Grady S McMurtry

William Lane Craig Said WHAT about the World Wide Flood?
Standing For Truth | 28 May 2025
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AN-R2ThGblo

Pre-Flood Neanderthals

PhD Evolutionary Scientist Says Neanderthal DNA Refutes Young Earth Creation | Creationists Respond!
Standing For Truth | 2.V.2025
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1SUJdGQb7WM

The solution is simple.

Neanderthals don't belong to the post-Flood, but to the pre-Flood era.

2262 years, and perhaps admixture of Nephelim, if God made their DNA different, is sufficient to explain Neanderthal differences.

And mixted heritage daughters in law are sufficient to explain Neanderthal remaining DNA in the post-Flood world.

Alan Tasman

@alantasman8273

Genesis 7:21 And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth, and every man:

22 All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land, died.

23 And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth: and Noah only remained alive, and they that were with him in the ark.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@hglundahl

@alantasman8273 Well, doesn't say that the eight people on the Ark died.

And if you mean complete physical destruction, I don't think that applies to Neanderthals already buried, since no longer "on the face of the earth" ....

pigzcanfly

@pigzcanfly444

@hglundahl no the passage clearly says that Noah and those with him survived.

Flash Gordon

@flashgordon6670

Nooo Neanderthals still exist today, the Bigfoots, Yetis and such.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@ [Flash Gordon] I'm not sure those are even human, but I am sure they are not Neanderthals.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@ [pigzcanfly] Exactly. So, if one or more of them had Neanderthal heritage, that way part of the Neanderthal genome would survive through the Ark.

Flash Gordon

How do you know? Have you ever seen one?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@ [Flash Gordon] They are too big and too mute to be Neanderthals, according to sightings.

Note, if they don't exist at all, they are also not Neanderthals.

Neanderthals could speak, as is apparent from the hyoid of Kebara 2.

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.]

Some Guys Can't Read the Bible

Who is the Woman of Revelation 12? The Answer Might Surprise You!
Standing For Truth | 25 Dec. 2024
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vhB_BVMI14Y

You are forgetting that the Remnant of Her Seed is a word written by a disciple who, on Calvary, became Mary's Seed.

Woman, see thy son.
See thy mother.

So, the saved or the visible Church, whichever, certainly are Mary's seed, if we take together John 19:27 and (also by the same John) Apocalypse 12:17.

Ben Kissling's Presentation on the Origin of Young Earth Creationism being old in Church History, Not from 7DA

I stopped the following video on 1:05:27

The True Origins of Young Earth Creation? Responding to Inspiring Philosophy - Ben Kissling
Standing For Truth | 13 Dec. 2024
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SlsWxjXs1m0

10:42 Ambrose wasn't Medieval, he was the mentor so to speak of Augustine.

The latter very clearly believed a Young Earth, i e creation's beginning not far behind Adam's creation and Biblical chronology holds since Adam's creation.

What he didn't believe was six literal days, he preferred to take that as one single moment, and the days mean sth else (like how angels saw the creation, not being able to take in all of it in one single view). That view is obviously not an Old Earth view.

now you'll notice a discrepancy here why 19:45 do all these earlier ancient Christians say about 6,000 or around 5500 when 19:53 Kepler you know 12400 years later is saying 6,000 okay that's because of the 20:00 difference between the Septuagint and the Masoretic texts of Genesis. The Septuagint was 20:05 a Greek text and the numbers we believe now were inflated um by about 1,400 years

I actually believe a version of the LXX.

On Christmas Day, the Catholic Church confesses Christ came 5199 after Creation.

The interpretation choices are probably better than for Syncellus from the Exodus on and for Genesis 5 and 11 we have basically a LXX without the Second Cainan. As Jonathan Sarfati has demonstrated such a text variant exists (and for Luke 3 too), I see this as uncontroversial.

we know Augustine um argued that the Masoretic 20:33 chronology was correct and the Septuagint was wrong

Where so? In City of God he's sitting on the edge.

29:43 It might be true that most educated Protestants between 1800 and 1950 were not Young Earth.

The "Catholic Scofield Bible" so to speak, by Father George Leo Haydock (c. 100 years before the actual Scofield Bible) was pretty influential among English speaking Catholics up to Vatican II. He got some competition by Father Knox' new translation with his comments.

By 1900 and basically up to 1920, Catholics were divided between YEC, which was retreating but hadn't disappeared, Day-Age and Gap. For the time after Adam's creation, the positions among conservative Catholics ranged from literal at least LXX chronology to 10 000 years ago.

36:28 There are two ways to make room for St. Irenaeus' view.

1) Jewish Chronology.
2) A modified version. It was the FIRST coming that occurred before 6000 AM or before the year 6*930 AM.

Calvary, the repose in the tomb, Resurrection count as days of the NEW Creation.

The first of them has its millennium or 930-years period continue past Christ, the second is another 930 or 1000 year in the Middle Ages, and as on Resurrection Day the disciples had a happy surprise that He lived, so, before the end of the 8th millennium or 930-year period, Christ will come to rescue His Church.

37:26 Given that some Orthodox Jews believe the Messiah will come AM 6000 (which they believe is c. 215 years in the future), I find it probable that Sts Irenaeus and Hippolytus simply took over this Jewish belief.

What they could have done was to take it over and reinterpret it in the light of redemption being a new creation.

[References for Clement and St. Justin are Stromata VI chapter 16 and Dialogue with Trypho chapter 81, Philo is not on New Advent Church Fathers. Lots of St. Augustine is, but De Genesi ad Litteram libri XII isn't.]

51:52 [St. Augustine] may have said in the discussion in books IV to VI [of De Genesi ad Litteram libri XII] that time would have been created on day IV, but in book I, he gave a perfect Geocentric model for how light and darknesss would have worked before the creation of the Sun.

One which I hold to.

52:13 St. Augustine explained that in book I. First everything was light when God created light. Then a halfglobe of the Heavens and a halfglobe of Earth were lit, the other halfglobe of each dark, and these started to rotate around Earth. When the Sun is created, that takes over. He even brings up the problem of what we would call International Date Line or Time Zones, and solves it like, the time zone of Jerusalem, because that's where Adam was created.

His reasoning for that may go sth like this.

1) Adam was buried under Calvary. It was fitting that Christ should die just above His ancestor's burial.

2) but he was probably buried where he was created, because ...

In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread till thou return to the earth, out of which thou wast taken: for dust thou art, and into dust thou shalt return
[Genesis 3:19]

so, arguably he was buried at the same spot where he had been created.

3) This being Calvary, Time Zone of Jerusalem.

52:35 Don't try to make this a case for Heliocentrism.

In Geocentrism, Heaven rotates. Sun only moves with Heaven, according to St. Thomas. This means that the light could have rotated with Heaven before that. Or if the rotating part is the firmament, that was created on day II, the light could have rotated independently of any such rotation up to day II.

56:50 [Still St. Augustine] The potentialities working themselves out would have been sth like fetal development and normal post-birth growth. It cannot be taken as it taking any generations before Adam.

While I was doing the html, this kind of thing happened more than once:

It so happens, the text is not very emotional, certainly not ironic. Emotica have as little place in here as in any paper by any university professor which is not about emotica.

Jerry Bergman and Don Budinsky Wrong in their Response to Gutsick Gibbon

Neanderthals Destroy Young Earth Creation? Responding to the Critics
Standing For Truth | 19.IX.2024
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kSeXwAkIR_8

5:36 As a YEC I am appalled at being represented by Jerry Bergman after he said we have not one Neanderthal skeleton!

In El Sidrón, Spain, we have twelve Neanderthal skeleta, not all adults. We know from their dental calculus they were vegetarians. They loved pine nuts. From some place in Belgium, we have Neanderthals with another diet. Including woolly rhino and human flesh.

What does a divergence between vegetarianism (sometimes with pescetarianism) and cannibalism suggest? Vegetarians suggest just pre-Flood men, before Genesis 9:2. Cannibals suggest unjust pre-Flood men, like Genesis 6:11.

My countryman Svante Pääbo sequenced a Neanderthal genome, from El Sidrón, I think. Only 30 % of Neanderthal specific genes survive, man today typically ha no more than 5 % in a given individual. Y-chromosomes and mitochondria do not survive. The Ark would be the perfect bottleneck to lose those. If a daughter in law of Noah had a Neanderthal father, she could not transmit any Y-chromosome, and if she had a mother in the Homo sapiens sapiens type, the mitochondria she transmitted would not be Neanderthal ones.

"The reality is we don’t know what Adam and Eve looked like, nor do we know exactly what Noah and his family looked like. They may have looked closer to the Heidelbergensis phenotype."

I would say no. Heidelbergians and Antecessors of Atapuerca have so much the same morphology that some have classified Antecessors as Heidelbergians. Svante Pääbo (again) sequenced the Antecessor genome and was surprised at how close it was to the Denisovan one, despite (on his Deep Time views) the long distance in time between them.

I would say Noah was what people call Homo sapiens sapiens, and that he was tenth from Adam, so pretty close to his genome. I would say Heidelbergian and Neanderthal genomes arose partly by longer distance in generations, partly by Nephelim admixture (perhaps Heidelbergian / Denisovan are pure Nephelim).

Description:

"If Noah and his family were morphologically heterogenous or diverse, then the features seen in robust humans and modern extant humans can be explained. Yes--Neanderthals are highly inbred and contain many stretches of DNA that are homozygous. This doesn't mean Noah and his family were homozygous. A small group probably broke off from the human population (that was largely heterozygous) shortly after the Flood (or at Babel). From there, they become isolated, inbred, and homozygous."

Post-Babel Neanderthals ... no thanks.

The YOUNGEST carbon dated Neanderthal is dated to 42 000 years old.

Meanwhile, you pretend that the Ziggurat of Eridu (dated to 5000 BC, in carbon dates) could be the Tower of Babel.

So, Babel was in your view (Ussher) something like 101 to 200 after the Flood, that itself 2350 sth BC?

2249 to 2150 BC, carbon levels gave nearly 3000 extra years, so were presumably c. 70 pmC, but some time after that, let's say 200 years after that, 1950 BC, contemporary with Abraham, a Neanderthal dies, is now dated to 42 000 years old, that means he had 38 000 extra years, so he lived in an environment with 1.008 pmC? How does carbon 14 sink in the atmosphere from 70 to 1 pmC in 200 years?

By contrast, if I make the Neanderthals actually older, and admit Göbekli Tepe as the City of Babel, older in carbon dates, we get up from 1.008 pmC or even a bit higher at an unspecified date before the Flood, so before 2957 BC, and when Babel begins 350 years after the Flood, a 2607 BC dated as 9500 BC implies 43 pmC, and the rise involves a so much faster production in carbon 14 that the number of ionising particles would be part of the explanation for the Ice Age.