Candace Owens is Pretty Right on Palestine

Ignorant Palestinian Woman Mocked by Zionist, But the Joke is On Him, Not Her · Candace Owens is Pretty Right on Palestine

Candace Owens, Antisemite? Has She Gone Too Far? No.
Mere Tradition with Kennedy Hall | 12 July 2024
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R_GlpchV1mc

4:53 Would you agree that hatred of Palestinians is also understood in this condemnation of hatred of Jews, given that the ancestry of Palestinians 2000 years ago was:

• Jews
• Samarians
• Men of Galilee?

Labradorite*

@labradoriteatheart

There is no such thing as palestine/palestinians. The arabs in gaza and in Israel's Judea and Samaria are egyptians.** STOP YOUR LIES AND PROPAGANDA.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@hglundahl

@labradoriteatheart The one who is here promoting lies is yourself.

I'm not saying they are your lies, but they are still lies.

* "Chaîne sans contenu" / no content on the channel. In other words, the equivalent of an anonymous comment, and actually hate comment.

** I've even heard peninsular Arabs, Egyptians is inaccurate, but slightly less so. About as accurate as calling a Mitsrahi Jew Egyptian. If Jordanians and Lebanese are the closest matches of 23 and me for a pure Palestinian, that means that the greater Israel prophecied in Isaias 11 is already achieved long ago, so that Judah and Ephraim (the actual peoples of West Bank Palestinians, especially Christians) have mixed with Edom, Moab and Ammon, and gone out to Egypt and also later further North into Syria and Lebanon.

Kennedy Hall Trying to Give an Older Man a Father Talk?

I'm actually not Gen Z, but since I'm partly in a situation similar to a young man who's not yet married ... I'm not yet married ... and my style in some cases matches Gen Z better than my own generation ....

Dear Gen Z Men, I Think You Should Hear This
Mere Tradition with Kennedy Hall | 31 May 2025
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RAmaaWc_EKQ

[omitting a comment]

10:56 I'm a Swede (partly, other part somewhat related to Mr. Wajsblat), so on that side Christian through St. Sigfrid, who was arguably Christian through the efforts of certainly St. Augustine of Canterbury (day before Ascension), and probably also St. Oswald.

I have described a certain St. Oswald's "bad years" in lines like these:

A relative of Ælla,
  Who olden Ænglisc spake,
Who worshipt God in Latin
  Though the monks might know some Græc
He was yclepëd Oswald,
  Yes Oswald was his name,
But some foul impious hunter
  Thought he would make good game.

In other words, he was hunted by his uncle Edwin (until that uncle converted):

Æthelfrith, who was for years a successful war-leader, especially against the native British, was eventually killed in the battle of the River Idle around 616 by Raedwald of East Anglia. This defeat meant that an exiled member of the Deiran royal line, Edwin (Acha's brother), became king of Northumbria and Oswald and his brothers fled to the north. Oswald thus spent the remainder of his youth in the Scottish kingdom of Dál Riata in northern Britain, where he was converted to Christianity.[8] He may also have fought in Ireland during this period of exile.

However, Edwin only converted 11 years later.

Do you seriously think, by the way I once imagined Oswald's life these years on the lines of Alfred's while on that moor, that of Oswald had played his cards right, he could have harmoniously lived a life home in Northumbria? If Oswald was not quite as badly off as Alfred those years, was it perhaps because of some factor outside his own control, like the hospitality of the Dal Riata (I've seen it spelled Dal Riada, probably the pronunciation, but Old Irish doesn't write out lenitions, perhaps)?

2009 to 2011, I was doing my best efforts as a writer and as a homeless parishioner of St. Nicolas du Chardonnet to pursue virtue. The problem is, the parish and I had very different tests for my virtue. The parish DEFINITELY wanted me to pursue the one virtue of Christian resignation, giving up all hopes of bliss in this life, as contentment with very humble conditions were, to them, the obvious virtue for the status of a homeless man. As to the status of a writer, they thought of that simply as a vanity at odds with the humility and resignation "I should" pursue.

If this is around the time you converted, part of your story may be graces bought by my sacrifices.

It's not the faith that's threatened. It's charity and hope, also necessary to salvation. And since it's not the faith that's damaged, reading my blogs is also not a threat to anyone's faith. I highly try to reduce references to my own situation, unless I hope to gain some justice by publishing a description of what happened.

And no, my problem isn't blaming others instead of taking responsibility for my actions. I am a hard working writer. But to some guys:

1) all my work is anyway tainted by my pride in not pursuing the normal virtues of a homeless man (as they were before the internet made it so homeless men could be writers)
2) all my work is also anyway tainted by paranoia about my situation ...

I tried St. Nicolas du Chardonnet out. It's not paranoia to state they boycott me because, like Muslims, Jews, Protestants and Freemasons, they look at my homelessness as a "status" and make this "status" incompatible with the one I claim, as a writer. No, homelessness is not a status, it's a misfortune. Having a toothache doesn't change your profession. You never ceased to be a teacher because you joined the labour union of tooth ache sufferers instead. You did, like I, cease to be a teacher, because you had a conscience about things you ought to say or not say to your pupils, and it didn't match that of your employers.

3) and they are totally free to read my mind through either a psychiatrist or psychologist, I presume, at least if he backs his statements up with quotes from my blogs. THEY are not competent to see if my blog posts are mostly (excepting the difference on the PQ -- Papal Question, sth they tolerate for Sedes, but not for Conclavists) good theology and good argument. But a shrink is somehow competent to see my writing as a window into my soul and see if it is bad mental health ... at such a distance, and no, I am definitely NOT spending the kind of time with shrinks in which good and honest ones with a good doctrine (you know, unicorns, basically, they are mostly dead by now) could arguably know me sufficiently well to make a fairly balanced diagnosis in terms that would not actually harm me, harm my freedoms and prospects of success ... because if not, that would mean they had to trust me on how I judge that kind of people, and they obviously can't that, as that judgement is precisely what you are right now warning against.

Probably on their nudging.

Is their founder and main inspiration Mgr Lefebvre or Jordan Peterson?

Even a Protestant like Melissa Doughterty would identify part of what you are claiming as New Thought ... a heresy she has left, but Oprah Winfrey hasn't. Basically, you get what you deserve. You shape your actual destiny and how everyone else (with few and depressing exceptions) perceives you by how you think.

Nope. You don't.

God has providentially stacked very big odds in my favour, and part of my misfortune is how some really insist in countering that they actually come to work in my favour.

14:20 I didn't use a computer until I was at university. It was a question of writing a longish word document (ten weeks essay project) on a floppy disk.

I didn't come to the internet until I was near 33. I came onto the internet for a pious purpose, personally. I found two absorbing interests immediately, Tolkien and debating Evolution believers (both Atheist and "Catholic"). They have stuck with me.

15:15 Oh, thank you.

Everyone where I am is very much invited to in real life get to know me through my blogs.

If what everyone where I am is hearing from sources more credited (if not more objectively credible) than myself is your shtick, that certainly deprives me of occasions of meaningful community in what you call real life.

My prison isn't the internet. It is what people around me think of my internet use.

In real life, I meet lots of people who think about me, like you about Gen Z men, but they won't say. Actually hearing it is actually an upgrade.

In real life, as you put it, I deal with people who will ask "how are you?" in a way which to my linguistic ear (and to the translation standards of Google translate) sounds like "are you OK?" ... on the internet, I can deal with people who care about subjects I care about. Some people make sure I definitely can't do so offline, and part of their arsenal is the argument you are proferring.

I knew about having a virtual life well before the internet. Reading, and not being very popular at school. But because the internet is freer of expression, Commie China decided in 2004 that a virtual life on those terms was far more dangerous than a life of reading had ever been. Somehow, whether in 2011 at St. Nicolas du Chardonnet, or in 2025 over a Canadian youtuber, the SSPX has come to believe those doctors from Red China. Not to be too indiscrete, but where are you placing a certain scarlet beast and what would you call Catholics that are a bit too close to it?

By the way, my heart doesn't cease to beat, my lungs don't cease to breath, my brain doesn't go to flat line just because I'm before a screen with internet connection. The correct opposite of online isn't "in real life" and the correct opposite of virtual communication is not "in real life communication", they are rather, offline and viva voce (grazie alla bella lingua italiana / gratias ago maximas pulcherrimae linguae latinae, the spelling works both languages).

15:27 Sorry, but the reality of communicating over the internet is as real as the reality of communicating in other ways of writing or recording, and is as real, if not as direct as communicating verbally face to face, you are making a philosophical point which is not real philosophy.

If you take it from psychology or psychiatry, sorry again, those are not competent in philosophy and are a complete fraud about some of their doctrines on human behaviours.

A shrink from Hamburg, or even one who uses a paper written in Hamburg, can come to consider going to a cyber as a kind of gambling addiction. Note, in Hamburg, as far as I could see, unlike Paris, perhaps unlike Amsterdam, possibly by now unlike Berlin, though it wasn't the case in the winter 2004/2005, the only internet connection you can pay for is 6 € per hour or 1 € ten minutes, for a bad connection, you can hardly answer anyone on FB, you can certainly not blog from that connection. A shrink in Paris will read this paper and despite me having paid for a connection where I can do stuff, where I have hours paid in advance, this time thanks to a good deal 94 cents per hour, that shrink will pretend my writing on the internet is a form of gambling addiction.

I have come across the idea that writing and hoping for a publisher is gambling. No. If I bought a lottery ticket from Française des Jeux (lottery) in 2012, it's worthless now. But if I wrote a blog post in 2012 and didn't take it down and nobody else took it down, it may still be getting readers, like "I Like "Miacis Cognitus"" regularly does. Ten lottery gains of price back can't be combined over time to a more substantial gain, but ten blog posts that keep getting readers are more suited to become copied into a book than just one blog post that does. So, in the case of writing, the chance is being raised by a cumulative effect that's absent in lottery due to its ephemeral nature.

15:46 If you meant muscles for dealing with viva voce conflict, well yes. If I try to get the kind of justice I try to get from blogging about injustices in real life, as you put it, it means going to the police. And if the police lets you wait one hour, then another hour, then make the interaction one hour long, make sure it's interrupting me over and over for senseless clarifications, and preventing the one's I think needed and then make sure there is no investigation, I don't have the muscles to deal with that. I don't think I gain anything from trying to get them, except more police with Muslim and Jewish loyalties making sure I never get any satisfaction from Muslims or Jews who have done badly about my situation.

But I also had no muscles for dealing with that kind of thing back in 1996, when my misfortunes started, over Catholic life decisions, if not as directly over a confession of the Catholic faith, back then pretty strictly on SSPX lines. I am telling you, there are such things as "force majeure" and not just a single person handling his own affairs badly. And with your ideology, they are likely to continue over me even being at the internet for writing.

There is a time for someone to come to a conclusion, if he cares at all for someone's good, time to skip the good advice, time to start changing the response to a certain person.

Sharing a Discussion on Africa, Commenting on Not so African Things that I Know Better

The Myth of the African Novus Ordo, Vatican II Success Story with Dr. Peter Kwasniewski
Mere Tradition with Kennedy Hall | 27 March 2025
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cNSfx4FahWE

36:47 They even use names in Old Church Slavonic. Vladimir is Old Church Slavonic. The Ukrainean Volodymyr feels "rustic" to Russians, because it's the actual Russian form.

The nickname for a Vladimir is Volodya.

Confer South Slavic forms in -grad (Beograd), and note, Old Church Slavonic is actually Old Bulgarian, with East Slavic (Russian, Ukrainian, etc) forms in -gorod (Novgorod).

That said, people who are used to the liturgy in Greece or Russia or Ukraine will arguably come to understand the liturgic language by kind of osmosis, like Danish worked for me (I'm a Swede) or like Dutch partly worked for me (I grew up bilingual in German).

Latin came to a breaking point in 800 to 813. Before 800, the Latin in France was definitely odd to priests from elsewhere. From 813 it was recognised, common people didn't really understand Latin. The difference was made by Alcuin as to brushing up Proto-Romance with Latin to Latinising spelling into actual Latin of centuries earlier in Rome, and the reaction was to add an explanation in the vernacuar when people were obliged to attend (Lord's Days and Holidays of Obligation), either about the Gospel or about the object of the feast.

So, all of the sacred languages actually started out as vernaculars (Pali was the native language of Buddha and of Ashoka, btw, we find older inscriptions in Pali than in Sanscrit, the oldest being by Ashoka). When Pope Michael I allowed the Mass of 1950's liturgic books to be said with the translation for the faithful instead of the Latin, it was not an overreach.

38:24 They are certainly wrong about history as a method.

I've seen so many deny that the founding of Rome by Romulus and the war of Troy are historic events. "No, oral tradition isn't good enough, we need contemporary written records" ...

Well, contemporary written records are a plus, but for most of Genesis, starting with chapter 2, Moses, relied on oral tradition, which was good enough for him, or at least for Genesis 2 to 11 he did, and it was good enough for Abraham (a Beduin tribe would have been able to preserve records from Genesis 12 on, and also to write down the oral transmission from up to Abraham).

46:44 There is an ancient exception. Since Tarquin the haughty raped Lucretia, Rome was allergic against monarchy.

The result came to be a highly oligarchic Senatorial state, which I count as the Ancient version of the Fourth Beast. The modern version would be Communism, which obviously is highly Senatorial to not say Senile.

47:05 Clovis, obviously, and Saint Volodymyr in Ukraine. His capital was Kiev. Ukraine has preserved more of the old Rus' than Russia has, since Russia was Tatarised.

Did you know that St. Bridget was told to tell our king in Sweden (back then bigger, also included Finland) to go on a Crusade against the Heathen of Novgorod?

My second father confessor, back then Novus Ordo, now EOF, mentioned this to me, to dissuade me from believing too much in private revelations. His argument was "obviously the Russian Orthodox weren't Pagans, so, St. Bridget mistook her own culture for God's voice" ... I think she didn't. Novgorod was at the time (100 years after Alexander Nevski) dominated by the Tatars. And with Tatars busy on the Swedish front, there might not have been that Tatar siege on Crimea, which got the Bubonic plague started in Europe.

Allie Beth Stuckey Revisited

What’s Behind Brett Cooper's & Candace Owens’ Reaction to Daily Wire's CEO Departure? | Ep 1158
Allie Beth Stuckey | 20.III.2025
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aEEQK1US7gY

13:39 The abuse was obviously unacceptable, but at 12 she was not a child.

At 12 (and some months) 50 % of young ladies can become pregnant. A person who can become pregnant is not a male, and equally not a child.

16:10 A child may not be able to consent, but at 12, when as said a woman is no longer a child, consent to marriage and therefore also consent to premarital sex has been considered valid consent all over Christian history.

In the 19th C. in response to lots of girls getting trapped in prostitution (as if that were more important than marriage) England raised the age of consent to 13.

In the early 20th C. the Progressive Era, the US involved several states raising the age for marriage to 21 or 18.

EmeryShae

@EmeryShae

Are you nuts? This didn’t happen in the 19th century. Laws were in place. She was absolutely a child and it’s concerning to me that you want to prove otherwise.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@hglundahl

@EmeryShae You may not be nuts, but you are IGNORANT of history.

The Classic laws of marital age in England and colonies (including famous 13 ones) were saying for girls they had to wait to 12, or on other views just to 10. There were parallel and contradictory laws in England.

On the continent, prior to the French Revolution, and Reformations in some other countries, or even after Reformation, depending on country a girl could be married by 12 (France, Spain) or possibly only 14 (Savoy, I think, but could be wrong).

Check out Romeo and Juliet, and read it carefully. Romeo is an adult. He is able to kill in a duel (and that's what puts him into a feud with Juliet's family). The play starts when Juliet has 14 days left until she wwas going to be 14. Her mother tells her that at that age she was already married, I think even already a mother.

That was perfectly legal in Verona as elsewhere. Romeo's love was not forbidden because he was what you would consider a pedophile, but because he was in a feud with the family of his desired bride.

22:24 The Gates of Hell will not prevail against exactly what Church?

You know lots of Protestants (and lots of total non-Christians) have hoped that all of Catholicism comes tumbling down over certain things.

Were you one of them?

24:48 I am rather thankful for statutes of limitation being other than Oklahoma in several parts of Europe, including France.

27:26 There is exactly one justice that take up crimes however long ago.

It's (if I recall correctly) upcoming in the valley of Josaphath.

Romans 13 means that criminals currently unrepentant and continuing should certainly be liable to get charged, but it doesn't mean a man who is likely to have repented a long time ago should be dug up years after the crime, when the victim is at no danger and when there is no new victim.

I am no fan of the Wiesenthal Center, who seem to have been involved in getting Demjanjuk to court in Israel. In the 80's, like forty years after the alleged crime (his implication was disputed, and an Israeli court of appeal actually cleared him at one point) was over.

29:02 I certainly consider her point valid about coming forth.

41:41 Oh, your husband's name is Timothy ... if he reads appropriate epistles by St. Paul, he might end up Catholic.

50:17 Jews are not free from all faults, and if someone says "you dirty Jew" it's not my style, I happen to have Jewish relatives, but it's also not a thing I can write off as totally un-Christian.

In fact, there is spiritual uncleanness in rejecting Christ (like the Jews do), in fake accepting him, while rejecting His Church (which to various degrees Muslims, Protestants and Freemasons do).

If you wish someone to get clean of a spiritual uncleanness, perhaps stating "you dirty X" is preferrable over wishing someone minimum five years in prison decades after the crime.

51:03 When as a child I branded on a piece of wood I long kept "Jesus is Lord" I did not know the full implication of the words.

I wasn't Catholic yet.

I knew Jesus is Lord of the Universe, I knew Jesus is Lord over my life, whether I'm faithful or not.

I did not know Jesus is Lord over one specific Church, which He refuses to abandon.

I did not know that Jesus is Lord over human society.

These two dimensions are resumed in "Christ is King" since His Kingship over the Jews is not just exercised in Heaven, but for 2000 years has been exercised in the Christian population of Palestine, and for lots of these years has been exercised in Catholic States.

Now, lots of people who state "Christ is King" are in fact lamenting the loss of Catholic States and there are in fact Jewish contributions to this loss. I would say even to 19th C. Nationalisms. It's a safe bet that in 1864, Jews had a preference for Prussia over Austria. It's a very safe bet that in 1870 Jews had a preference for Savoy over Austria, Naples and the Papal States.

It's highly probable that in Mexico at a certain time they preferred Benito Juárez and US meddling over the Austrian Emperor of Mexico.

That's why I find it obliging on me to state "Christ is King" ...

59:15 You are aware that Hitler was a part time supporter of Zionism?

There are pictures of boats setting off to Palestine under double flag, Israeli flag (not yet official) and swastika.

Obviously, Protesting Jewish recitals is not the brightest thing to do, I'd prefer them supporting Palestinian ones (unless Trump bans those).

adding:

The 'Saint' Who was Excommunicated and Executed | Girolamo Savonarola
Mere Tradition with Kennedy Hall | 20 March 2025
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YUXOUTjG9ZM

12:33 I seem to recall the contemporary version of Hail Mary is his.

In St. Thomas' time, the prayer ended with the name Jesus, as can be indirectly seen from St. Lewis of Montfort's Second method, when the mystery is inserted into the Hail Mary after that in a relative clause.

He added the final prayer, which already existed separately and is actually used separately by the Orthodox.

Three videos involving Evolution : the Trad Catholic, the Protestant Creationist, the Atheist and Evolutionist Ones

For those new to this blog, it has different formats, one that you may not be familiar with is produced like this: a) I hear a video, and from time to time I stop it, to post a comment on what I just heard, making a time stamp for the moment when I stopped the video; b) I make a post with, first, link to the video, then, the comments one by one, in order of time stamps. This format is not an essay format, more like footnotes or endnotes section to someone else's essay. My "footnotes", so to speak, are often too polemic and too long to be what some actual footnoter does. They are not meant to be one coherent thought in relation to the whole video, they are meant to be several coherent thoughts in relation to several moments in the video. My equivalent among videasts is the guy making reaction videos. In an actual video comment, I cannot put a quoted segment into a blockquote, so I put them between two pairs of slashes (// statement //), in that case I usually make it a blockquote here. I mean quotes from for instance wikipedia or other non-Bible source. This is different from quotes from the video, which, unless long, I put in italics and quotation marks, and quotes from the Bible which I put in bold. In some cases people interact with my comments, and such interactions are also mirrored in dialogue sections, were the username of the one "speaking" is given on one line, his comment below it, next line indented. In the comments here, someone used a vulgar and evil screen name, at least apparently such (he could have meant to speak the screen name as done over the distinguishing part of the channel), I have left it as it is.

Some of the Reasons I Reject 'Evolution'
Mere Tradition with Kennedy Hall | 21 janv. 2025
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yr5vTssHoRA

3:38 Actually, mechanics and electromagnetism do tend to have a few constants.

Levers tend to gain in force what they lose in length of movement, I think proportionally. Here I find an exact formuly, which is not likely to change in a century of a millennium from now:

If the distance traveled is greater, then the output force is lessened.

T1 = F1a, T2=F2b

T = Torque.
F = force applied at some distance from fulcrum.
a, b, distance from fulcrum at which the force is applied.

Electricity has actual V = IR (V = voltage across the conductor, I = current through the conductor, R = resistance).

Also not likely to change any time soon.

And biology has some actual science like the laws of Mendel.

Sliglus Amelius

@sliglusamelius8578

He didn't say anything against hard physics or chemistry , you're arguing a straw man. He specifically stated which sciences have various debates and he didn't mention physics or chemistry or electromagnetism.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@hglundahl

@sliglusamelius8578 He painted "science" (all of it) with that broad brush, which I just wanted to notice isn't applicable to actual science.

Evolution (big picture version) is not even science.

11:07 Given the dimensions of the Ark:

• the Flood had to be global, a local Flood would have been too shallow, the Ark would have floundered
• and there is definitely not room enough for one couple of each modern Linnean species.

There had to be some elasticity for for instance 17 species of hedgehog (no, NOT counting porcupines!) to come from a single couple on the Ark.

Conversely, errors like Limited Flood and the very related Deep Time, came from the side denying elasticity. That side has also produced racism in the real and abject meaning of the word, like pretending Black People don't descend from Adam or shouldn't be baptised.

16:14 I'd love to have the number of the condemned thesis in Lamentabile Sane ....

Number 2 has a restricted application of this to exegesis, though.

19:35 You are making a great point. I've made it in a piece entitled "What is Expertise? Some Things It is Not."

However, there is a certain Prussian view, to which I obviously do not subscribe, but which says, if you are not an accredited expert actually doing research for a university or teaching for it, you are in that scientific subject a "layman" ... the Prussian culture was making theology more and more convoluted (as you realise if you reflect on them uniting Calvinism with Lutheranism into a Prussian state Church), and non-clergy were not expected to express any conviction about theology.

This then rubs off to other subjects. If you are not an accredited expert, you are a "layman" ... it means you may need basic concepts explained to you in non-terminological terms. For instance.

Prussia and Sweden are pretty much the same on this idea. And if you imagine I could go to Northern Germany or to Sweden and just argue your excellent point and not be shut down, not to say in, you don't know much of Prussian or Swedish culture.

23:11 "you don't have a right to an opinion"

That's the national anthem of Prussian Academia ...

Answering a Major Challenge to Young Earth Creation | How did Adam name all the Animals?
Standing For Truth | 21.I.2025
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=10wl3ujC7xo

6:50 Two quibbles so far.

1) Adam wasn't born, he was formed as an adult.
2) I'd say God made Adam's spirit the exact same moment He inserted it into the body.

Piss

@baaldiablo8459

5:35 When does God give Eve a spirit of her own?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@hglundahl

@baaldiablo8459 When He created Her as an individual.

dooglitas

@dooglitas

@baaldiablo8459 The text does not tell us. Obviously, God did so. The fact that it does not mention it is immaterial.

Piss

@ How is it obvious? Just because you think its the case? Very convincing.

dooglitas

@dooglitas

@ Well, it's obvious because women have spirits. Eve had a spirit. So it must be the case. It's not that hard.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@ This goes for the other guy too.

It's Catholic at least doctrine that God creates each soul when creating the individual. There are obviously non-Catholics who contest this, I don't think many Catholics would hold to for instance traducianism (someone's spirit already existing in whoever they came from beforehand).

Richie Journey

@richiejourney1840

I would agree that is what the text says. God formed AND gave the nephesh…same sentence…all of them…GN 2:7

8:40 153 families mammals, 249 families birds, 85 families of reptiles, 53 of amphibians

153 100 050 03
249 300 090 12
085 300 170 17
053 300 220 20 = 540 couples

Give him three hours, from creation at noon to 3pm (like Jesus on Calvary), makes 10,800 seconds, divided by 540 = 20 seconds per couple.

I think Adam's precision was an impressionistic one.

Pabras

@Rob2000

I dont get the calculation. You are counting created kinds? So where did the names of the species after the garden came from?

Piss

Christian math is... interesting...

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@[Pabras] The "species" in Latin are created kinds.

Each created kind back then existed in probably one couple, therefore one genus and one species. It still is one family. I went to a site to check how many families each there were in mammals, reptiles, birds and amphibians and simply copied the number.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@[Piss] That the families add up to 540, or that 3 hours make 10,800 seconds, or that 10,800 divided by 540 makes 20?

9:17 I don't think God did speak 100's of 1,000,000,000's of galaxies into existence, I don't think there is even one galaxy as modern cosmology understands the world.

God certainly could have, but I don't think He did.

You know, artistic economy, showing Adam He's the one who turns Heaven around Earth ...

9:55 Don't compare Adam's mind to an AI programme.

I just saw a broschure of Scotland generated that way, and it showed a Scottish castle. A so Scottish castle I'm not positive you could pronounce the Gaelic name. Neuschwanstein.

Yes, the castle built by Lewis II of Bavaria. It's simply THE generic castle, especially in pictorial contexts.

That's why I don't think the mark of the beast will be the human mind connecting to AI. It simply couldn't work. If you read AI through a screen, you can criticise its aberrations. If you are connected to it "uncritically", with your critical faculties shut off, you'll probably be dead within a week or so.

13:06 I don't think the Egyptians did breed poodles.

The skeleton of a Tesem is closer to a terrier than a grayhound. But even a terrier is not a poodle. The Egyptians certainly bred grayhounds.

The poodle was a product of the Middle Ages:

"Most cynologists believe the Poodle originated in Germany in the Middle Ages, from a dog similar to today's Standard Poodle. The Poodle was Germany's water dog, just as England had the English Water Spaniel, France the Barbet, Ireland the Irish Water Spaniel and the Netherlands the Wetterhoun. ... Some cynologists believe the Poodle originated in France, where it is known as the "Caniche" and that the breed descends from the Barbet. This view is shared by the Fédération Cynologique Internationale (FCI, International Canine Federation)."

"Der mittelgroße „Barbet“, ist einer der ältesten europäischen Wasserhunde und möglicherweise ein Vorläufer des Pudels. Die Mauren sollen seine Vorfahren im 6. Jahrhundert nach Spanien und Portugal gebracht haben, von wo er sich sehr schnell in ganz Europa verbreitet haben soll. Schon sehr früh wird in Portugal ein Wasserhund (Cão de Água Português) erwähnt, der alle Merkmale des Barbets hat. Diesen Wasserhund trifft man im 14. Jahrhundert in ganz Europa an und erst im 16. Jahrhundert wird er mit dem Namen „Barbet“ benannt."

"Züchterisch hat diese Rasse eine Reihe heute existierende Jagdhundrassen beeinflusst. Dazu zählt der Deutsche Drahthaarige Vorstehhund, der Pudelpointer, der Griffon Korthals und der Irish Water Spaniel."

So, a water dog entered Europe through Mauretanians in pre-Islamic times, it corresponds to the French Barbet, and later on one of its byproducts is the Poodle.

Examples of three different types of dogs shown on Egyptian monuments
Public Domain, File:PSM V39 D830 Dogs from the egyptian monument.jpg
Created: 1891, Uploaded: 21 October 2015
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tesem#/media/File:PSM_V39_D830_Dogs_from_the_egyptian_monument.jpg

The midmost of the Egyptian dogs seems related to the Dachshund or Teckel, but not to the Poodle.

Young Earth Creationist Gets SCHOOLED By Two Scientists | Forrest Valkai & Aaron Adair
The Line Edge | 14 janv. 2025
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=taJnsZB4zYs

1:34 "No, from start to finish we have never watched "

What an admission. I'd actually be satisfied if one had modelled a series of steps and watched every step separately.

Has not happened. Arguably will not happen.

When you are saying, at least some seem to do, "we don't know how that detail happened just yet" ... that's definitely faith based.

Both faith in materialism, which is neither the only, nor the obvious default worldview, since materialism requires, but no other world view requires, abiogenesis.

And faith in the Scientific methods currently used in examining these things, since they would (on this view) be leading to the upcoming discoveries.

Bobkoroua

@bobkoroua

But you do know that some of the steps have been observed?

And that some of the building blocks of DNA's building blocks have been found off earth?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@hglundahl

@bobkoroua Yes, but not all the building blocks, I think of the 21 amino acids, one or two are missing, and also, the "some steps" have been observed in circumstances clearly showing they would not add up to "next step" ...

2:30 Forrest Valkai doesn't know the difference between Deduction and Induction.

Building a model is actually not Induction. It may be inspired by Induction, but it isn't Induction.

It relies heavily on Deduction.

It is used sometimes in a way contrary to the rules of Deduction, in which "confirming the consequent" is an actual fault.

Building a model needs deduction, like for instance, in order to make my models for the young earth creationist recalibration of carbon 14, I deduce from a 51+ pmC level in the atmosphere when Babel / Göbekli Tepe ends, from a 82 + pmC level when Genesis 14 goes on and En Geddi is evacuated, from the presumption of a constant speed of carbon 14 production (clumsy, but an approximation, pending further information which I don't have) the intermediate levels between 51 + and 82 + pmC and when they fit in the Biblical / Real timeline, and from 2189 BC then having the level of 70 + pmC, I deduce the extra years and add them to the real year, getting 5089 BC as the probable carbon date for 2189 BC.

Any model that's detailed uses Deduction.

Induction is only there to give us general principles. Some have from the idea that "induction can never be proven, only falsified, one black swan is all it takes ..." pulled that over to models, and said that "this model need not be and can not be proven, it can only be falsified, and so far it hasn't been" ... that's absurd, because models can be compared, and the comparison can and should use deductive logic, i e proof.

[To be continued for the Forrest Valkai & Aaron Adair video; and the model for carbon 14 rise after the Flood that I referred to being the one I published on Christmas Eve, after first Vespers of Christmas: Newer Tables: Preliminaries · Flood to Joseph in Egypt · Joseph in Egypt to Fall of Troy.]

Babel's Confusion was Not a Curse

Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere: Babel's Confusion was Not a Curse · Creation vs. Evolution: Three Questions on Quora · Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere: Josephus on Nimrod and Babel, Vindicated · Unity, Precious AND Dangerous

The Curse of the Charismatic 'Gift of Tongues,' the Tower of Babel and the New Mass
Mere Tradition with Kennedy Hall | 7 Aug 2024
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e7vg8ddWhiE

I checked St. Augustine.

Or started to. He did not state that the confusion of languages was a curse on mankind. Here are the words in Book 16, chapter 4, basically final sentence of the chapter:

But what was the nature of the punishment? As the tongue is the instrument of domination, in it pride was punished; so that man, who would not understand God when He issued His commands, should be misunderstood when he himself gave orders. Thus was that conspiracy disbanded, for each man retired from those he could not understand, and associated with those whose speech was intelligible; and the nations were divided according to their languages, and scattered over the earth as seemed good to God, who accomplished this in ways hidden from and incomprehensible to us.

So, a punishment on the bosses, the ringleaders, the commanders. But not a curse on each and all. I would say, it was a blessing for most.

[tried to add]

In chapter 6, book 16 finishes the discussion.

St. Augustine has so far not said, the confusion of languages was a curse.

[the comment had disappeared, I reposted and added in the repost]

In all of book 16, the syllable "curse" with or without an added -d occurs 12 times, and it's uniformly either about the curse of Canaan, which he considers a curse against Ham, or the curse against those who curse Abraham (and Christ).

[I then tried to add]

Book 18 has no mention even of Babel or Nimrod.

I checked Josephus too:

When God saw that they acted so madly, he did not resolve to destroy them utterly, since they were not grown wiser by the destruction of the former sinners; but he caused a tumult among them, by producing in them divers languages, and causing that, through the multitude of those languages, they should not be able to understand one another.

CHAPTER 4. Concerning The Tower Of Babylon, And The Confusion Of Tongues.
BOOK I. Containing The Interval Of Three Thousand Eight Hundred And Thirty-Three Years. — From The Creation To The Death Of Isaac.
Antiquities
https://www.gutenberg.org/files/2848/2848-h/2848-h.htm#link2HCH0004

And, I did not just check with St. Augustine and Josephus but also with St. Thomas (or at least one Dominican close enough to him to have his work mistaken, but I think Postilla in Libros Geneseos is genuine), here we go:

Et dixit: ecce unus est populus et cetera. Hoc intellectualiter dixit Deus intra se et etiam ad Angelos suos. Notatur autem in his verbis caussa rationabilis et condigna perturbandi conatus et intentiones istorum. Erant enim sic affectuosi et irrevocabiliter intenti ad perficiendum opus incoeptum, et ad obtinendum id quod ex ipso opere finaliter intendebant, quod per fortes manus obstaculum a praedictis revocari non possent. Et quia ex unitate linguae et ex concordia voluntatum ad malum, robur vehemens assumebant, idcirco dixit Deus: ecce unus est populus et cetera. Et ex his subinfert poenam confusionis linguarum esse optimam ad turbandum eorum intentum et conatum. Et ad Angelos loquens subdit, venite igitur. Confusio enim linguarum potuit saltem quo ad aliquid fieri ministerio angelico. Vult autem Scriptura per hos vel consimiles modos loquendi ostendere quod Deus facit per Angelos ea quae per ipsos fieri possunt. Dicitur autem Deus hic descendere per efficaciam aut effectum potentiae suae in illa in quae agit. Loquitur autem sic ut sensibilius et terribilius hominibus ingerat Dei praesentiam et justitiam punitivam. Ut non audiat unusquisque, idest ut non intelligat, nec audiendo discernat. Vocem proximi sui, quicquid intendit significare per eam. Et idcirco vocatum est nomen ejus Babel, quia ibi confusum est et cetera. Babel enim interpretatur confusio. Divisio autem linguarum confusio linguarum dicitur, quia ex hoc lingua unius fiebat alteri confusa et inintelligibilis. Nota circa hoc, quod judicium est unum de universalibus judiciis Dei super genus humanum; et est tertium illorum universalium quae in super genus humanum; et est tertium illorum universalium quae in Scriptura sacra leguntur. Nam primum est inflictio mortalitatis. Secundum est diluvii exterminium. Nota, inquam, primo rectam correspondentiam ejus ad culpam pro qua est datum. Erat enim in illis perversa pax et unitas Deo valde contumeliosa, ipsisque damnosa, et electis onerosa et periculosa. Sicut enim nihil melius quam omnes insimul fortissime uniri in Deo et in omni bono: sic nihil pejus quam omnes fortissima conspiratione uniri ad malum. Sicut etiam Deo nihil magis honorificum quam quod omnia sibi soli ut summo capiti cohaereant et subjiciantur, nihilque aliud defendere aut magnificare appetant, nisi Dei imperium ac principatum. Et e contra nihil Deo contumeliosius ac intolerabilius, quam quod omnes Deo et ejus regno neglecto, aliquod caput et regnum sibi statuant toto posse. Erat ne [eratne!] ergo tolerandum quod homines paulo post tantum diluvium de novo propagati, unum vilem tyrannum, scilicet Nemroth, quasi unum caput omnium statuerent, et intra unam urbem, pro uno totius mundani regni capite conarentur quasi in aeternum fundare? Sicut autem superbis ad omnem machinationem semper intentis, magnitudo potestatis aderat valde nociva: sic quam plurimum expedit eis quod talis potestas aut omnino tollatur eisdem, aut saltem confringatur, et dividatur et impediatur. Scimus autem quod humanae dominationis potestas ex unica et concordi hominum multitudine consurgit et corroboratur; et ideo, quando superbe et pertinaciter conspirant ad malum, multum eis expedit quod dividantur. Sicut etiam electis plurimum prodest habere multos inductores et quasi compulsores ad bonum, sic eis est periculosissimum et multum onerosum, cum verbo et facto, doctrina et exemplo ab omnibus instigantur et compelluntur ad malum. Et sicut jucundum est electis potentiam et gloriam reproborum videre humiliatam et annullatam: sic valde est onerosum quando contrarium vident; et praecipue si in aeternum aut in tempus nimis longum semper excresceret aut perduraret. Quid autem aptius et pulchrius ad praedictorum impiam unitatem et potestatem dissecandam et confringendam, quam linguarum divisio et confusio? Per hanc enim fit ut ampliorem societatem homo habeat cum sua carne, quam cum hominibus, quorum linguae sunt sibi mutuo barbarae et ignotae. Per hanc etiam factum est ut his qui Deo non obediebant, et subditi non solum eis non obedirent, imo nec eorum monita vel praecepta intelligere possent. Praedicta autem non solum pro illo tempore docuerunt et profuerunt: sed etiam pro toto tempore quo superbia mundi regnat. Secundo nota ejus poenalitatem tam quoad malos, quam quoad bonos. Bonis enim est valde poenale quod non possunt communicare cum sanctis vel doctis universi orbis, saltem per literas et per scripta, nec docere se mutuo possunt, nec ad invicem consolari, nisi communicent in una aliqua lingua. Unde et ultra hoc est eis valde poenale, quod doctrinam salutarem fidei non possunt in omnes nationes cito disseminare, nec jam disseminatam, prout expedit, irrigare. Communiter autem quantum ad malos et bonos est valde poenosa res; quia ex diversitate linguarum oritur facilitas discordiarum atque bellorum, et difficultas stabilis nexus diversarum nationum in unum. Si autem quaeritur, quomodo a principio unus intellexit alium sine notitia linguae? Unde enim scivit quod per eamdem vocem intenderet significare illud quod ipse? Potest dici quod hoc, sicut et alia, factum est miraculose et forte etiam per quamdam rationalem conspirationem, per quam ex conformitate locutionis aliorum ejusque linguae ad suam, advertebat quod idipsum significare volebant. Si autem ultra quaeratur, an per hoc miraculum sit solum facta variatio in vi motiva linguae, aut etiam ultra hoc in imaginatione et intellectu? Dicendum quod in omnibus simul; quia ex habitibus illarum trium partium integratur una perfecta habituatio ad loquendum hanc vel illam linguam. Oportet enim quod sciat significata propria vocum illius linguae formandae et seriose connectendae. Tertio nota pro mysteriis, quod divisio linguarum moraliter designat divisionem et contrarietatem vitiorum et vitiosorum, qui quantumcumque videantur uniti, impossibile est quin concordialiter discordent, quia pravus alios non diligit nisi solum propter seipsum. Allegorice autem signant divisionem schismatum et haeresum, et culturam diversorum idolorum: in quibus unitas fidei in varias linguas errorum fuit multipliciter scissa. Sicut autem urbs et turris Babylonica significat omnes sedes superbiae, sic Nemroth omnia capita ejus: et secundum hoc potest multiplicare mysteria tam moralia quam allegorica juxta numerum et processum principalium sedium et capitum superborum.

Not once in this passage do I find any "maledictio" or "maledixit" or whatever.

[Adding a translation]

And he said: Behold, it is one people, and so on. This God said intellectually within Himself and also to His Angels. So, in these words the reasonable and worthy cause is noted for perturbing their attempts and their intentions. For they were so affectuous and irrevocably intent on fulfilling the begun work, and to obtain that which from the work itself they intended, that they could not have been revoked from foresaid things by strong hands (or by) an obstacle. And since they took their vehement strength from the unity of language and concord of wills into evil, for that God said: behold, it is one people and so on. And from these things He infers that the punishment of language confusion is the best to perturb their intent and attempt. And speaking to the Angels, he added Come ye, therefore. For the confusion of tongues could at least in respect to something be done by angelic ministry. So, the Scripture wants by these or similar modes of speech show that God does by Angels that which can be done by them. But God is here said to descend by the efficacy or effect of His power in that in which it acts. And it speaks this way in order to more sensually and more terribly for men insert God's presence and punitive justice. That each may not understand [Latin, literally may not hear], that is, that they may not understand or discern while hearing. one another's speech [Latin, literally voice], whatever he intend to signify by it. And therefore the name thereof was called Babel, because there was confounded and so on. Since Babel is translated as confusion. And the division of languages is called the confusion of languages, because from it the language of the one became confused and unintelligible for the other. Note about this, that the judgement is one of the universal judgements of God over mankind; and is the third of those universals which is over mankind; and is third of those universals which are read in sacred Scripture. Because the first is the infliction of mortality. The second is the extermination of the Flood. Note, I say, first the right correspondence of it to the guilt for which it was given. For there was in those a perverse peace and a unity very insulting to God, and damning on themselves, and burdening and dangerous on the elect. For as nothing is better than that all together be most strongly united in God and in all good: so nothing is worse than that all be united by a most strong conspiracy to evil. As also nothing is more honouring to God than that everything be subjected to Him only and cohere as with its supreme head, and want to defend or magnify nothing other than God's Empire and Principality. And on the other hand, nothing is more insulting and intolerable to God, than that all, neglecting God and His Kingdom, they statuate a head and the kingdom of it to be all powerful. Was it, then, to be tolerated that men, re-propagated shortly after such a great Flood should statuate one vile tyrant, namely Nimrod, as the sole head of all and within one city should try to found, for the head of a single world reign like into eternity? But as the magnitude of power, very harmful, was there for the haughty who were always intent to every machination, so, it is very much usefulf for them that such power either be taken totally from them, or at least broken, divided and impeded. So, we know that the power to dominate men both surges forth and is strengthened uniquely from a concordant multitude of people, and therefore, when they are haughtily and stubbornly conspiring to evil, it is very useful for them to be divided. Also, as for the elect it is highly useful to have many people induce and kind of force them to good, so it is for them very dangerous and highly burdensome when in word and deed, doctrine and example, by all they are instigated and forced to evil. And like it is delightful for the elect to see the power and glory of the reprobates humiliated and annulled, so it is very burdensome when they see the contrary; and especially if eternally or in too long time it always were to grow and perdure. But what is more apt or beautiful to cut asunder and break down the impious unity and power of the forementioned, than the division and confusion of tongues? For by this it happens that man have a more ample society with his flesh, than with men, whose languages are mutually uncouth and unknown. Also is thereby done so that those who were not obeying God, on the one hand their subjects not only were not obeying them, but also weren't able to even understand their admonitions or orders. These things were not only teaching and being useful for that time: but also for all or any time when the pride of the world be ruling. Second, note its punishment nature (penality) both as to the evil as to the good. For it is for the good highly a punishment that they cannot communicate with holy and learned of all the world, at least by letters and by writings, nor are they able to teach each other, nor to console each other, unless they communicate in some same language. Wherefore this is furthermore very penal for them, that they cannot quickly disseminate the salvific doctrine into all nations, nor once it has been sown, water as it is useful. But in common between bad and good it is a very penal thing; since from the diversity of languages there arises an ease of discords and of wars and difficulty for a stable tying of diverse nations into one. But if you ask, how from the beginning one was comprehending the other without language knowledge? For whence did he know that by the same word the other wanted to signify the same as he himself? It can be said that this, like other things, happened miraculously and perhaps also by some rational conspiracy, by which from the conformity of speech of the others and his own language to his, was hinting what that thing was intended to signify. But if you further ask, whether by this miracle there was only made a variation in the articulation, or also beyond this in imagination and intellect (as to language competence)? It must be said, in all of these at once; since from the habits of these three parts the perfect mastery of speeking this or that language is integrated. For one should know the signifieds proper of that language to be formed and seriously connected. Third, note for the mysteries, that the division of languages morally designates the division and contrariety of vices and of the vicious, who, howeversomuch they may be seen as united, it's impossible that they be not concordially discordant, since the wicked does not love other otherwise then for his own sake alone. But allegorically it signifies the division of schismas and heresies, and the worship of diverse idols: in which the unity of faith was in multiple ways torn into various languages of errors. So, as the city and the tower of Babylon signify all seats of pride, so also Nimrod all its heads; and, according to this, can multiply the mysteries both moral and allegorical according to the numbers and processes of the principal seats and heads of the haughty.