dimanche 24 novembre 2013

Three links related to dating questions (with some discussion)

video shared:
Blurallis : Ancient Cucuteni civilization on Romania current territory
quote from description
The Cucuteni-Trypillian culture, also known as Cucuteni culture (from Romanian), Trypillian culture (from Ukrainian) is a late Neolithic archaeological culture which flourished between ca. 5500 BC and 2750 BC, from the Carpathian Mountains to the Dniester and Dnieper regions in modern-day Romania, Moldova, and Ukraine, encompassing an area of more than 35,000 km2 (13,500 square miles).
my comment:
"between ca. 5500 BC and 2750 BC" - misdated due to low C14 content before buildup in athmosphere was complete, in reality all from post-Flood era, i e after 2957 BC.
link discussed in group
shared by
The New York Times
24,000-Year-Old Body Shows Kinship to Europeans and American Indians
Published: November 20, 2013
24.000 years old by C14? Might be from just after or just before the Flood then.
Very interesting and informative.

Brown hair and brown eyes make sence than blond hair and blue/grey eyes came later. But green eyes and red hair is even older, so that could been but in this case not. The skin seems to be pale. But I think also solutrean-theory might be true because of the tools found in America.
The Olmec tribe in the now Yucatan Peninsula has ancient megaliths with negroid faces. So, prior to the last Ice-Age it's possible that limited global travel/commerce occurred. However, no evidence exist to prove that Asians were in the Americas prior to 6k years ago. This boy was probably a regular misceginated Eurasian.
AAB III, you could be right about the travel, but maybe the boy was all european or nearly that. Freckled skin I have only seen on people who have pale skin. What is "6k years ago"?
wouldn't that signify 6000 years ago? The "k" means thousand and, if you see an "mm" that's millions.
I am swedish, so I do not know. We do not use that. Are you sure?
To me the Olmecs look more Polynesian, couldn't be Negroid as I don't believe they traveled much, but I could be wrong
I think you asked an excellent question, Ingmar. At least, i can venture that we use these symbols in USA English to signify thousand and million, respectively. Since, however, I was educated my young years through university in Brasil--then came to college in US, I never learned WHY. Just like learning the American system of measurements, rather than using metric, which I used till I came to the States~~ that turned out funny/disastrous for me: had to learn American basic measurements to follow recipes in English and understand related American conversations; meanwhile, nobody used the metric system here, so 50 years without it, and I forgot it! Woe is me! I follow NO recipes now~~I'm a creative cook, love to make things up as I go, and I follow no directions~for i would surely mess them up!!!
SCW, I think I saw something on the History channel that Polynesians have 'rocker' jaws. Some fossils have been found on the west coast, indicating that they may have landed there. Catalina possibly.
As for the Olmecs, I would be careful concerning ancient facial sculptures. Many are not precise and are more about artistic expression. My skepticism about Negroids landing in the Americas is due to the fact that Sub-Saharan Africans have never navigated the seas other than local pirating. To this day most Negroes in Africa cannot swim. They never even populated Madagascar which is within spitting distance. Mongoloid peoples were there first and later brought Negroes to the island for the usual reason.
IC, I am SWedish too, as you know, and I am sure. k = like in kilo (kilogram, kilometer, kilowatt ...)

WPF & SCW, the negroid features on Olmec sculpture may be due to memories from before they left Old World, or due to some few they took along for the ride.

Make that - on SOME Olmec sculpture. If I recall correctly not all of them.
Yes I know, but I have never seen it in combination with years. Also I just could not make that conection, because it would only be 4000BC, then I believed it meant something completely else.
IC, I think C14 dates are flawed once they get back to certain ages. Flood was 2957 or something BC, and things from the flood typically get carbon dates like 20.000 to 50.000 before present, according to that article from CMI.
Sorry HGL, I do not understand what you mean. Can you explain in swedish?
Syndafloden var 2957 f Kr eller dylikt. C14-dateringar från dess fossiler ge dock vanligen 20.000 - 50.000 f nutid enligt en viss artikel från CMI.

This article: C14 dinos

"A team of researchers gave a presentation at the 2012 Western Pacific Geophysics Meeting in Singapore, August 13–17, at which they gave 14C dating results from many bone samples from eight dinosaur specimens. All gave dates ranging from 22,000 to 39,000 years, right in the ‘ballpark’ predicted by creationists. But if dinosaurs really were millions of years old, there should not be one atom of 14C left in them." with footnote: "1.A sample purporting to be from the Flood era would not be expected to give a ‘radiocarbon age’ of about 5,000 years, but rather 20,000–50,000 years. Indeed, that is consistently what one obtains from specimens of oil, gas and fossil wood from layers allegedly ‘millions of years’ old. The reason is: radiocarbon dating assumes that the current 14C/12C ratio of about 1 in a trillion (after adjusting for the Industrial Revolution) was the starting ratio for the objects dated. But this ratio would have been much smaller before the Flood, which removed virtually all living carbon from the biosphere through burial. Because pre-and para-Flood objects would have started with a much lower initial 14C/12C ratio, the measured amount today would also be smaller, and be (mis-)interpreted as much older. See What about carbon dating? Chapter 4, The Creation Answers Book. "

That was why I said if the body is dated 24.000 years old, it is probably from the Flood or just after.
Oh I see! Well mathematical c14 is good between 1000 and 100000 years. But not good at the version about dinosaurs. But I think the Flood was more 3000-3500BC. How old the earth is, my opinion is that is a bit hieretic to try to decode the Bible to measure the age of the earth. It is simple not for us to do. I think bouth relegion ans science are right. Than they not seems that way, it is because humans not have devine intellect.
no, no, no, you have got it wrong

IF - a very big if - C14 had been constant in the athmosphere, THEN C14 would have been usable giving correct answers back to 40.000 years of age of an ex-organic object.

IF - furthermore, another big if - Dinosaurs had been living 65 million years ago, THEN they could not have been dated at all by C14, because there WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN any C14 left in them. Now get beck to the article.

"humans not have devine intellect" - a good reason not to trust dates that contradict the Bible. Which is why I am taking the "24.000 years" as "24.000 years if C14 had been constant" and that in turn as "possibly around 2957 BC" (i e Food of Noah).
I agreed with you about dinosaurs, or at least thought I wrote that in english. You always must remember my english is limited. Well I think they considered the fluktoation about c14. There are no beginning point mention in the Bible. So the earth could be that old scientists say, even if I doubt it.

Fluktuation about how much c14 on atmospere.
HGL I think it is very helpful that you reminded us the kilo symbol "k" which I was not thinking of when I posted a response to Ingmar's question concerning the use of "k" in Arthur A. Burkey III 's post above. Especially since I have confessed my senior mind concerning forgetfulness about metric or USA measurement systems! LOL! And yes, The "k" is used also as a short symbol/abbreviation for thousand here in the United States. I threw in, additionally, the info that in USA another similar abbreviation for enumeration might come up, for those of you who don't regularly speak American English. Especially on this Group site, we might be discussing millennia, in which case, the abbreviation, "mm" or "MM" signifies million e.g. years, tons, etc. This difference between thousands and millions of years becomes more apparent with carbon dating used to age the earth and everything in it. I tend to agree with IC and HGL along the lines of the age of the world, and respecting biblical time back to the flood.
I see bouth the creation and the science as truth. Than they seems to differ it is just that humans not have devine intellect.
"There are no beginning point mention in the Bible."

Genesis 1:1

"Fluktuation about how much c14 on atmospere."

If you ask young earth creationists it is rather a question of build up since the creation and the flood.

You get back to when the build up was not complete, you get systematically too old values, and not by a few hundred yours but by several times the real age all over.

When dinos are dated 65 million years, it is not C14, which is why C14 is usually not used for dinos.

KCZ, I and IC are not agreeing about the age of the world. I am a young earth creationist, like Hovind or Sarfati. However, since I use the LXX, I say the world is 7200 years old. Plus a decade. Plus some years.

To get back to the boy dated 24.000 years ago, if he was from soon after the flood he might be from before the West Europeans and the Amerindian's oldest ancestors in place split off from each other.
With no beginning point I ment there is no year mentioned. Not 5200BC, not 100000B, not 4,5 biljon years or watsoever. I beginn to think you missunderstand me on purpose. Also I certenly believe that eaerth is much older than 7200 yeaars. It is not possible to ge all the history inside it.
There is a year for the birth of Seth (130 or 230 differring between Vulgate and LXX), then a year for how old Seth was when his son was born and so forth.

And yes, it is possible to get all HISTORY within the 7200 years. It is misdated "pre-history" that would not fit.

So, a boy who lived 24.000 years ago would not fit, but if the 24.000 years really are a misdating (remember, this is not about fluctuation of C14 as observed now, it is about before build up was anywhere as complete as now), he might well have lived five thousand years ago, and that does fit with the 7200 years.
here is where I
posted link to this blog post with comment "found this too good not to share", noone protested.
There are no birthdate for Seth in the Bible. Also it seems to me diffucult to even fit in the dinosaurs in 7200 years.
Yes, yes, yes. In the Jewish and Protestant Bibles Adam is 130 years when he gets Seth. Vulgate also has that text, but Catholic Church also has Septuagint in common with Orthodox, Septuagint and Josephus both say Adam was 230 when begetting Seth. And so on for when Seth has his son. Bible gives a chronology.

If you presume dinosaurs were part of a totally exotic fauna which did not include man anywhere on earth, it would be difficult to fit dinosaurs into the 7200 years. But if dinosaurs were created (basically) at same time as Adam and the fossils we have of the from the Flood (which also gives us lots of fossils of both trilobites and mammoths in other places) and if most dinosaurs either were extinct before the Flood or went extinct after it, there is no chronological problem with dinosaurs either. Btw, they used to be called dragons by the men who lived beside them and sometimes killed them.
The dinosaur-dragon thing sounds interestin and clever.

But wait a minut! Do you write about Christs "ättetavla"?
In St Luke where the Genealogy of Christ is given back to Adam, no dates are given, but a definite number of generations. The earliest ten of those are the generations from Adam to Noah and for them dates are given in the Genesis.
other link was shared
on a new thread by
Since we've been discussing the elements of definitive time, when time cannot be exactly measured without controversy among groups, I thought this article might be of interest. I subscribe to this magazine (FREE in USA) and it's work concentrates upon scientific apologetics which prove the Bible to be true and accurate in its scope. Many fascinating articles by scientists on scientific subject which may be of interest. This article discusses the geologic formations inland, which affirm the probability that the area was at one time, under water--under the Great Flood of the Bible. For your convenience:

Ute Pass Fault: Sand Injectites and Rapid Deformation Fit the Flood
by John D. Morris, Ph.D.
What intrigues me in the diagram is that there is actually something labelled Mesozoic Strata above what is labelled Palaezoic ones. Have different kinds of fossil been found there? I mean vertically below and above in same column?
Good question, Hans-Georg, however I cannot answer that, for I am just an armchair science/geology--especially archeology lover. The Magazine/Organization have a web address and have full time scientists/Professors at their Institute for Creation Research en board. Scientific/archeology study is what they do, so perhaps, even the author may be contacted? Their mission is to make the point of scientific study proofs in view of what has been written in the Bible Books. Many fascinating articles in their archives too. Sorry I am of no help.

The Institute for Creation Research
I will try to search for it on the web. "Palaeozoic fossils Ute", "Mesozoic fossils Ute". I am armchair myself but have a creationist blog where I argue some:

Creation vs. Evolution

And, yes, you have been a great help!

samedi 23 novembre 2013

What about 68 ... 1568, for instance?

friend (status)
A Holy Catholic Pope, St. Pius V, tells the truth about homosexual clergy:

" That horrible crime, on account of which corrupt and obscene cities were destroyed by fire through divine condemnation, causes us most bitter sorrow and shocks our mind, impelling us to repress such a crime with the greatest possible zeal. Quite opportunely the Fifth Lateran Council [1512-1517] issued this decree:

"Let any member of the clergy caught in that vice against nature, given that the wrath of God falls over the sons of perfidy, be removed from the clerical order or forced to do penance in a monastery" (chap. 4, X, V, 31).

So that the contagion of such a grave offense may not advance with greater audacity by taking advantage of impunity, which is the greatest incitement to sin, and so as to more severely punish the clerics who are guilty of this nefarious crime and who are not frightened by the death of their souls, we determine that they should be handed over to the severity of the secular authority, which enforces civil law. Therefore, wishing to pursue with greater rigor than we have exerted since the beginning of our pontificate, we establish that any priest or member of the clergy, either secular or regular, who commits such an execrable crime, by force of the present law be deprived of every clerical privilege, of every post, dignity and ecclesiastical benefit, and having been degraded by an ecclesiastical judge, let him be immediately delivered to the secular authority to be put to death, as mandated by law as the fitting punishment for laymen who have sunk into this abyss."

-Constitutionn Horrendum illud scelus, August 30, 1568, in Bullarium Romanum,Rome: Typographia Reverendae Camerae Apostolicae, Mainardi, 1738, chap. 3, p. 33

— "avec" Philip Howard [who probably shared the quote first].
Let any member of the clergy et c be removed from clerical orders or forced to do penance in a monastery. Not everyone caught in it, but members of clergy.

And notice "caught in it" - not reputed due to being intellectual among working class people or Latin among Latin hating Orthodox (believe me, attitudes of Orthodox to Catholics are worse in France than what I have seen from states) or Neohimerites thinking YEC's are homosexual because Seraphim Rose had been so. (My knowledge of Orthodox in the States obviously comes from internet.)

Or for that matter French thinking JRRT and CSL are for girls and girlyboys ...

Or Jews thinking you are homosexual because you pray the Rosary (which I did earlier) or because you are not married yet.

The key word "clergy" in the constitution Horrendum illud scelus is of course relevant, because a layman who has never vowed celibacy is free to make a Josh Weed type marriage or a Club Unicorn type marriage. If you know what I mean.

And "caught in it" does mean caught in the act of sodomy or of preparing to or retreating from such, not "caught himself thinking of other boys" as was the case with Josh Weed as a teenager.

dimanche 17 novembre 2013

Monarchistes - un français et un autrichien tels

C'est vrai que le monarchiste autrichien est de nationalité suédoise. Moi, HGL.

BT (statut)
apprécie finalement cette nouvelle tradition de huée du chef de l'Etat à chaque fête patriotiques : après tout, si l'on avait laissé les rois de Navarre à la tête de la diplomatie française, ce grand massacre européen n'aurait jamais eu lieu
Ça serai surtout juditieux de huer les franmac... Hollande c'est juste une façade.
Clémenceau = Hitler avant le mot (quand il s'agit de révanchisme etc)

Mais biensûr, la défaite de 1870 (qui venait après quelques défaites pour ma chère Autriche et mon cher Danemark) n'était pas concevable sans la Guerre Napoléonienne.
La véritable origine de la Guerre est antérieure à Clémenceau, il s'agit bien de la réunification de 1870 dont Hitler ne s'inscrit que dans la continuité.
Hitler était révanchiste comme Clémenceau était révanchiste.
Hitler n'était pas seulement "revanchiste"; il était l'incarnation du pangermanisme d'inspiration luthérienne ou païenne incluant l'Allemagne du Sud catholique mais romantique mais excluant....l'Autriche restée de culture trop classique et latine en même temps que devenue trop proche de peuples non indo-européens comme la Hongrie.
C'est vrai qu'en outre de copier Clémenceau et Jules Ferry et Combes il copiait aussi les Hohenzollern d'inspiration plutôt Calviniste que Luthérienne (comme ex-Luthérien j'aime faire un peu la différence). Mais eux, et Bismarck, ça copiait le Cardinal Richelieu.

Et, hélas pour un né en Autriche, il n'avait pas le goût d'aimer son pays ...
Le cardinal de Richelieu avait l'intelligence de briser toute vélléité de réunion germanique et l'Europe ne s'en est que mieux portée pendant des siècles; il est simplement dommage qu'il n'ait pas fait preuve d'autant de fermeté envers les luthériens qu'envers les calvinistes!
non, non ... l'Autriche était le pouvoir fédérateur de l'Empire. Richelieu a créé la Prusse ... et la défaite de 1870.
c'est la réunification allemande qui est la responsable de la défaite de 1870, c'est ce que l'action de Richelieu permettait d'éviter jusqu'à...
Non, c'est la division allemande en 1866 à Sadowa qui était responsable de la guerre de 1870 et c'était la victoire de la Prusse en 1870 qui ouvrait pour la fausse réunification. Apprenez les dates et les suites des événements avant de vous prononcer sur les causalités, s v p!

C'est d'ailleurs vrai que Deutscher Bund entre la congrès de Vienne et Sadowa était très peu fédéral et très confédératif. Par contre, Prusse n'avait pas eu cette chance expansionniste de séparer Norddeutscher Bund du Deutscher Bund si Napoléon n'avait pas désunifié l'Empire (ce qu'en restait après 1648) ni sans l'aide de Richelieu en l'avant 1648. Après, c'est vrai que la rive gauche du Rhône était Empire avant ça ... Empire et non Royaume.
il fallait laisser la division entre catholiques et protestants dans la zone germanique; si on avait fait cela, l'Allemagne n'aurait jamais été capable de provoquer la rupture de l'équilibre militaire.
Dis pas "Allemagne" pour Prusse ... bon. La division était là en Angleterre, Écosse, France, Pays Bas Espagnols (un catéchisme protestant s'appelle le Catéchisme Belge), Italie du Nord (où les Vaudois deviennent Calvinistes pendant la Réforme) et non seulement en Empire ou les Royaumes et Principautés à l'Est et au Nord (pas toujours germaniques).