Asteroid, Göbekli Tepe, Carbon Dating

Johnny Proctor

shared a link

10 mars, 19:33

How do any of these fantastical fictions even merit a 'news report'? This is 100% speculation with no facts, no evidence, no witnesses, just guys who believe in myths and models who try to shoehorn their pet theories into geological tables. And this is one of the more tame reports.

Giant asteroid apocalypse 13K years ago was witnessed by ancient humans, experts believe
By Chris Ciaccia | Fox News
https://www.foxnews.com/science/giant-asteroid-apocalypse-witnessed-by-ancient-humans

JA

Gobekli Tepe: check that out as it was a controversial find with alleged drawings of a comet impacting- supposedly linked to mass extinction of Mega fauna such as mammoths and an alleged unknown civilization

Johnny Proctor

I have no confidence in their dating methods. Its 10% science and 90% speculation and computer modeling. Its a priori theses looking for evidence to support them.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I date Göbekli Tepe as ending 401 years after the Flood, when Peleg is born.

Like other LXX reading would make it 529 after the Flood.

"I have no confidence in their dating methods"

Carbon 14 can be used on samples with historically known age and be confirmed by that.

In other words, we should have confidence in the residues and in the halflife.

However, the problem is, what was the original ratio in the atmosphere back at a given time.

With a growth of C14 ratio rapidly after Flood and still through Babel / Göbekli Tepe, slowing down between Abraham and Joseph, between Joseph and Exodus and reaching stable at least by the time of King David (unless his time had even above present level), we can recalibrate the carbon dates.

I have made several tables, each tentative per se, but apart from a recalibration with Genesis 14 as carbon dated 3500 BC, I'd see no problem with using the tables as such, give and take a little due to that problem (I had guessed 3200 BC would be a good guess for its carbon date, as per proto-dynastic Egypt in Genesis 12).

Johnny Proctor

But all these estimates studiously ensure they exceed the biblical record of 6,000 years of human civilization, begging the question whether the Bible is reliable history or not. And that is the point: their claims exist to oppose the biblical record even if only by a few thousand years. Unless we discern the endgame here, we can uncritically accept their assertions in good faith when they are not acting in good faith but against faith.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

My tables do NOT exceed 7220 years.

A carbon date like 9600 BC is only partially an estimate.

It is estimating an original C14 ratio of 100 pmC, but it is reading a remaining ratio of 24.58 pmC.

So, my tables are about how much the real original pmC was, namely in this case c. 42 pmC.

Now, 24.58 pmC / 42 pmC = 58.524 % and the point of reading present pmC is getting percentage of original ratio.

Let's then treat 58.524 as a pmC value, and we get: 4450 years.

2430 BC is actually a bit later than what I place Babel's beginning in, but I just took up 42 pmC off the bat.

More like 2607 BC.

9600 BC in carbon date - 2607 BC in real date = 6993 extra years.

6993 extra years = 42.916 pmC.

24.58 pmC / 42.916 pmC = 57.275 %

57.275 pmC = 4600 years

2580 BC, fairly close to 2607 BC, which I consider the real date for Babel beginning or within few years of it.

"Unless we discern the endgame here, we can uncritically accept their assertions in good faith when they are not acting in good faith but against faith."

Thousands of learned men are using C14 about much more recent objects which have nothing to do with opposing the faith. Rembrandt ceased painting 351 years ago.

This means a painting where organic material in the paint is over 95.843 pmC is a fake.

This is a much more typical use of C14 than what you think of, and it works.

Johnny Proctor

Hans, you know what I mean. When people suggest that they have reliable dating for artifacts over 100,000 years old (they say), I just roll my eyes. Without corroboration of other dating metrics such as your Rembrandt example, they speculate based on decay rates that have proven very unreliable.

Ever since my pilrimage to Geocentrism (which is really a pilgrimage to the Church Fathers) I have learned to never doubt the claims of Scripture that are opposed by emprical science. I understand your endorsement of the scientific method within the time span of the biblical record, but I can't follow you a minute outside of those well-established parameters.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I am not going outside the Biblical chronology.

Learn to read.

A carbon date of 9600 BC = (or comes little after) a real date of 2607 BC = death of Noah, 350 after the Flood. I do not say 9600 BC is a reliable or an unreliable date, I say it is an erroneous date obtained by a part reliable (half life, measure of present carbon) and part unreliable (assumption of original 100 pmC) method, and I then proceed to eliminate the unreliable part, so that carbon dates like 9600 BC shall be translated to real dates of 2607 BC.

Or carbon dates of 3500 BC to real dates like 1935 BC.

The article as such was for carbon date 13 000 YA = 11 000 BC. Within end of or just after Noah's post-Flood lifespan. I e, a real date around 2607 BC.

Johnny Proctor

I don't think we're in disagreement. My forte is theology, not geology or paleontology. I approach these topics from a theological perspective. And I do appreciate your efforts to align the most reliable radiological dating methods with the biblical record. But as I shared above, when I made this (unsought) pilgrimage to Geocentrism and through it was brought to the realization that I had been deceived by the secular sciences and even those Catholics beholden to them, I made a decision to always give revelation the benefit of the doubt.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

You are not even in any conflict here.

I have very cearly said I accept Biblical chronology as the correct one. There is no correct date before 5199 BC (or some would go as far as 5509 BC).

It's not the Bible's chronology I'm reinterpreting, it's the carbon dating calibration.

Is Anticapitalism a Condemned Socialist Heresy?

New blog on the kid : Are Some Conservatives Trying to Tell me "Socialism Doesn't Work"? · I came across Edwin Benson's lampooning of Panera Cares again · HGL'S F.B. WRITINGS : Is Anticapitalism a Condemned Socialist Heresy?

Michael D. Greaney

shared a link

11th March, 12:57

50. ARE CHRISTIANITY AND SOCIALISM THE SAME?

If you’re tempted to trot out the (alleged) “endorsement” of socialism by then-Cardinal Ratzinger, be advised that is addressed in a future posting, already written. . . .

The Just Third Way : Did C.S. Lewis Approve of Socialism?
https://just3rdway.blogspot.com/2020/03/did-cs-lewis-approve-of-socialism.html

RSCW

Practicing Christians would use tax and spend policies to benefit their priorities if elected into office, non Christians would not.

I

Hans-Georg Lundahl

// “Usury” is not all interest, but interest on a loan of money not used for a productive purpose, i.e., taking a share of profits when no profit is due. //

You have taken this from a Calvinistic redefinition of usury.

To St. Thomas, there is a possibility of getting more back on a loan to a producer as producer - but only if the producer makes a profit. If he makes a deficit, on the same token you actually get less back than you had lent. EITHER you have a fixed sum OR a fixed percentage of the producer's gains or losses.

And C. S. Lewis fully knew this. He knew the Middle Ages better than you do.

As to the socialism condemned by Gregory XVI:

// Before the term socialism was coined in 1832 by the Saint-Simonian Pierre Leroux, socialism was known as “the Democratic Religion.” Various forms went by different names, such as “the New Christianity” (Henri de Saint-Simon) and Neo-Catholicism” (Felicite de Lamennais), but all (as de Tocqueville observed) shared a common principle: the shift of sovereignty from the human person created by God, to some form of the collective created by man. As Fulton Sheen observed in his doctoral thesis in 1925, God and Intelligence in Modern Philosophy (1925), this demotes God to being the servant of man, and elevates collective man to the status of God. All of the “new things” (socialism, modernism, and the New Age) were condemned by Pope Gregory XVI in 1832 and 1834, //

Not a trace of the main Christian Socialists, namely de la Tour de Pin and Bonald.

Note, there disciples have at times been called Fascists, and the Austrofascists have indeed changed the label from "Christian Socialist" to "Christian Social" because of deference to this usage of the word "Socialism". I think they did so as far back as the founder Karl Lüeger.

Michael D. Greaney

Then Hilaire Belloc is a Calvinist.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Hilaire Belloc was educated in IIIrd Republic, which owed sth to Calvin.

However, I think you are actually misrepresenting his position, he attributes what I attribute to same Calvin.

II

Hans-Georg Lundahl

// Investment is the last thing that involves usury . . . unless the lender doesn’t assume part of the risk, in which case, yes, it’s usury. Otherwise, it’s a rightful share of the profits.//

Taking part of the risk = accepting less back if the producer loses.

You lend 100 €. Either you are owed 100 € whether the producer wins or loses his venture, or you are owed 90 € if he loses 10% and 110 € if he wins 10 %, or you divide the sum, so you get 95 or 105 (50+45 / 50+55) with same gains or losses.

Taking interest, namely getting more than 100 € and that more decided in advance whether he wins or loses = not taking part of the risk = usury.

Michael D. Greaney

You assume the Currency Principle based on past savings. You omit the Banking Principle based on past and future savings, i.e., both mortgages and bills of exchange.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Assuming the what you call currency principle is what St. Thomas did too.

I don't see how you can base anything on a future, i e not yet extant saving.

III

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"condemned by Pope Gregory XVI in 1832 and 1834"

• 2. Cum primum On Civil Obedience 9 June 1832
• 3. Mirari vos On Liberalism and Religious Indifferentism 15 August 1832
• 5. Singulari Nos On The Errors Of Lammenais 25 June 1834

Will look up.

For 1832, 3:
Mirari Vos - Papal Encyclicals
https://www.papalencyclicals.net/Greg16/g16mirar.htm

Seems to be little about property or workers or such ...

Mirari Vos condemns the idea that Liberty of Religion is due, or that liberty of non-Catholic religions is more than a strategy for peace rather than expression of justice.

And Singulari Nos is not much more help in rejecting "Christian Socialism" since it is there to reject a new philosophical system:

Singulari Nos - Papal Encyclicals
https://www.papalencyclicals.net/Greg16/g16singu.htm

Michael D. Greaney

You need to read more carefully and know the historical context.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

What exact § mentions property structures?

The Socialist Idea most vehemently condemned by the Pope was the separation of Church and State, and the second most condemned one was the right to rebellion.

Plus, he was condemning an ideology with its own philosophy which would be the one later crystallised as Marxism, like Engels' view of human society emerging or things like that.

Michael D. Greaney

My upcoming books explain this in detail.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

R i g h t ... I am reminded of how Roger M Pearlman will avoid a question now and then by referring to books in the Moshe Emes series ... instead of giving a straight answer.

IV

Hans-Georg Lundahl

[Linked to this post "Is Anticapitalism a Condemned Socialist Heresy?"]

Michael D. Greaney

Hans-Georg Lundahl, you are attempting to use the same tactic G. B. Shaw used against Chesterton to good effect . . . until Chesterton caught on to him and learned how to handle the chief spokesman for Fabian socialism. Shaw’s tactic (which he also used against W.H. Mallock to dodge Mallock’s critique of georgism — Mallock’s critique being so effective that Henry George himself admitted that it was the only one worth listening to) was to focus on a particular application of principle or even a single word, isolate it, and then create a series of straw man arguments, demolishing them as he raised them, ridiculing his opponent in the process in as condescending a manner as possible for being so stupid as not to agree with Shaw.

After being bested (or so popular opinion supposed) by Shaw a couple of times in this way, Chesterton simply stated his principle(s) in terms as broad as possible, leaving Shaw with nothing specific to attack except Chesterton himself. Chesterton being congenitally jovial and refusing to quarrel, this left Shaw with nothing with which to attack, except to complain that Chesterton was avoiding quarreling and was therefore a liar and a coward. Typically, Shaw would make a few more sallies in as insulting a manner as possible, Chesterton would refuse to rise to the bait, and Shaw would become enraged to the point of incoherence.

For example, take the ending to an informal debate that took place in the summer of 1923 soon after Chesterton’s conversion to Catholicism (which enraged Shaw, as did most everything). As recorded by Hesketh Pearson who was by chance present, and published in Louis Biancolli, ed., The Book of Great Conversations. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1948, Shaw accused Chesterton of contradicting himself, of trying to be two halves of a whole at one and the same time —

“You are just like Don Quixote; and though your lunacy on some occasions makes his seem pale by comparison, you yet contrive in some mysterious manner to be your own Sancho Panza.”

Chesterton amiably agreed, treating it as a compliment. As he responded, further infuriating Shaw,

“Exactly; and anybody but you could see that the combination of these two extremes forms the Catholic standpoint. You might almost have been quoting me when you said that the Catholic standpoint is that there is no standpoint. . . . The Catholic is not so pragmatical as the atheist or the Puritan. His Faith is built on Belief, not on Knowledge — falsely so-called. He is consequently able to appreciate and sympathize with every form of human activity. He takes the whole world to his heart.”

Having brought Shaw very nicely to the boil, Chesterton emphasized that unlike socialists and other fantastic creatures, “We Catholics do not pretend to a knowledge we have not got. . . . [Y]ou can hardly expect us to accept your verdict . . . that man was not made to enjoy himself but to read Fabian tracts and listen to University Extension lectures.”

Shaw, however, refused to see the point, or at least pretended he did not — although the latter is unlikely. Having Shaw hooked and landed, Chesterton triumphantly proceeded to gaff him. He agreed with Shaw that he was not making sense, knowing full well he was making perfect sense if Shaw could only have dropped his prejudices and looked beyond his limited, materialistic worldview.

Having been tried past endurance, Shaw accused Chesterton of wanting to have his cake and eat it, too, attacking an opponent and running away from him at the same time. As he fulminated, “I see. Heads you win, tails he loses, all the way.”

CHESTERTON: Precisely.

SHAW: Thank you. I am wasting my time. Good evening.

(Rapid exit of Shaw.)

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"you are attempting to use the same tactic G. B. Shaw used against Chesterton"

Would you mind citing what I said which you take as a straw man or absurd application of a principle reduced to verbatim statement rather than thought?

Claiming I paralleled Shaw doesn't make me a parallel to him.

As Chesterton called him a Calvinist, and he conceded, as CSL denounced him as a life force worshipper, I am not very happy about being compared to George Bernard.

Also, I'd like to have the reference for the piece of biography ...

Let's take one idea some US Conservatives are denouncing as "Socialism". Minimal wages.

Rerum Novarum § 20 has:

// Furthermore, the employer must never tax his work people beyond their strength, or employ them in work unsuited to their sex and age. His great and principal duty is to give every one what is just. Doubtless, before deciding whether wages are fair, many things have to be considered; but wealthy owners and all masters of labor should be mindful of this — that to exercise pressure upon the indigent and the destitute for the sake of gain, and to gather one’s profit out of the need of another, is condemned by all laws, human and divine. To defraud any one of wages that are his due is a great crime which cries to the avenging anger of Heaven. “Behold, the hire of the laborers . . . which by fraud has been kept back by you, crieth; and the cry of them hath entered into the ears of the Lord of Sabbath.”[6] Lastly, the rich must religiously refrain from cutting down the workmen’s earnings, whether by force, by fraud, or by usurious dealing; and with all the greater reason because the laboring man is, as a rule, weak and unprotected, and because his slender means should in proportion to their scantiness be accounted sacred. //

Rerum Novarum §§ 37 and 39 are:

// 37. Rights must be religiously respected wherever they exist, and it is the duty of the public authority to prevent and to punish injury, and to protect every one in the possession of his own. Still, when there is question of defending the rights of individuals, the poor and badly off have a claim to especial consideration. The richer class have many ways of shielding themselves, and stand less in need of help from the State; whereas the mass of the poor have no resources of their own to fall back upon, and must chiefly depend upon the assistance of the State. And it is for this reason that wage-earners, since they mostly belong in the mass of the needy, should be specially cared for and protected by the government.
...
39. When work people have recourse to a strike and become voluntarily idle, it is frequently because the hours of labor are too long, or the work too hard, or because they consider their wages insufficient. The grave inconvenience of this not uncommon occurrence should be obviated by public remedial measures; for such paralyzing of labor not only affects the masters and their work people alike, but is extremely injurious to trade and to the general interests of the public; moreover, on such occasions, violence and disorder are generally not far distant, and thus it frequently happens that the public peace is imperiled. The laws should forestall and prevent such troubles from arising; they should lend their influence and authority to the removal in good time of the causes which lead to conflicts between employers and employed. //

E R G O, Leo XIII has specifically said that Government has a licit stake in guaranteeing wage earners get just wages.

King St. Louis IX considered he also had a licit stake in protecting borrowers from usury.

One thing is considered "Socialist" and the other "Anticapitalist".

But neither is uncatholic.

Now, this is how I meant you should illustrate how Gregory XVI condemned Socialist ideas about economy.

Source for quotes:

Rerum Novarum - Papal Encyclicals
https://www.papalencyclicals.net/leo13/l13rerum.htm

Michael D. Greaney

Thank you for that absolutely PERFECT example of Shaw's tactics. Have you ever considered the stage? You and Chuck Chalberg together would be a hoot.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I'd take a debate with him if you'll introduce us, but over internet.

Supposing our views are sufficiently different for a debate.

On stage wouldn't do, people like you misrepresenting me as Shavian, Materialist etc have denied me a livelihood as Novus Gilbert Keith Chesterton (the essayist) for so long, my teeth have gone bad over the life in the street. When you have slept little in too little warmth, you do tend to gobble sugar and not care about (or have possibility to) brush your teeth just after.

This excludes stage, school, priesthood from possible livelihoods.

I see you comparing me gratuitously to Shaw again, but I still see no real tertium comparationis.

I very much see none between yourself and Chesterton, since he would have been witty instead of making me weary with an evasiveness that is really evasive : giving an allegation and refusing to back it up.

Plus, you are still behind on the info where exactly this piece of biography comes from.

"After being bested (or so popular opinion supposed) by Shaw a couple of times in this way, Chesterton simply stated his principle(s) in terms as broad as possible, leaving Shaw with nothing specific to attack except Chesterton himself."

I am not sure Chesterton would have agreed.

I am sure your comparing me to Shaw without backing it up is what is here attributed to Shaw.

Michael D. Greaney

Damn, but you're good. All you need is a long white beard.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

We are both good, if you look up the link.

[new link to:]
Is Anticapitalism a Condemned Socialist Heresy?

[the old I doubled with a new for the update, so here is on the new link.]

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Ah, I found a post by you, where you are giving these summaries from "Biancolli, Great Conversations" How did Biancolli get his assessment?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

// At the prospect of a clash between England’s most famous — or at least most popular — literary figures, the group gathered ’round like idlers in the street anticipating a cat and dog fight, as actor, director, and writer Edward Hesketh Gibbons Pearson (1887-1964), who was present, described it. //

What if Edward's assessment of Chesterton's behaviour was wrong?

Chesterton and Shaw: The Lost Debate
https://just3rdway.blogspot.com/2019/05/chesterton-and-shaw-lost-debate.html

Michael D. Greaney

[posted a little earlier

but here's where I saw it:]

You're going to love my book . . . if only to supply pipe lights, unless like Shaw you abstain from tobacco. And alcohol, meat, and other insufficiently Puritanical practices.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Michael D. Greaney I suppose your book may be lovely.

What I disagree with is your refusing to give the argument outside the book.

I no longer smoke, since it damages my voice.

If you had the goodness to publish a few essays of mine and send me money, I might have the pleasure to drink to your health without getting overly bothered by Muslims providing sugar to "cure me of alcoholism" ...

Michael D. Greaney

But I love your imitation of Shaw! You have his technique down to a T!😘

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Sure, continue to impoverish me so you can continue enjoying it.

Lying about my character and making sure to deprive me of Catholic and Chestertonian readers may still do the trick!

Seriously, if Chesterton did not do what you did, if either Edward Hesketh misrepresented him or you misrepresent his representation, even if I were to a T as you put it doing the exact same material response as Shaw, it wouldn't be the same formal one, since not to the same provocation.

But in fact, the clarification Shaw insisted on was "are you A or B" when Chesterton had clearly said "neither" and the clarification I would like is, where do you pin me down to that behaviour?

Time for some real Chesterton, from his own pen, not from Edward Hesketh's:

For such reasons, among others, Dickens was angry with America. But if America was angry with Dickens, there were also reasons for it. I do not think that the rage against his copyright speeches was, as he supposed, merely national insolence and self-satisfaction. America is a mystery to any good Englishman; but I think Dickens managed somehow to touch it on a queer nerve. There is one thing, at any rate, that must strike all Englishmen who have the good fortune to have American friends; that is, that while there is no materialism so crude or so material as American materialism, there is also no idealism so crude or so ideal as American idealism. America will always affect an Englishman as being soft in the wrong place and hard in the wrong place; coarse exactly where all civilised men are delicate, delicate exactly where all grown-up men are coarse. Some beautiful ideal runs through this people, but it runs aslant. The only existing picture in which the thing I mean has been embodied is in Stevenson's "Wrecker," in the blundering delicacy of Jim Pinkerton. America has a new delicacy, a coarse, rank refinement. But there is another way of embodying the idea, and that is to say this -- that nothing is more likely than that the Americans thought it very shocking in Dickens, the divine author, to talk about being done out of money. Nothing would be more American than to expect a genius to be too high-toned for trade. It is certain that they deplored his selfishness in the matter; it is probable that they deplored his indelicacy. A beautiful young dreamer, with flowing brown hair, ought not to be even conscious of his copyrights. For it is quite unjust to say that the Americans worship the dollar. They really do worship intellect -- another of the passing superstitions of our time.

If America had then this Pinkertonian propriety, this new, raw sensibility, Dickens was the man to rasp it. He was its precise opposite in every way. The decencies he did respect were old-fashioned and fundamental. On top of these he had that lounging liberty and comfort which can only be had on the basis of very old conventions, like the carelessness of gentlemen and the deliberation of rustics. He had no fancy for being strung up to that taut and quivering ideality demanded by American patriots and public speakers. And there was something else also, connected especially with the question of copyright and his own pecuniary claims. Dickens was not in the least desirous of being thought too "high-souled" to want his wages, nor was he in the least ashamed of asking for them. Deep in him (whether the modern reader likes the quality or no) was a sense very strong in the old Radicals -- very strong especially in the old English Radical -- a sense of personal rights, one's own rights included, as something not merely useful but sacred. He did not think a claim any less just and solemn because it happened to be selfish; he did not divide claims into selfish and unselfish, but into right and wrong. It is significant that when he asked for his money, he never asked for it with that shamefaced cynicism, that sort of embarrassed brutality, with which the modern man of the world mutters something about business being business or looking after number one. He asked for his money in a valiant and ringing voice, like a man asking for his honour. While his American critics were moaning and sneering at his interested motives as a disqualification, he brandished his interested motives like a banner. "It is nothing to them," he cries in astonishment, "that, of all men living, I am the greatest loser by it" (the Copyright Law). "It is nothing that I have a claim to speak and be heard." The thing they set up as a barrier he actually presents as a passport. They think that he, of all men, ought not to speak because he is interested. He thinks that he, of all men, ought to speak because he is wronged.

Let me repeat the last sentences:

The thing they set up as a barrier he actually presents as a passport. They think that he, of all men, ought not to speak because he is interested. He thinks that he, of all men, ought to speak because he is wronged.

Gilbert Keith Chesterton : Charles Dickens
CHAPTER VI DICKENS AND AMERICA
http://www.gkc.org.uk/gkc/books/CD-1.html#VI

And before he goes off claiming I wrong his copyright by copying the debate, here is how I see copyright questions on posts with shared copyright since shared authorship:

Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : Copyright issues on blogposts with shared copyright
https://assortedretorts.blogspot.com/p/copyright-issues-on-blogposts-with.html

Babel - Brain Damage or Divine Creator-Only Intervention?

Kukoleck Adam

shared a link

Admin

4 March 2020, 23:06

Irving Finkel | The Ark Before Noah: A Great Adventure
The Oriental Institute | 20.VII.2016
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s_fkpZSnz2I

Kukoleck Adam

Guy is a character. Posted because it has to do with Noah's ark etc. Good story teller.

Roger M Pearlman

If related to the 1656 anno-mundi Mabul it is a distorted account, via some brain damaged survivor of the 1996 dispersion from Bavel.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Not brain damaged. A revisionist about real actors, since in denial of the one true God.

Roger M Pearlman

I hold actual brain damage, if we define brain damage to include the effects of sustained exposure to high levels of lead positioning that far exceed the EPA reline.

This would have been going on from the start of when we all (except Abraham, Shem, Ever, Noach..) began baking the lead reinforced bricks, for Migdal Bavel, that could have spanned decades until the 1996 anno-mundi start of the dispersion.

reference the YeC Moshe Emes series and framework for understanding science Volume I.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

why "lead reinforced?

Roger M Pearlman

w/ lead additive increases the load bearing rating by over 50% from what I understand, plus longer durability, think of the lead paint they used to use, that lasted about 4x longer on average, than unleaded paint.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I was not asking about why one would use it, but what leads you to believe it was used in Babel.

If archaeology, from what area?

If words in Genesis 11 (or elsewhere), which ones?

Roger M Pearlman

I may have seen a program that suggested many years ago.

if so they may have had evidence, such as lead residue at one of the suspected sites for the tower.

and/or I may have got the idea from the lead paint and lead removal from gasoline.

as I do not recall any specific evidence being presented, it is a speculative hypothesis, about how G-d may have done it. (confused the languages).

BA

Roger M Pearlman, is G-d not, God? Or are you referencing some other god? Just curious.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Roger M Pearlman "if so they may have had evidence, such as lead residue at one of the suspected sites for the tower."

I am for my part suspecting that one of their suspected sites is way too late, and clearly post-Babel.

I think they looked at Classic Mesopotamian (from when Sumerian Cuneiform starts) rather than at Neolithic as they should have, and obviously also South-East rather than North-West Mesopotamia, as identifying Shinar with only Sumer rather than with all Mesopotamia.

"it is a speculative hypothesis, about how G-d may have done it."

Lead poinsoning causes depression. It is mercury poisoning that causes symptoms reminiscent of schizophrenia.

And it's the sham diagnosis "schizophrenia" that involves in some cases states where language breaks down.

These are two very different types of brain damage.

Also, we do not see a breakdown of language, as much as a confusion of languages.

If you had had the kind of diversification you could expect from a common language suffering in two strands of the population a language breakdown, you don't get Sumerian and Old Egyptian just centuries after that.

The Evolutionists who think Sumerian and Old Egyptian maybe come from same human proto-language place that one in emergence of Homo erectus a million years ago, emergence of Homo saiens 100 000 to 300 000 years ago or, even later, 50 000 years ago.

That's way more time for diversifying than your scenario leaves. Meaning, we would need a more strictly supernatural explanation of the language confusion. Like God resetting or allowing evil spirits to reset (I would say the former, some Jews would have preferred the latter) the settings in the language competence of the non-Hebrew speakers.

Roger M Pearlman

Hans-Georg Lundahl
OK mercury poisonings could be the agent rather than led.

Most often G-d uses His laws /forces of nature to perform miracles, not that we fully understand those forces/laws.

If those 70 base founding family groups w/ brain damage that lost a % of language capacity moved into isolation from one another than rebuilt their language over the next few generations, why should it have taken more than a hundred years or so, to get from where we all understood each other, to where we had 70 +/- languages? just like w/ in a hundred years we may have gone from a founding animal kind on the ark of Noach to 70 breeds w/in a hundred or so years as the offspring filled different habitats w/ different diets and stresses..

Roger M Pearlman

BA I do not like to spell out the holy name, I prefer to use the title 'Hashem' which means 'The Name' as you never know where someone is going to take it. Certainly not suited in a bathroom.. or garbage dump.. I assume we both worship The One designer/creator, aka G-d of Abraham.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Roger M Pearlman "Most often G-d uses His laws /forces of nature to perform miracles, not that we fully understand those forces/laws."

There is a difference between miracle and providential coincidence.

Among created forces, we have not just those of material objects living or dead as material, but also those of angelic beings.

But when resetting completely the settings of one language competence, we are beyond what I would credit angels with performing even on God's behalf.

"If those 70 base founding family groups w/ brain damage that lost a % of language capacity moved into isolation from one another than rebuilt their language over the next few generations"

A functional language is not built by inheriting a dysfunctional from a braindamaged person - except if he is little damaged and the language is little dysfunctional. The result will be only little different from original before brain damage.

By the time of Babel, the 72 groups would not have been able to maintain cohesion if very brain damaged.

"why should it have taken more than a hundred years or so, to get from where we all understood each other, to where we had 70 +/- languages?"

I think the real result of your scenario would have been things like Scots and Indian English, or less different. Sufficient to block communication? Yes. But not sufficient to actually make Sumerian and Old Egyptian look that different to a linguist. That's a very different thing.

"just like w/ in a hundred years we may have gone from a founding animal kind on the ark of Noach to 70 breeds w/in a hundred or so years as the offspring filled different habitats w/ different diets and stresses.."

Look, hedgehogs come in 16 species, now, and I don't think all of these existed 100 years after the Ark. I also think hedgehogs are very much closer to each other, despite not mating, than hedgehogs are to dogs. Similarily, dialects of English, even if incomprehensible to each other, like Ozark and Kenya English, are to a linguist very much closer than Sumerian to Old Egyptian to Elamite.