who would want to spend his life or even many hours in a biotope of T Rex or even of Diplodocus?

"I don't see any relevance unless there were only 2 up to 8 of them and they had never gone into relation with anyone else for multiple centuries even a single time."

It is already multiple centuries, 1790 - 2022 = 232 years, and the Pikerners, on Pitcairn and Norfolk Island, have married among themselves. The original number was far closer to 8 than to the 500 that's considered on your type of view "minimal viable population" ... I'll quote about it:

They created the “50/500” rule, which suggested that a minimum population size of 50 was necessary to combat inbreeding and a minimum of 500 individuals was needed to reduce genetic drift.
https://www.britannica.com/science/50-500-rule

I thought "500" was about inbreeding, turns out it wasn't. However, Pitcairn started out with half of those 50. They are doing fine. The key would seem how quick populations rise in number after the bottleneck - and obviously also how bad the genes were to begin with.

Edelwise

@Hans-Georg Lundahl "The evidence of the Flood is twofold. Historical, biblical and otherwise. Fossil. Most of the fossil layers are from the Flood."

There is no good historical evidence for a global flood. Biblical evidence isn't evidence, it's the claim, not evidence in itself. Fossil layers are not "from the flood". These layers couldn't have been created as they are in a flood, it's physically impossible. Fossil record makes no sense with a global flood.

"This means, a pre-Flood animal can be identified fairly well by appearing as a fossil."

So the claim is, that fossilization does not occur after the flood? How come? We know how fossilization occurs. A flood is totally not a necessary part of it.

"I would put it at "there" - for land vertebrates you don't find layers piled on top of each other. We are dealing with separate biotopes in the year of the flood."

Except we totally do. Fossils are layered in the geological column.

"Tell me what guy you ever met who would want to spend his life or even many hours in a biotope of T Rex or even of Diplodocus?"

Is this supposed to be a legitimate argument or are you having a laugh?

"It is already multiple centuries, 1790 - 2022 = 232 years, and the Pikerners, on Pitcairn and Norfolk Island, have married among themselves."

Studies on genetics of the Norfolk island indicates that they did inbreed a lot but also that they'd had over 300 outsiders come in and add to the genepool. so much so that of the original 20 or so individuals they make up only up to 20% of the current day population. Had they been completely isolated as you propose that number would be many times higher.

The Pitcairn island is the only interesting case but by far it's a very rare exception. Can't find any studies on those people on their genetics, only that the island itself had been completely depopulated at least once somewhere in XIX century.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Edelwise "There is no good historical evidence for a global flood."

Let's see.

"Biblical evidence isn't evidence, it's the claim, not evidence in itself."

Any historical claim is evidence - good or bad - of historical fact.

"Fossil layers are not "from the flood". These layers couldn't have been created as they are in a flood, it's physically impossible. Fossil record makes no sense with a global flood."

I disagree, obviously.

"So the claim is, that fossilization does not occur after the flood? How come? We know how fossilization occurs. A flood is totally not a necessary part of it."

Rapid burial is. Outside flooding scenarios, rapid burial is rare. I said most fossils are from the flood, not all.

"Except we totally do. Fossils are layered in the geological column."

I have studied that in some detail. I repeat what I said. Land vertebrates are not layered. In Grand Canyon, shellfish are layered.

"Is this supposed to be a legitimate argument or are you having a laugh?"

If the world were flooded today, what are the chances that one found you among herds of elephants or hyaenas?

"Studies on genetics of the Norfolk island indicates that they did inbreed a lot but also that they'd had over 300 outsiders come in and add to the genepool."

Documenting the 300 outsiders?

" so much so that of the original 20 or so individuals they make up only up to 20% of the current day population. Had they been completely isolated as you propose that number would be many times higher."

This is however not the case with Pitcairn itself.

"The Pitcairn island is the only interesting case but by far it's a very rare exception."

You do not have any cases of depopulation of a population due to inbreeding. In case you would like to cite Spanish Habsburgs, male lineage is not the whole population of them.

"Can't find any studies on those people on their genetics, only that the island itself had been completely depopulated at least once somewhere in XIX century."

The population on Pitcairn is totally from the original population, the complete depopulation was a move to Norfolk island, and the ones that moved back to Pitcairn hadn't had time to mix with 300 others.

Your info are from lines in the wiki article I missed or from other sources?

Edelwise

@Hans-Georg Lundahl "Any historical claim is evidence - good or bad - of historical fact."

Your claim that biblical flood is true, therefore the bible cannot be used as evidence for it. You'd be using the claim to evidence itself. It's like saying that LOTR book is evidence for LOTR being true. It's nonsensical, it's the WORST evidence.

"I disagree, obviously."
You have to, reality be damned. We know how flood deposits sedimentary layers. We know when floods happened in history in given areas. There is no sedimentary evidence for a global flood.

"Rapid burial is. Outside flooding scenarios, rapid burial is rare. I said most fossils are from the flood, not all."

You didn't say that, you'd be better off not lying this soon. I have very short temper when it comes to liars.
Rapid burials include being buried in bogs and swamps or areas prone to landslides.
And guess where we find most fossils. In areas we can geologically confirm to be one or another in most cases.

And somehow there's never ever been a single human being to have died alongside any of the dinosaurs, even in that supposed great flood of yours.

"I have studied that in some detail. I repeat what I said. Land vertebrates are not layered. In Grand Canyon, shellfish are layered."

[Kent] Hovind told you?

"If the world were flooded today, what are the chances that one found you among herds of elephants or hyaenas?"

Very little considering there's some 1000 or more kms between me and the next group of either. Which is not even relevant to your argument since dinosaurs for one were present on the entire planet and fossils of which can be found throughout the entire globe. Not only that, unless you didn't know, T-rex isn't the only species of Dinosaurs to have existed. Go ask a 6 year old and you might actually learn a thing or two.

"Documenting the 300 outsiders?"
They're present in their genomes. Get a clue.

"This is however not the case with Pitcairn itself."
Red herring and not true since they had not been completely isolated and the island had been completely depopulated when those people have migrated to Norfolk Island which we know genetically had not been isolated.
There's no studies done that I could find on the Pitcairns therefore you cannot make unfounded claims about their genetics.

"You do not have any cases of depopulation of a population due to inbreeding. In case you would like to cite Spanish Habsburgs, male lineage is not the whole population of them."

Even the Habsburgs were not completely isolated and had been marrying out. Even then largely due to their inbreeding and genetic defects that followed their entire male line had gone extinct. How do you propose a population to survive without a single man?

"The population on Pitcairn is totally from the original population"
To which no study has been done to confirm, therefore you're simply lying here.

"the complete depopulation was a move to Norfolk island"
The Norfolk Island which is established to while be superbly inbred for global standards has absolutely not been isolated, nor were they part of Pitcairn.

"Your info are from lines in the wiki article I missed or from other sources?"

Better info than yours which comes from your lust to mingle with your sibling.

@Hans-Georg Lundahl And speaking of studies, ang genetics. We can tell when a population was severely inbred or when there was a genetic bottleneck. For global flood story to be true we would've needed to find evidence of it in entire human race's genes. We don't. The largest bottleneck in human genetics is found to be about 60-70 thousand years ago when population dropped to anywhere between 10,000-30,000 individuals.

Not 2, not 8, not 19. 10,000 at the lowest.
And of course we can check in the geologic column and find sedimentary layers that coincide with that time period and whatdya know, no flood deposits that would be found globally. But wait, there actually is evidence for a global catastrophe that has left its mark in the geologic column all over the planet, but it's volcanic ash. Huh, curious.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Edelwise "We can tell when a population was severely inbred or when there was a genetic bottleneck."

To some degree.

"The largest bottleneck in human genetics is found to be about 60-70 thousand years ago when population dropped to anywhere between 10,000-30,000 individuals."

That time is inaccurate, doesn't even exist.

You have basically projected ghost images.

"And of course we can check in the geologic column and find sedimentary layers that coincide with that time period and whatdya know, no flood deposits that would be found globally."

If you pretend that Miocene and Permian are from radically different events.

" But wait, there actually is evidence for a global catastrophe that has left its mark in the geologic column all over the planet, but it's volcanic ash."

In fact, I changed my carbon date for the Flood from 40 000 BP to 39 000 BP over volcanic ash from Campi Flegrei.

If you carbon dated things from Permian or Miocene, first sawing up bones to find non-permineralised interiors, I think much could be carbon dated like that.

@Edelwise "Your claim that biblical flood is true, therefore the bible cannot be used as evidence for it. You'd be using the claim to evidence itself."

Historical claims are evidence that historical facts are true. Not always the 100 % correct evidence, but it is the evidence that history as such uses. More claims and closer in time to purported facts, and similar claims fom different sources are all factors that increase the quality.

If we regard the Bible as historic evidence and don't think about Divine inspiration, it concords with lots of evidence from other sources for the Flood. Not just from Mesopotamia, but from Altai and Peru as well.

"It's like saying that LOTR book is evidence for LOTR being true. It's nonsensical, it's the WORST evidence."

The first known audience of the book has not taken it as a historic claim, but as fiction.

"You have to, reality be damned."

Not the least damning reality ...

"We know how flood deposits sedimentary layers."

Guy Berthault has done experiments published in some Journal of Lithology. If the water is running at 20 m / sec, it can depose before calming down, does produce wharves.

"We know when floods happened in history in given areas."

Apart from historic records, no you don't.

"There is no sedimentary evidence for a global flood."

The Jurassic at Ankerschlag, the Miocene in Vienna and Lienz and lots of other places mentioned on palaeocritti disagree with you.

"You didn't say that, you'd be better off not lying this soon. I have very short temper when it comes to liars."

I quoted myself from memory. Here is the quote copypasted : // Most of the fossil layers are from the Flood. //

So, I didn't say most fossils were from the Flood, I said most of the fossil layers are from then. I still used "most" and I still didn't use "all" ... thanks for correcting me.

"Rapid burials include being buried in bogs and swamps or areas prone to landslides."

Indeed. But 5000 years worth of rapid burials after the Flood under such circumstances would still be dwarfed by those in the Flood.

Possible second, post-Flood landslides while mountains rose rapidly.

"And guess where we find most fossils. In areas we can geologically confirm to be one or another in most cases."

How does a geologically confirmed bog or swamp differ from a geologically confirmed part of the Flood?

"And somehow there's never ever been a single human being to have died alongside any of the dinosaurs, even in that supposed great flood of yours."

Even when the waters were coming, I'd prefer to stay miles away from the dinos, if I had lived back then. So would you.

[Kent] "Hovind told you?"

I have studied it in non-creationist sources apart from him. I hold his position as confirmed by my research. My go-to has been palaeocritti.

"Very little considering there's some 1000 or more kms between me and the next group of either."

It would probably be some hundred km between men and dinos just before the Flood to. Let's check for dino fossils close to Tautavel - a place where a Erectus race man was buried below lava in the Flood.

Tautavel is Pyrénées-Orientales.
Allier, Ardèche, Aude, Dordogne, Doubs, Hérault, Morbihan, Paris, Yonne are departments in France where you can see dinosaurs. In Paris they are probably brought there from elsewhere. In Dordogne, the men who came there were probably post-Flood.

"Which is not even relevant to your argument since dinosaurs for one were present on the entire planet and fossils of which can be found throughout the entire globe."

Not every square kilometer.

"Not only that, unless you didn't know, T-rex isn't the only species of Dinosaurs to have existed. Go ask a 6 year old and you might actually learn a thing or two."

It would be charming to spend some minutes discussing with a 6 year old who of Stego, Diplo and Ankylo would be best at resisting an attack from a Dimetrodon Grandis. But I was not trying to show off my capacity to discuss the dino kinds with a six year old, I was making a point. Dino carnivores were not very good to go near, and some herbivores weren't that either. Should I have taken two other types than T Rex and Diplodocus? Allosaurus and Brontosaurus (if the latter is a valid taxon currently) are obviously classed as different species, perhaps even genera, but are same kinds.

"They're present in their genomes. Get a clue."

With Norfolk island it's a qustion of history. If it's a known historic fact, why isn't it on the wiki on Norfolk Island?

"Red herring and not true since they had not been completely isolated and the island had been completely depopulated when those people have migrated to Norfolk Island which we know genetically had not been isolated."

The relevant other people on Norfolk Island came after the very brief time when all Pitkerners moved to Norfolk Island before any moved back.

"There's no studies done that I could find on the Pitcairns therefore you cannot make unfounded claims about their genetics."

My claim is about their history. Pitcairn and Norfolk Island have a history that can be studied in Church books.

"Even the Habsburgs were not completely isolated and had been marrying out."

Charles II was descended from Philip III, who also had two sons died without issue. One of them was clergy and the other died of a fever at 24. Neither of these extinctions had anything to do with inbreeding.
Philip III was son of Philip II, who had three sons die in infancy before Philip III became Prince of Asturias. The infant mortality also had no relation to inbreeding.
Philip II was son of Charles V, who had sons die young, apart from him. Two other sons survived into adulthood but were not eligible, since illegitimate.

"Even then largely due to their inbreeding and genetic defects that followed their entire male line had gone extinct."

The one example of damaging genetic effects was in Charles II. His ancestry must have had defective genes, but he was the first to have many of these from both sides.

So, no, inbreeding didn't kill the Habsburgs of Spain, just the last of them.

"How do you propose a population to survive without a single man?"

Would be a valid question if the Habsburg males hadn't had to deal with infant mortality, high fever at 24 or monastic / clerical vocations.

"To which no study has been done to confirm, therefore you're simply lying here."

Genetic studies are irrelevant, the historic facts are known.

"The Norfolk Island which is established to while be superbly inbred for global standards has absolutely not been isolated, nor were they part of Pitcairn."

You have entirely missed the history of Norfolk Island. It's available on wikipedia. I am still waiting for your reference for 300 ancestral individuals not from Pitcairn. A historical one, not a reconstruction by genetic testing.

But as you mention it is "superbly inbred for global standards" do they seem to be dying? A population well over 2000 seems to be doing just fine.

"Better info than yours which comes from your lust to mingle with your sibling."

I have no lust to mingle with my sibling. That's a hugely unfair charge just to vent your anger over the disagreement, or to demonise Christians who believe in these bottlenecks.

You are still not saying what info.

Continued Debate with Edelwise

upcoming

IV

9:06 You are aware that the different fossils of the Paris basin (the one studied by Lyell) were mostly shellfish, right?

How would that superposition be explainable in a Flood setting? Hmmmm .....

9:21 "likely took a long time to form"

We don't see structures like that forming in the present, so uniformitarianism would perhaps still be off?

10:25 Tree rings are not a great key for millions or billions of years.

Back when I started out as Young Earth Creationist, before even becoming Catholic on top of that, From Nothing to Nature, by Edgar Andrews suggested tree rings could be possibly used for going 20 000 years back in time, and now a very serious tree ring research centre in Germany is only going 10 000 years back in time.

That's also over the top.

For the other items, deposition rates are either not biologically determined, or as with corals, not in conflict with Young Earth for other reasons, like thickness fitting a coral having grown since the Flood very well.

Paul Garrett

How does any of that relate to radiometric dating.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Paul Garrett Did you not notice that at the time stamp 10:25 Gutsick Gibbon is not talking of radiometric dating?

If you know the video less well than I do, why bother to answer? I at least am aware of the first 10 minutes, like 10:25 not being about radiometric dating.

She's in fact talking of among other things tree rings.

I am making a detailed comment on the video, point by point, not just answering the title, OK?

Paul Garrett

@Hans-Georg Lundahl gotcha, so radiometric dating is sound and the earth is 4.5 billion years old.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Paul Garrett No, this is not the comment for that debate.

@Paul Garrett 10:25 is not the time stamp in the video where Gutsick is talking of radiometric dating.

Paul Garrett

@Hans-Georg Lundahl it's where she is talking about other methods that corroborate radiometric dating, an they do. Dendrochronology is concordant with carbon dating and other lower half life isotopes like Ar-Ar.

Radiometric dating is still sound, the earth is still 4.5 billion years old.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Paul Garrett yes, it's about other methods, and this coment is about those other methods.

If you want to discuss the 4.5 billion years, wait for the comment where she is discussing how to get there.

11:00 Putting blue hyperlinks into a book - I think they should make a second edition, where each section has the hyperlinks in the pages explicitated with written out URL's at the end.

OR - you should verify they haven't done so already.